NP-Completeness:

3D Matching

Andreas Klappenecker

1
Bipartite Matching

Let G be a bipartite graph with 2n nodes,

with n nodes on each side. The bipartite
matching problem is to decide whether
there exist a perfect matching, that is,
whether there exist n edges that are
incident with all 2n nodes.
Example: n boys and n girls, edges represent
`like each other’. A perfect matching would
find n couples.
2
Bipartite Matching

A bipartite matching can be found in

polynomial time. For example, a network
flow algorithm can be used.

[Add a source node and edges from

source to all boy nodes. Add a sink node
and edges from all girl nodes to the sink.]

3
Hypergraph

A hypergraph G is a pair (V,E), where

• V is a set
• E is a subset of P(V)\{} .
The elements in V are called vertices. The
elements in E are called hyperedges or links.

4
Uniform Hypergraphs

A hypergraph is called k-uniform if and

only if all its links have cardinality k.

For example, an undirected graph is a 2-

uniform hypergraph.
The links of a 3-uniform hypergraph
consist of unordered triples.

5
3-Dimensional Matching

Let G=(V,E) be a 3-uniform hypergraph,

where V is a union of 3 disjoints sets,
V = AB C, |A|=|B|=|C|=n
such that each link in E contains precisely
one element from each set A, B, and C.
A perfect matching in G consists of n
links such that their union yields V.
The 3D matching problem is to decide
whether a perfect matching exists in G. 6
Example

Let A be a set of n boys, B a set of n

girls, and C a set of n pets.

We would like to form n harmonious

households {a, b, c} such that a in A, b in
B, c in C. The edges of the hypergraph
list compatibilities. All n households
together contain all boys, girls, and pets.
7
3D Matching

Theorem: 3D matching is NP-complete

Proof: Obviously, 3D matching is

contained in NP. We will show that
3SAT p 3D matching.
We need to construct gadgets in 3D
matching that behave like Boolean
variables and logical clauses.
8
Simplification

Before constructing gadgets, we note

that one can transform any 3SAT
instance in one that contains each Boolean
literal at most twice.

9
Boolean Variable Gadget

Consider
T0 = {b0, g0, p1}
T1 = {b0, g1, p0}
T2 = {b1, g0, p2}
T3 = {b1, g1, p3}
Suppose that the boys b0 and b1 and the girls g0 and g1
are not involved in any other triples. Then any matching
must contain either (T0 and T3 ) or (T1 and T2 ). The two
alternatives represent false and true, respectively. The
choice of pet will decide whether the variable is
negated or not.
10
Boolean Variable Gadgets

To transform an instance of 3SAT to one

of 3D matching, we create a copy of the
preceding gadget for each variable.
If x is a Boolean variable, then we create
T0 = {bx0, gx0, px1} // x = false
T1 = {bx0, gx1, px0} // x = true
T2 = {bx1, gx0, px2} // x = true
T3 = {bx1, gx1, px3} // x = false
11
Clause Gadgets

Next, we must create triples that mimic logical

clauses.
For each clause c , we introduce three triples
that contain new boys and girls. The pets in
these triples will reflect the three ways in
which the clause can be satisfied.

12
Clause Gadgets

If the clause is c = (x  y  z) then

this clause can be satisfied by setting
(a) x = true, (b) y = false or (c) z = true.
For the case (a), we add either
{ bc, gc, px1 } or { bc, gc, px3 }
since px0 and px2 will be taken by the
variable gadget. We will use the first choice if
c is the first clause containing x, and the
second choice otherwise. Recall that we assume
that each literal occurs at most twice. 13
Clause Gadgets

If the clause is c = (x  y  z) then

this clause can be satisfied by setting
(a) x = true, (b) y = false or (c) z = true.
For the case (b), we add either
{ bc, gc, py0 } or { bc, gc, py2 }
For the case (c), we add either
{ bc, gc, pz1 } or { bc, gc, pz3 }

14
Lost Pets

After all the triples have been created, there

might be some pets left unmatched. If n
variables and m clauses are used, then r = 2n-m
pets will be left unmatched. Thus, we add r
new boys and girls that love all pets.

Now, from any perfect matching, we can

recover a satisfying truth assignment. If no
satisfying truth assignment exists, then
evidently no perfect matching can exist.
15
Example
Consider a  b with a= (x  y  z) , b=(x  y   z)
Variables:
{bx0, gx0, px1}, {bx0, gx1, px0}, {bx1, gx0, px2}, {bx1, gx1, px3},
{by0, gy0, py1}, {by0, gy1, py0}, {by1, gy0, py2}, {by1, gy1, py3},
{bz0, gz0, pz1}, {bz0, gz1, pz0}, {bz1, gz0, pz2}, {bz1, gz1, pz3}
Clauses:
{ba, ga, px1}, {ba, ga, py0}, {ba, ga, pz1},
{bb, gb, px3}, {bb, gb, py2}, {bb, gb, pz2}
Lost pets: (12 pets, but matching only used 8 so far)
{bc, gc, px0}, {bc, gc, px1}, … , {bc, gc, pz3}, …
{bf, gf, px0}, {bf, gf, px1}, … , {bf, gf, pz3}.
16
Zero-One Equations

In zero-one equations, we are given an m x n

matrix A with entries in {0,1} and the goal is to
find a vector x in {0,1}n such that
Ax = (1,…,1)t ,
a vector with m ones. We call this problem ZOE.

Theorem: ZOE is an NP-complete problem!

17
Proof

The problem clearly belongs to NP. Since

we can verify whether or not a given
vector x satisfies this equation in
polynomial time.

We show that 3D Matching p ZOE

18
Reduction

Let G be an instance of 3D matching.

Suppose that G=(V,E) with
• vertex set V=A  B  C, where the three sets
have cardinality n=|A|=|B|=|C| and |V|=3n.
• and hyperedge set E={t1,…,tn}.
We can think of the elements in E as n triples
of boys, girls, and pets.

19
Reduction

Let A be the incidence matrix of the

hypergraph G, that is, A is an 3n x n matrix,
where
• rows of A are indexed by the elements in V
• columns of A are indexed by hyperedges in E.
• The entry (A)v,e = 1 if v is contained in the
hyperedge e, and 0 otherwise.

20
Reduction

Let x be an incidence vector of a perfect

matching, i.e., xe=1 if e is contained in the
matching and xe=0 otherwise. Then
Ax=(1,…,1)t
as a perfect matching contains for each v
in V precisely one triple that contains v.

21
Reduction
Conversely, if we solve
Ax=(1,…,1)t
for x in {0,1}n, then each row has the following
interpretation:
For v in V, v is contained in precisely one of the
triples in M ={ e in E | xe = 1}.
The fact that Ax evaluates to the all one
vector means that each element of V occurs
precisely once among the hyperedges in M.
So M is a perfect matching. Q.e.d
22
Integer Linear Programming

The integer linear programming problem

is:
For a given matrix A with integer entries,
and a vector b of integer entries, find a
vector x with integer entries such that
Ax  b
The corresponding decision problem ILP
is whether such a vector x exists.
23
ILP

Theorem: ILP is NP-complete.

Proof: We note that ZOE is a special case

of ILP. Indeed, each row equation ax=b
of ZOE can be written in terms of the
inequalities ax<=b and –ax<=-b. Add for
each variable xi the inequalities
xi <= 1 and -xi <=0. q.e.d.
24
Dealing with NP-Complete
Problems

[based on slides by Prof. Welch]

25
Dealing with NP-Completeness

• Suppose the problem you need to solve is NP-

complete. What do you do next?
• hope/show bad running time does not happen
for inputs of interest
• find heuristics to improve running time in
many cases (but no guarantees)
• find a polynomial time algorithm that is
guaranteed to give an answer close to optimal

26
Optimization Problems

• Concentrate on approximation algorithms for

optimization problems:
• every candidate solution has a positive cost
• Minimization problem: goal is to find smallest
cost solution
• Ex: Vertex cover problem, cost is size of VC
• Maximization problem: goal is to find largest
cost solution
• Ex: Clique problem, cost is size of clique

27
Approximation Algorithms

• An approximation algorithm for an

optimization problem
• runs in polynomial time and
• always returns a candidate solution

28
Measuring How Good an
Approximation Algorithm Is

• Ratio bound: bound the ratio of the cost of

the solution returned by the approximation
algorithm and the cost of an optimal solution
• minimization problem:
cost of approx solution / cost of optimal solution
• maximization problem:
cost of optimal solution / cost of approx solution
• So ratio is always at least 1, goal is to get it
as close to 1 as we can

29
Alternative Measurements

• Relative error:
|cost of approx soln – cost of optimal
soln|/cost of optimal soln
• Difference:
|cost of approx soln – cost of optimal
soln|

30
Approximation Algorithm for
Minimum Vertex Cover Problem
• input: G = (V,E)
• C := 
• E' := E
• while E' ≠  do
• pick any (u,v) in E'
• C := C U {u,v}
• remove from E' every edge incident on u or
v
• endwhile
• return C
31
Min VC Approx Algorithm

• Time is O(E), which is polynomial.

• How good an approximation does it
provide?
• Let's look at an example.

32
Min VC Approx Alg Example

b c d

a e f g

choose (b,c): remove (b,c), (b,a), (c,e), (c,d)

choose (e,f): remove (e,f), (e,d), (d,f)
Answer: {b,c,e,f,d,g}
Optimal answer: {b,d,e}
Algorithm's ratio bound is 6/3 = 2.

33
Ratio Bound of Min VC Alg

Theorem: Min VC approximation algorithm has ratio

bound of 2.
Proof: Let A be the total set of edges chosen to be
removed.
• Size of VC returned is 2*|A| since no two edges in
A share an endpoint.
• Size of A is at most size of a min VC since min VC
must contain at least one node for each edge in A.
• Thus cost of approx solution is at most twice cost
of optimal solution
34
More on Min VC Approx Alg

• Why not run the approx alg and then divide

by 2 to get the optimal cost?
• Because answer is not always exactly twice
the optimal, just never more than twice the
optimal.
• For instance, a different choice of edges to
remove gives a different answer:
• Choosing (d,e) and then (b,c) produces answer
{b,c,d,e} with cost 4 as opposed to optimal cost 3

35
Triangle Inequality

• Assume TSP inputs with the triangle

inequality:
• distances satisfy property that for all
cities a, b, and c, dist(a,c) ≤ dist(a,b) +
dist(b,c)
• i.e., shortest path between 2 cities is
direct route
• Depending on what you are modeling
with the distances, an application might
or might satisfy this condition. 36
TSP Approximation Algorithm

• input: set of cities and distances b/w them

that satisfy the triangle inequality
• create complete graph G = (V,E), where V is
set of cities and weight on edge (a,b) is
dist(a,b)
• compute MST of G
• Go twice around the MST to get a tour (that
will have duplicates)
• Remove duplicates to avoid visiting a city
more than once
37
Analysis of TSP Approx Alg

• Running time is polynomial (creating

complete graph takes O(V2) time,
Kruskal's MST algorithm takes time
O(E log E) = O(V2log V).
• How good is the quality of the solution?

38
Analysis of TSP Approx Alg

• cost of approx solution ≤ 2*weight of

MST, by triangle inequality
• Why? when tour created by
b going around the MST
is adjusted to remove duplicate
nodes, the two red edges
a c are replaced with the
green diagonal edge

39
Analysis of TSP Approx Alg

• weight of MST < length of min tour

• Why?
• Min tour minus one edge is a spanning
tree T, whose weight must be at least
the weight of MST.
• And weight of min tour is greater than
weight of T.

40
Analysis of TSP Approx Alg

• Putting the pieces together:

• cost of approx solution ≤ 2*weight of
MST
≤ 2*cost of min tour
• So approx ratio is at most 2.

Suppose we don't have triangle inequality.

How well can we approximate min tour?
41
TSP Without Triangle
Inequality

Theorem: If P ≠ NP, then no polynomial

time approximation algorithm for TSP
(w/o triangle inequality) can have a
constant ratio bound.
Proof: We will show that if there is such
an approximation algorithm, then we
could solve a known NP-complete
problem (Hamiltonian cycle) in
polynomial time, so P would equal NP.
42
HC Exact Algorithm using TSP
Approximation Algorithm

input: G = (V,E)
1. convert G to this TSP input:
• one city for each node in V
• distance between cities u and v is 1 if (u,v)
is in E
• distance between cities u and v is r*|V| if
(u,v) is not in E, where r is the ratio bound
of the TSP approx alg
• Note: This TSP input does not satisfy
the triangle inequality
43
HC (Exact) Algorithm Using
TSP Approximation Algorithm

2. run TSP approx alg on the input just

created
3. if cost of approx solution returned in
step 2 is ≤ r*|V| then return YES else
return NO

Running time is polynomial.

44
Correctness of HC Algorithm

• If G has a HC, then optimal tour in TSP

input constructed corresponds to that
cycle and has weight |V|.
• Approx algorithm returns answer with
cost at most r*|V|.
• So if G has HC, then algorithm returns
YES.

45
Correctness of HC Algorithm

• If G has no HC, then optimal tour for

TSP input constructed must use at least
one edge not in G, which has weight
r*|V|.
• So weight of optimal tour is > r*|V|, and
answer returned by approx alg has
weight > r*|V|.
• So if G has not HC, then algorithm
returns NO.
46