Independent Set, Induced Matching, and Pricing: Connections and Tight (Subexponential Time) Approximation Hardnesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a series of almost settled inapproximability results for three fundamental problems. The first in our series is the subexponential-time inapproximability of the maximum independent set problem, a question studied in the area of parameterized complexity. The second is the hardness of approximating the maximum induced matching problem on bounded-degree bipartite graphs. The last in our series is the tight hardness of approximating the k-hypergraph pricing problem, a fundamental problem arising from the area of algorithmic game theory. In particular, assuming the Exponential Time Hypothesis, our two main results are: - For any r larger than some constant, any r-approximation algorithm for the maximum independent set problem must run in at least 2^{n^{1-ε}/r^{1+ε}} time. This nearly matches the upper bound of 2^{n/r} (Cygan et al., 2008). It also improves some hardness results in the domain of parameterized complexity (e.g., Escoffier et al., 2012 and Chitnis et al., 2013) - For any k larger than some constant, there is no polynomial time min (k^{1-ε}, n^{1/2-ε})-approximation algorithm for the k-hypergraph pricing problem, where n is the number of vertices in an input graph. This almost matches the upper bound of min (O(k), \tilde O(\sqrt{n})) (by Balcan and Blum, 2007 and an algorithm in this paper). We note an interesting fact that, in contrast to n^{1/2-ε} hardness for polynomial-time algorithms, the k-hypergraph pricing problem admits n^δ approximation for any δ>0 in quasi-polynomial time. This puts this problem in a rare approximability class in which approximability thresholds can be improved significantly by allowing algorithms to run in quasi-polynomial time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".