Sum-of-squares lower bounds for planted clique

Abstract

Finding cliques in random graphs and the closely related "planted" clique variant, where a clique of size k is planted in a random G(n, 1/2) graph, have been the focus of substantial study in algorithm design. Despite much effort, the best known polynomial-time algorithms only solve the problem for k ~ sqrt(n). In this paper we study the complexity of the planted clique problem under algorithms from the Sum-of-squares hierarchy. We prove the first average case lower bound for this model: for almost all graphs in G(n,1/2), r rounds of the SOS hierarchy cannot find a planted k-clique unless k > n1/2r (up to logarithmic factors). Thus, for any constant number of rounds planted cliques of size no(1) cannot be found by this powerful class of algorithms. This is shown via an integrability gap for the natural formulation of maximum clique problem on random graphs for SOS and Lasserre hierarchies, which in turn follow from degree lower bounds for the Positivestellensatz proof system. We follow the usual recipe for such proofs. First, we introduce a natural "dual certificate" (also known as a "vector-solution" or "pseudo-expectation") for the given system of polynomial equations representing the problem for every fixed input graph. Then we show that the matrix associated with this dual certificate is PSD (positive semi-definite) with high probability over the choice of the input graph.This requires the use of certain tools. One is the theory of association schemes, and in particular the eigenspaces and eigenvalues of the Johnson scheme. Another is a combinatorial method we develop to compute (via traces) norm bounds for certain random matrices whose entries are highly dependent; we hope this method will be useful elsewhere.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…