skip to main content
article
Free Access

Approximate graph coloring by semidefinite programming

Published:01 March 1998Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We consider the problem of coloring k-colorable graphs with the fewest possible colors. We present a randomized polynomial time algorithm that colors a 3-colorable graph on n vertices with min{O1/3 log1/2 Δ log n), O(n1/4 log1/2 n)} colors where Δ is the maximum degree of any vertex. Besides giving the best known approximation ratio in terms of n, this marks the first nontrivial approximation result as a function of the maximum degree Δ. This result can be generalized to k-colorable graphs to obtain a coloring using min{O1-2/k log1/2 Δ log n), O(n1−3/(k+1) log1/2 n)} colors. Our results are inspired by the recent work of Goemans and Williamson who used an algorithm for semidefinite optimization problems, which generalize linear programs, to obtain improved approximations for the MAX CUT and MAX 2-SAT problems. An intriguing outcome of our work is a duality relationship established between the value of the optimum solution to our semidefinite program and the Lovász θ-function. We show lower bounds on the gap between the optimum solution of our semidefinite program and the actual chromatic number; by duality this also demonstrates interesting new facts about the θ-function.

References

  1. ALDOUS, D. 1989. Probability Approximations via the Poisson Clumping Heuristic. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. ALIZADEH, F. 1995. Interior point methods in semidefinite programming with applications to combinatorial optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 5, 1, 13-51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. ALON, N., AND KAHALE, N. 1994. A spectral technique for coloring random 3-colorable graphs. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Montreal, Que., Canada, May 23-25). ACM, New York, pp. 346-353. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. ALON, N., AND KAHALE, N. 1998. Approximating the independence number via the Theta function. Math. Prog., in press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. ARORA, S., LUND, C., MOTWANI, R., SUDAN, M., AND SZEGEDY, M. 1992. Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New York, pp. 14-23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. BELLARE, M., AND SUDAN, M. 1994. Improved non-approximability results. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Montreal, Que., Canada, May 23-25). ACM, New York, pp. 184-193. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. BERGE, C. 1973. Graphs and hypergraphs. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. BLUM, A. 1994. New approximation algorithms for graph coloring. J. ACM 41 3 (May), 470-516. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. BLUM, A., AND KARGER, D. 1997. Improved approximation for graph coloring. Inf. Proc. Lett. 61, 1 (Jan.), 49-53. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. BOPPANA, R. B., AND HALLDORSSON, M.M. 1992. Approximating maximum independent sets by excluding subgraphs. BIT 32, 180-196. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. BRIGGS, P., COOPER, K. D., KENNEDY, K., AND TORCZON, L. 1989. Coloring heuristics for register allocation. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN 89 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Portland, Ore., June 21-23). ACM, New York, pp. 275-284. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. CHAITIN, G. J. 1982. Register allocation and spilling via graph coloring. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN 89 Conference on Compiler Construction ACM, New York, pp. 98-101. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. CHAITIN, G. J., AUSLANDER, M. A., CHANDRA, A. K., COCKE, J., HOPKINS, M. E., AND MARKSTEIN, P.W. 1981. Register allocation via coloring. Comput. Lang. 6, 47-57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. FELLER, W. 1968. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications. Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. FRANKL, P., AND RODL, V. 1994. Forbidden intersections. Trans. AMS. 300, 259-286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. FEIGE, U. 1995. Randomized graph products, chromatic numbers, and the Lovasz theta-function. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Las Vegas, Nev., May 29-June 1). ACM, New York, pp. 635-640. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. FEIGE, U., GOLDWASSER, S., LOV#SZ, L., SAFRA, S., AND SZEGEDY, M. 1996. Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques. J. ACM 43, 2 (Mar.), 268-292. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. FEIGE, U., AND KILIAN, J. 1996. Zero knowledge and chromatic number. In Proceedings of the llth Annual Conference on Computational Complexity. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., pp. 278-287. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. FRIEZE, A., AND JERRUM, M. 1994. Improved approximation algorithms for MAX k-CUT and MAX BISECTION. Manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. GAREY, M. R., AND JOHNSON, D.S. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. GOEMANS, M. X., AND WILLIAMSON, D.P. 1995. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. J. ACM 42, 6 (Nov.), 1115-1145. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. GOLUB, G. H., AND VAN LOAN, C.F. 1983. Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. GROTSCHEL, M., LOVASZ, L., AND SCHRIJVER, A. 1981. The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization, combinatorica 1, 169-197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. GROTSCHEL, M., LOVASZ, L., AND SCHRIJVER, A. 1987. Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. HALLDORSSON, M.M. 1993. A still better performance guarantee for approximate graph coloring. Inf. Proc. Lett. 45, 19-23. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. H#STAD, J. 1996. Clique is hard to approximate within n1-E. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. JOHNSON, D.S. 1974. Worst case behavior of graph coloring algorithms. In Proceedings of the 5th Southeastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing. Congressus Numerantium X, pp. 513-527.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. KHANNA, S., LINIAL, N., AND SAFRA, S. 1992. On the hardness of approximating the chromatic number. In Proceedings of the 2nd Israeli Symposium on Theory and Computing Systems. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., pp. 250-260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. KHANNA, S., MOTWANI, R., SUDAN, M., AND VAZIRANI, U. 1994. On syntactic versus computational views of approximability. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New York, pp. 819-830.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. KNESER, M. 1955. Aufgabe 300. Jber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein. 58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. KNUTH, D.E. 1971. The Art of Computer Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. KNUTH, D.E. 1994. The sandwich theorem. Elect. J. Combin. 1, 1-48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. LovAsz, L. 1979. On the Shannon capacity of a graph. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IT-25, 1-7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. LUND, C., AND YANNAKAKIS, M. 1993. On the hardness of approximating minimization problems. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (San Diego, Calif., May 16-18). ACM, New York, pp. 286-293. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. MAHAJAN, S., AND RAMESH, H. 1995. Derandomizing semidefinite programming based approximation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New York, pp. 162-169. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. MILNER, E. C. 1968. A combinatorial theorem on systems of sets. J. London Math. Soc. 43, 204 -206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. MOTWANI, R., AND NAOR, J. 1993. On exact and approximate cut covers of graphs. Manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. MOTWANI, R., AND RAGHAVAN, P. 1995. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R#NYI, A. 1970. Probability Theory. Elsevier, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. SZEGEDY, M. 1994. A note on the 0 number of Lovfisz and the generalized Delsarte bound. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New York, pp. 36-39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. WIGDERSON, A. 1983. Improving the performance guarantee for approximate graph coloring. J. ACM 30, 729-735. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. WooD, D. C. 1969. A technique for coloring a graph applicable to large-scale optimization problems. Comput. J. 12, 317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Approximate graph coloring by semidefinite programming

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Adam Drozdek

        The authors approach the coloring problem, which is known to be NP-hard, by finding an approximate optimum graph coloring. They relax the coloring problem by assigning unit vectors to graph vertices instead of assigning colors, and then requiring that, for two adjacent vertices i and j and their vectors v i and v j , the dot product v i , v j 1 k-1 . The authors first show that the vector chromatic number is between the clique number and the chromatic number. Next, they use the concept of semicoloring, that is, coloring at least half of the graph vertices, to show that an algorithm for semicoloring a graph can be used to color the graph with at most log n more colors than to semicolor it. They then present two algorithms that produce the coloring through a semicoloring of the graph. An assessment of the complexity of the two algorithms allows them to conclude that any vector k -colorable graph of n vertices and maximum degree D can be colored in randomized polynomial time with min O D 1-2k log 12 D log n ,O n 1-3 k+1 log 12 n colors. It is important to note that the approximation is given in terms of both n and D . The paper concludes by establishing a duality relationship between the semidefinite program solution given here and the Lova´sz j -function and the lower bound on the gap between the chromatic number and the semidefinite program solution.

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader