Paper detail

Some Inapproximability Results of MAP Inference and Exponentiated Determinantal Point Processes

We study the computational complexity of two hard problems on determinantal point processes (DPPs). One is maximum a posteriori (MAP) inference, i.e., to find a principal submatrix having the maximum determinant. The other is probabilistic inference on exponentiated DPPs (E-DPPs), which can sharpen or weaken the diversity preference of DPPs with an exponent parameter $p$. We present several complexity-theoretic hardness results that explain the difficulty in approximating MAP inference and the normalizing constant for E-DPPs. We first prove that unconstrained MAP inference for an $n \times n$ matrix is $\textsf{NP}$-hard to approximate within a factor of $2^{βn}$, where $β= 10^{-10^{13}} $. This result improves upon the best-known inapproximability factor of $(\frac{9}{8}-ε)$, and rules out the existence of any polynomial-factor approximation algorithm assuming $\textsf{P} \neq \textsf{NP}$. We then show that log-determinant maximization is $\textsf{NP}$-hard to approximate within a factor of $\frac{5}{4}$ for the unconstrained case and within a factor of $1+10^{-10^{13}}$ for the size-constrained monotone case. In particular, log-determinant maximization does not admit a polynomial-time approximation scheme unless $\textsf{P} = \textsf{NP}$. As a corollary of the first result, we demonstrate that the normalizing constant for E-DPPs of any (fixed) constant exponent $p \geq β^{-1} = 10^{10^{13}}$ is $\textsf{NP}$-hard to approximate within a factor of $2^{βpn}$, which is in contrast to the case of $p \leq 1$ admitting a fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.