Better Balance by Being Biased: A 0.8776-Approximation for Max Bisection · HackerPapers discussions

Better Balance by Being Biased: A 0.8776-Approximation for Max Bisection — mentioned by skissane

Thu, 28 Oct 2021 06:12:14 GMT

What about page 4 of [0]: > We remark that, while polynomial, the running time of the algorithm is somewhat abysmal; loose estimates places it somewhere around O(n^(10^100)); the running time of the algorithm of [RT12] is similar. I don’t know if that counts as a “real problem”, and I suppose it is only a “loose estimate” too. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0458v2.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Better Balance by Being Biased: A 0.8776-Approximation for Max Bisection — mentioned by mihaild

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:20:11 GMT

For example, there is 0.8776-approximation that runs in about O(n^{10^100}) https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0458v2 There are also a lot of graph problems like "distinguish 3-colorable graph from graph that can't be colored in 3 colors even after removing eps part of edges" with large polynomials (IIRC, we got something like O(n^{2^40000}) when tried to find degree explicitly).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Better Balance by Being Biased: A 0.8776-Approximation for Max Bisection — mentioned by adrianN

Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:07:34 GMT

Example: You want to bisect the nodes of an edge-weighted graph into two sets of equal size such that the sum of the edge weights between the two parts is maximized. The best approximation algorithm (it's NP-hard) runs in time O(n^(10^100)): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0458v2.pdf For more examples see here http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6660/polynomial-...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.