References$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("TieredMenu","widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt152",{id:"formSmash:upper:j_idt152",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt152",autoDisplay:true,overlay:true,my:"left top",at:"left bottom",trigger:"formSmash:upper:referencesLink",triggerEvent:"click"});}); $(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt153_j_idt156",{id:"formSmash:upper:j_idt153:j_idt156",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt153_j_idt156",target:"formSmash:upper:j_idt153:permLink",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",my:"right top",at:"right bottom",showCloseIcon:true});});

Is constraint satisfaction over two variables always easy?PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_some",{id:"formSmash:some",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_some",multiple:true}); PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_all",{id:"formSmash:all",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_all",multiple:true});
function selectAll()
{
var panelSome = $(PrimeFaces.escapeClientId("formSmash:some"));
var panelAll = $(PrimeFaces.escapeClientId("formSmash:all"));
panelAll.toggle();
toggleList(panelSome.get(0).childNodes, panelAll);
toggleList(panelAll.get(0).childNodes, panelAll);
}
/*Toggling the list of authorPanel nodes according to the toggling of the closeable second panel */
function toggleList(childList, panel)
{
var panelWasOpen = (panel.get(0).style.display == 'none');
// console.log('panel was open ' + panelWasOpen);
for (var c = 0; c < childList.length; c++) {
if (childList[c].classList.contains('authorPanel')) {
clickNode(panelWasOpen, childList[c]);
}
}
}
/*nodes have styleClass ui-corner-top if they are expanded and ui-corner-all if they are collapsed */
function clickNode(collapse, child)
{
if (collapse && child.classList.contains('ui-corner-top')) {
// console.log('collapse');
child.click();
}
if (!collapse && child.classList.contains('ui-corner-all')) {
// console.log('expand');
child.click();
}
}
PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_responsibleOrgs",{id:"formSmash:responsibleOrgs",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_responsibleOrgs",multiple:true}); 2004 (English)In: Random structures & algorithms (Print), ISSN 1042-9832, E-ISSN 1098-2418, Vol. 25, no 2, 150-178 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
##### Abstract [en]

##### Place, publisher, year, edition, pages

2004. Vol. 25, no 2, 150-178 p.
##### National Category

Computer and Information Science Mathematics
##### Identifiers

URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-40959DOI: 10.1002/rsa.20026ISI: 000223363800002ScopusID: 2-s2.0-11144262799OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-40959DiVA: diva2:443115
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt455",{id:"formSmash:j_idt455",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt455",multiple:true});
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt461",{id:"formSmash:j_idt461",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt461",multiple:true});
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt467",{id:"formSmash:j_idt467",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt467",multiple:true});
##### Note

QC 20110923Available from: 2011-09-23 Created: 2011-09-23 Last updated: 2011-10-17Bibliographically approved

By the breakthrough work of Hastad [J ACM 48(4) (2001), 798-859], several constraint satisfaction problems are now known to have the following approximation resistance property: Satisfying more clauses than what picking a random assignment would achieve is NP-hard. This is the case for example for Max E3-Sat, Max E3-Lin, and Max E4-Set Splitting. A notable exception to this extreme hardness is constraint satisfaction over two variables (2-CSP); as a corollary of the celebrated Goemans-Williamson algorithm [J ACM 42(6) (1995), 1115-1145], we know that every Boolean 2-CSP has a nontrivial approximation algorithm whose performance ratio is better than that obtained by picking a random assignment to the variables. An intriguing question then is whether this is also the case for 2-CSPs over larger, non-Boolean domains. This question is still open, and is equivalent to whether the generalization of Max 2-SAT to domains of size d, can be approximated to a factor better than (1 - 1/d(2)). In an attempt to make progress towards this question, in this paper we prove, first, that a slight restriction of this problem, namely, a generalization of linear inequations with two variables per constraint, is not approximation resistant, and, second, that the Not-All-Equal Sat problem over domain size d with three variables per constraint, is approximation resistant, for every d greater than or equal to 3. In the Boolean case, Not-All-Equal Sat with three variables per constraint is equivalent to Max 2-SAT and thus has a nontrivial approximation algorithm; for larger domain sizes, Max 2-SAT can be reduced to Not-All-Equal Sat with three variables per constraint. Our approximation algorithm implies that a wide class of 2-CSPs called regular 2-CSPs can all be approximated beyond their random assignment threshold.

References$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("TieredMenu","widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1196",{id:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1196",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1196",autoDisplay:true,overlay:true,my:"left top",at:"left bottom",trigger:"formSmash:lower:referencesLink",triggerEvent:"click"});}); $(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1197_j_idt1199",{id:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1197:j_idt1199",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1197_j_idt1199",target:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1197:permLink",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",my:"right top",at:"right bottom",showCloseIcon:true});});