Integer programming feasibility is NP-what

514 Views Asked by At

What is the complexity class of the general problem of integer programming feasibility?

The sources I've looked at are, in my opinion, very confusing. Some say NP-hard, some say NP-complete. Some do not distinguish between the general problem and the binary case. Some do not distinguish between the optimization problem and the feasibility problem. As far as I can tell, there appears to be no correlation between these three factors. I have only seen an actual proof of any claim in the binary feasibility case, which is NP-complete.

If I understand correctly, NP-completeness is a stronger condition than NP-hardness, since NP-hard problems do not need to be NP (or decision problems, but I can ignore that because I'm only interested in feasibility). So I am not surprised that the two are used interchangeably around for the binary case.

A reference would also be greatly appreciated.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

8
On BEST ANSWER

Edit 29 March 2015: As D.W. points out in a comment, Sahni's "P-hard" and "P-complete" do not mean what one might expect from modern usage. His terms are (roughly) conditional on P=NP. His section 1.1, Definition 4 is a clear example: "A problem $L$ is P-Hard iff a polynomial algorithm for $L$ implies P = NP." As D.W. asserts, this eliminates the discrepancy between Sahni and G&J: the problem is NP-hard/-complete, depending on the signs of the constraint coefficients.

P-hard/-complete, depending on the signs of the constraint coefficients. See Sahni, S., "Computationally Related Problems" SIAM J. Computing vol. 3, pp. 262-279, 1974. Also here (Section 2.5, I1 and I2).

Referenced as "A6 MP1" at Garey and Johnson, "Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness", 1979. However, there must be an error in this reference, G&J assert NP-hard/-complete, but Sahni asserts P-Hard (positive or negative constraint coefficients) and P-complete (positive constraints).