27

Suppose we relax the problem of counting proper colorings by counting weighted colorings as follows: every proper coloring gets weight 1 and every improper coloring gets weight $c^v$ where $c$ is some constant and $v$ is the number of edges with endpoints are colored the same. As $c$ goes to 0, this reduces to counting proper colorings which is hard for many graphs. When c is 1, every colorings gets the same weight and the problem is trivial. When adjacency matrix of the graph multiplied by $-\log(c)/2$ has spectral radius below $1-\epsilon$, this sum can be approximated by belief propagation with convergence guarantee, so it's easy in practice. It's also easy in theory because a particular computation tree exhibits decay of correlations and hence allows a polynomial time algorithm for guaranteed approximation -- Tetali, (2007)

My question is -- what other properties of the graph make this problem hard for local algorithms? Hard in a sense that only a small range of $c$'s can be addressed.

Edit 09/23: So far I came across two deterministic polynomial approximation algorithms for this class of problem (derivatives of Weitz's STOC2006 paper and of Gamarnik's "cavity expansion" approach to approximate counting), and both approaches depend on the branching factor of self-avoiding walks on the graph. Spectral radius comes up because it's an upper bound on this branching factor. The question is then -- is it a good estimate? Could we have a sequence of graphs where branching factor of self-avoiding walks is bounded, while branching factor of regular walks grows without bound?

Edit 10/06: This paper by Allan Sly (FOCS 2010) seems relevant...result suggests that branching factor of infinite tree of self-avoiding walks precisely captures the point at which counting becomes hard.

Edit 10/31: Alan Sokal conjectures (p.42 of "The multivariate Tutte polynomia") that a there's an upper bound on the radius of zero-free region of the chromatic polynomial which is linear in terms of maxmaxflow (maximum s-t flow over all pairs s,t). This seems relevant because long-range correlations appear as the number of proper colorings approaches 0.

Yaroslav Bulatov
  • 4,701
  • 1
  • 25
  • 39
  • 3
    Great question. – András Salamon Sep 22 '10 at 22:49
  • Could you make your question a bit more precise? 1) What local algorithms do you have in mind. 2) In the concrete question in the edit, what is the "branching factor of self-avoiding/regular walks" referring to. If it is just the degree of the tree of self-avoiding/regular walks where you create a new vertex whenever you repeat in the regular walks case, then the degree of these trees is bounded by the maximum degree in both cases, or both unbounded. I guess I don't really understand your question. – slimton Oct 04 '10 at 12:51
  • I have an intuitive sense of "local" as something that excludes holographic algorithms, but I'm not 100% sure how to define it, so one could just drop it to answer "what makes this problem hard?" 2) maximum degree of graphs in a sequence doesn't have to be bounded
  • – Yaroslav Bulatov Oct 04 '10 at 16:33
  • 1
    This will be familiar to anyone working in this area, but perhaps you could mention that the exact problem for $k\geq3$ colours and $c\neq 1$ is known to be #P-hard by Theorem 1 of "The complexity of partition functions" by A. Bulatov & Grohe, because the $k\times k$ matrix with $c$ on the diagonal and $1$ elsewhere has rank at least 2. – Colin McQuillan Oct 10 '10 at 14:28
  • 1
    Also, this is the antiferromagnetic q-state Potts model, correct? – Colin McQuillan Oct 10 '10 at 14:50
  • Yes, I think it's equivalent to Potts – Yaroslav Bulatov Oct 10 '10 at 15:03
  • BTW, interesting paper, thanks. It seems that their rank-1 condition is far from capturing precisely what makes the exact problem hard. For instance, any partition function is easy to compute for bounded tree-width graphs – Yaroslav Bulatov Oct 13 '10 at 15:22
  • @Yaroslav Bulatov: I replaced the two least popular tags with two more popular top-level tags (since the site does not allow more than 5 tags), hoping that it would attract more interest and answers. – Kaveh Nov 02 '10 at 02:37
  • 1
    @Kaveh: Could you roll that back? Those two tags, although least popular, described this question best. Retagging every question to include only the most popular tags seems disingenuous to me. – RJK Nov 02 '10 at 08:44
  • @RJK: for now I rolled back as you said, but I think it is better to have at least one top level tag (AFAIK, this is required on MO). Tags are not for describing questions, that's what the title should do, tags are for organizing questions. I think we should start a meta discussion on this. – Kaveh Nov 02 '10 at 10:17
  • @RJK: It seems that it is already decided that there should be at least one arXive tag. See this meta discussion and Ryan's comment. So am rolling back to the other version. – Kaveh Nov 02 '10 at 10:30
  • 1
    @Kaveh: Why don't you ask the OP which arXiv tag(s) he wants and which non-arXiv tag(s) he wishes to remove, as opposed to making a unilateral choice according to popularity? I don't at all agree with the contention that giving more general tags organises the site better. My favourite tags do not include any top-level ones. – RJK Nov 02 '10 at 10:58
  • 1
    @RJK: the OP can of course change the top level tag to those he prefers, these were just those that I thought would apply. I think the idea for tagging is similar to the idea on arXive or subject classification on other sites (e.g. MSC), any submission to arXive needs at least one top level tag and I think it is very efficient in organizing submissions, but of course you can disagree. There are 4 other tags that can be used others tags including your favorite ones. – Kaveh Nov 02 '10 at 11:34
  • 1
    @Kaveh: I should have added, or perhaps you could infer, that graph-colouring and counting-complexity are two of my favourite tags. This question happens to be extremely close to my current research, but now it is no longer highlighted when I visit TCS.SX due to your retag. I think that probably many other people on this site "filter out the noise" in this way, because they are simply not interested in every possible question in complexity-theory or algorithms. – RJK Nov 02 '10 at 14:25
  • This is a somewhat specialized question, and my impression is that most people in theoretical computer science have no background needed to answer it (or would even be interested in the answer), so I'd rather keep the more specialized tags, changed it to back to "counting complexity" and "colouring graphs" – Yaroslav Bulatov Nov 02 '10 at 21:29
  • I agree with RJK and Yaroslav. the complexity-theory tag is almost useless at this point because it's being used indiscriminately. the ds.algorithms tag might be more appropriate, but it really isn't. the best tags for this question are the current ones. – Suresh Venkat Nov 03 '10 at 17:13
  • @Suresh: the reason is that lots of current questions do fall under cc.complexity-theory as defined in the tag wiki and on arXive, replace the tag with a better top level one if you know one. I thought that there is a consensus on the policy to have at least one top level arXive tag. – Kaveh Nov 03 '10 at 19:01
  • true true. But this question is an example of where the arxiv characterization really fails IMO – Suresh Venkat Nov 03 '10 at 22:21