LATIN 2004: LATIN 2004: Theoretical Informatics pp 59-68 | Cite as
Constrained Integer Partitions
Abstract
We consider the problem of partitioning n integers into two subsets of given cardinalities such that the discrepancy, the absolute value of the difference of their sums, is minimized. The integers are i.i.d. random variables chosen uniformly from the set {1,...,M}. We study how the typical behavior of the optimal partition depends on n,M and the bias s, the difference between the cardinalities of the two subsets in the partition. In particular, we rigorously establish this typical behavior as a function of the two parameters \(\kappa :=n^{-1}{\rm log}_{2}M\) and b:=|s|/n by proving the existence of three distinct “phases” in the κb-plane, characterized by the value of the discrepancy and the number of optimal solutions: a “perfect phase” with exponentially many optimal solutions with discrepancy 0 or 1; a “hard phase” with minimal discrepancy of order Me − Θ( n); and a “sorted phase” with an unique optimal partition of order Mn, obtained by putting the (s+n)/2 smallest integers in one subset.
Keywords
Basis Solution Linear Programming Problem Hard Phase Partition Problem Saddle Point EquationPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Borgs, C., Chayes, J.T., Mertens, S., Pittel, B.: Phase diagram for the constrained integer partitioning problem. (2003) (preprint)Google Scholar
- 2.Borgs, C., Chayes, J.T., Pittel, B.: Phase transition and finite-size scaling for the integer partitioning problem. Rand. Struc. Alg. 19, 247–288 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 3.Borgs, C., Chayes, J.T., Pittel, B.: Sharp threshold and scaling window for the integer partitioning problem. In: Proc. 33rd ACM Symp. on Theor. of Comp., pp. 330–336 (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Yakir, B.: The differencing algoritm LDM for partitioning; a proof of a conjecture of Karmakar and Karp. Math. of Operations Res. 21, 85–99 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ferreira, F.F., Fontanari, J.F.: Probabilistic analysis of the number partitioning problem. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 31, 3417–3428 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 6.Ferreira, F.F., Fontanari, J.F.: Statistical mechanics analysis of the continuous number partitioning problem. Physica A 269, 54–60 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 7.Fu, Y.: The use and abuse of statistical mechanics in computational complexity. In: Stein, D.L. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1988 Complex Systems Summer School, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Lectures in the Science of Complexity, Addison-Wesley, Reading (1988)Google Scholar
- 8.Gent, I.P., Walsh, T.: In: Wahlster, W. (ed.) Proc. of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 170–174. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
- 9.Karmarkar, N., Karp, R.M.: The differencing method of set partitioning. Technical Report UCB/CSD 82/113, Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California, Berkeley (1982)Google Scholar
- 10.Karmarkar, N., Karp, R.M., Lueker, G.S., Odlyzko, A.M.: Probabilistic analysis of optimum partitioning. J. Appl. Prob. 23, 626–645 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 11.Lueker, G.S.: Exponentially small bounds on the expected optimum of the partition and subset sum problem. Rand. Struc. Alg. 12, 51–62 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 12.Mertens, S.: Phase transition in the number partitioning problem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4281–4284 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 13.Mertens, S.: Random costs in combinatorial optimization. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1347–1350 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar