(01 Canticum) Xenakis, Iannis. 1969 Persephassa (Percussion)
Avner Magen Joint work with Costis Georgiou, Toni Pitassi and Iannis Tourlakis
description
Transcript of Avner Magen Joint work with Costis Georgiou, Toni Pitassi and Iannis Tourlakis
Tight integrality gaps forvertex-cover semidefinite relaxations
in the Lovász-Schrijver Hierarchy
Avner Magen
Joint work with Costis Georgiou, Toni Pitassi and Iannis Tourlakis
University of Toronto
Minimum Vertex Cover
Finding minimum size VC is NP-hard
Exist simple 2-approximations
All known algs are 2 o(1) approximations!
Probabilistically checkable proofs (PCPs) No poly-time 1.36 approximation [Dinur-Safra’02]
Unique Games Conjecture [Khot’02] No poly-time 2 approximation [Khot-Regev’03]
Alternative (concrete) approach [ABL’02, ABLT’06]: Rule out approximations by large subfamilies of algorithms
Linear Programming approach
min iV vi
vi + vj ≥ 1, ij E
vi {0,1} 0 ≤ vi ≤ 1
True Optimum
Optimal Fractional SolutionIntegrality Gap: max
Easy to see IG ≤ 2
for Kn : IG = 2 1/n
SDP: the ultimate remedy?
Vertex Cover on G = (V,E)
Tighter relaxation? Smaller integrality gap?
min iV (1 + v0 · vi)/2
(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) = 0, ij E
|| vi ||2 = 1, vi Rn+1
min iV (1 + x0xi)/2
(x0 xi)(x0 xj) = 0, ij E
|xi| = 1 Hatami-M-Markakis’06:
Integrality gap still 2 o(1), even
with “pentagonal” inequalities
Semidefinite Programming Relaxations
Kleinberg-Goemans’98:
Integrality gap 2 o(1)
Clearly holds in
integral case
vi {1,1}
(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) 0, i,j
(vi vj) · (vi vk) 0, i,j
Charikar’02:
Gap still 2 o(1)
Systematic Approach: Lovász-Schrijver Liftings [LS’91]
Procedures LS0, LS, LS+ for tightening linear relaxations Integral hull in ≤ n rounds Optimize over rth round relaxation in nO(r) time
Very powerful algorithms obtained through small number of rounds: GW’94, KZ’97, ARV’04 algorithms “poly-time” in LS+ All NP in “exponential time”
May view super-constant rounds lower bounds in LS+ models as evidence about inapproximability
Initial Linear Relaxation
Integral Hull
Has PSD constraint Sequence of tighter and tighter SDPs
“Lift” to obtain
SDP Relaxation
n variablesn2 variables
“Project” back
to obtain tighter LP
Previous Lower Bounds for Vertex Cover – without SDP constraints (LS)
[ABLT’06]: Int. gap 2 o(1) after (log n) LS rounds
[Tourlakis’06]: Int. gap 1.5 o(1) after (log2 n) LS rounds
[STT’06b]: Int. gap 2 o(1) after (n) LS rounds
Status of SDP variant LS+
Stronger: one round already Implies clique constraint More generally, gives n-θ(G) lower bound on VC (so
sparse graph are generally not good) Gives rise to SDPs in the “lift” phases.
Integrality gap of 7/6 for LS+ (STT06a)
PCP world: Hastad 0.5-hardness for MAX3XOR and the FGLSS reduction imply 7/6-hardness for VC
AAT05 proved matching LB (for int. gap) in LS+ world for MAX3XOR
STT06b using further ideas from FO06, extend AAT MAX3XOR LB to prove 7/6 int. gap for linear rounds
graph family: FGLSS reduction on random MAX3XOR instances Int. gap 7/6 already after one round
Vertex Cover in LS: results so far
SDP version (LS+)?
Int. gap ≥
2-o(1) ?# rounds
superconsant?
ABLT ’02,STT ’07 NO YES YES
STT ’06 YES NO YES
Charikar ’02 YES YES NO
New result YES YES YES
Main Result
Theorem: Int. gap 2 o(1) for SDPs resulting after(√log n/log log n) LS+ rounds
One LS+ round tighter than [C’02] SDP
SDPs ruled out incomparable to SDPs with (generalized) triangle and pentagonal inequalities (e.g., [HMM’06])
Theorem: Int. gap 2 O(1/√log n/log log n)after O(1) LS+ rounds
Karakostas [K’05] SDP gives 2 (1/√log n) approximation
Use same graph families as [KG’98], [C’02], [HMM’06]SDP solutions rely on sequence of polynomials applying
tensor operations on vectors
xk(xi + xj x0) 0 ij E (x0 xi)(xj – x0) 0 ij E(x0 xi)(x0 xj) 0
vk · (vi + vj v0) 0 ij E(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) = 0 ij E(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) 0
xk(xi + xj x0) 0 ij E (x0 xi)(x0 – xj) = 0 ij E(x0 xi)(x0 xj) 0
Yik + Yjk Y0k 0 ij EY00 Y0i Y0j + Yij = 0 ij EY00 Y0i Y0j + Yij 0
Convert vertex cover LP into an SDP?
Multiply linear inequalities to get valid quadratic constraints.Crucially, add integrality conditions: (x0 xi)xi = 0
E.g.,
Linearize: replace products xixj with linear variables Yij
Lifted SDP in (n + 1)2 variablesProject resulting convex body back onto n + 1 variables Y0i
xk(xi + xj x0) 0 ij E (x0 xi)(xi + xj x0) 0 ij E (x0 xi)(x0 xj) 0
LS+ lift-and-project: the quick guide
min iV xi
xi + xj 1 (i,j) E0 xi 1 i V(x0 = 1)xi + xj x0 0 (i,j) E xi 0 i V x0 xi 0 i V
Yei ,Y(e0ei) K
Y0i = Yii
(x0 xi)xi = 0
(x0 = 1)
Y is PSD
Homogenization:
cone K
= xi
How LS and LS+ tighten VC Relaxation
One round of LS precisely adds “odd-cycle constraints”: For all cycles C in G of odd length,
iC xi ≥ (|C|+1)/2
x1 + x2 + x3 ≥ 2
One round of LS+ adds more: Clique constraints: For all cliques K in G,
iK xi ≥ |K| – 1
min iV xi
xi + xj ≥ 1, ij E
0 ≤ xi ≤ 1
vs. x1 + x2 + x3 ≥ 3/2
Deriving the clique constraints in LS+
0 ≤ x0 – xi) (xi + xj – x0) +((k –x0 – xi)i
2
Edge constraint
i≠j
Let K be a clique of size k in G
SDP condition
xi2 – (k – 1) x0
2
xi ≥ k – 1After projectingi
x K(r) if matrix Y s.t. diagonal is x Y is PSD “columns” K(r 1)
Proving Lower Bounds in LS+ Hierarchies
I.H.
LP relaxation K for G with min VC ~ n:
xi + xj ≥1 ij E
(½, ½,…)
K(1) K(3)
K(2)
Int. gap of K is ≥ 2 – o(1)
(½+, ½+ …)
Use inductive proof: find appropriate Y’s
“Protection”
matrix for xLemma (LS’91):
“Frankl-Rödl” graphs
m-dimensional Hamming cube: n = 2m points
V = {1,1}m
(i, j) E iff (i, j) = (1 )m }
parameter
Theorem: [Frankl-Rödl’87]
Max Ind.Set size |B(v,n/2(1- ))|
m2m(1 2/64)m
Cor: If = (√log m/m) then max IS is o(2m) = o(n)
Graphs used for int.gaps in [KK91, AK94, KG95, C02, HMM06]
(i, j) = (1 )m
o(n)
What’s so wonderful about them?...
Start with a perfect matching
Perturb : edges connect
vertices of Ham. Dist. (1-)n
Vertex Cover = n/2
``Geometric’’ vertex cover = n/2 +O( )
Proof Outline
In induction: need vectors vi to define matrix Yij = vi vj
Show vi exist whenever x {0, 1, ½ + }n and > 6
Ensure S {0, 1, ½ + }n where O()
(/) round lower bound for x = (½ + )1Constant and = (√log m/m)
Int. gap 2 o(1) after (√log n/log log n) rounds
x K(r) if PSD matrix Y s.t.
1. diagonal is x
2. “columns” K(r1) 2’. Show some set S K(r1)
where “columns” conv(S)
(i, j) = (1 )m
VC 1 o(n)
x = (½ + )1
Back to Frankl-Rödl graphs
Natural set {ui} of unit vectors: {1,1}m
(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) = 0, (i, j) E
√m1
Note: ui · uj = 1 2(i, j)/m
Hence (i, j) E ui and uj nearly antipodal
Nearly true for vi = ui
21 for (i, j) E
linear function
F of vi · vj
(i, j) = (1 )m
VC 1 o(n)
ui · uj
1
21
1
F
1
0
1
vi · vj
1
1
Kleinberg-Goemans:
Affine translation onui to obtain vi
F
V = {1,1}m
Use Kleinberg-Goemans vi for LS+?
Fact: One round of LS+ also requires following ineq:
Idea (Charikar): Map ui to wi s.t.
F(wi · wj) 0
F(wi · wj) = 0 if ij E
I.e, when ui · uj = 2 1
How? Use tensoring
(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) 0 i,j
equality whenever ij E
(i, j) = (1 )m
VC 1 o(n)ui · uj
1
21
1
F(vi · vj)1
0
1
vi · vj
1
1
[KG] affine
map on ui
linear
map
F(vi · vj)
F(wi · wj)1
0
1
Desired mapping
on dot-products
Tensoring
u, v Rn
Tensor product: u v Rn2
Value uivj at coordinate (i, j) [n]2
Easy fact: (u v) · (u v) = (u · v)2
Let P(x) = c1xt1 + … + cqxtq
Consider map TP(u) = (c1ut1,…, cqutq)
Example: P(x) = x2 + 4x TP(u) = (u u, 2u) Rn2+2n
TP(u) · TP(v) = (u · v)2 + 4(u · v)2 = P(u · v)
Fact: TP(u) · TP(v) = P(u · v)
22
P determines dot-product
of resulting vectors
Positive coefficients
Back to finding solution for stronger SDP: Use TP
Charikar exhibits appropriate P
(i, j) = (1 )m
VC 1 o(n)
I.e, when ui · uj = 2 1
(v0 vi) · (v0 vj) 0 i,j
equality whenever (i, j) E
F(vi · vj)
ui · uj
1
21
1F
1
0
1
Want wi = TP(ui)s.t. F(wi · wj) min at (i, j) E
ui · uj 11
21
0
KG
C
Charikar sol’n gives one round LS+ lower bound
Charikar vectors define Yij = vi · vj that:
n Diagonal is x = (½ + )1n “Columns” K
x K(r) if PSD matrix Y s.t.
1. diagonal is x
2. “columns” K(r1) I.H.
x = (½ + )1
Can Charikar vectors show “columns” K(1)?
VC = 1 o(n)
Must have seq
of polynomials
Problems: (1) “Columns” not of form (½ + )1 (2) Charikar’s vectors work only for one value
Values distributed like
polynomial of Gaussian
Making non-uniform “columns” uniform
“Columns” we want to continue from not of form (½ + )1
Def [STT]: x K is -saturated if for all ij E so that xi, xj < 1 there is surplus: xi + xj 1 + 2
Lemma [STT]: x is -saturated there exists set of vectorsx(i) {0, 1, ½ + }n in K s.t. x conv({x(i) }).
Can convert “columns” to (essentially) (½ + )1IF “columns” are -saturated
Will be safe to “ignore” 0/1
values distributed like polynomial of Gaussian
Goal: matrix Y for x with “column” saturation ()
Recall P(x) defines TP(u) such that TP(u) · TP(v) = P(u · v)
deg(PC) = O(1/)
Fact: Y has “columns” s.t. some edges never have surplus
Problem: saturation of “close by” edges?
Saturation
Normal. Ham. Dist. from blue edge
Necessary: deg(P) ≥ · m !
For all P
P
Bad saturation zone
The blue edge
~ P(1)P(1-1/m)
≤ P’(1)/m
Is saturation good enough?
= o(m)
Want column saturation O()
Precise technical property needed for P:
| P(ui · uk ) + P(uj · uk) | O()
For all vertices k and all edges ij :
[1, 1]
But ui · uj = 2 1 for all edges ij, so
Need | P(x) + P(y) | O() over R
Red points correspond to 0-1 edges Ignored in saturation calculation
1
1
1
1
12
12
21
21
R
11/m
11/m x
y
Domain of P(x) + P(y)
|ui·uk+uj·uk| 2
|ui·ukuj·uk| 2(1-)
So far: There must be a seq of polys dep. on m. Polynomials must have large degree.
Let x {0, 1, ½ + }n
Take P(x) = (xx 1)m/ + x 1/ + (1- x
Properties: Minimum at ui · uj, ij E P’(1) > m Works as long as > 6 The “Columns” of Y that is produced by
using TP,m(ui) have saturation O()
ui · uj 11 21 0
KG
C
P
arbitrary > 6
Defining the sequence of tensoring polynomials
Putting everything together
Induction: Have x {0, 1, ½ + }n where > 6
Define Y using TP,m(ui)
“Columns” have saturation O()
[STT] Exists S K {0, 1, ½ + }n s.t. “columns” conv(S)
Induction Hypothesis S K(r 1)
Take constant and = (√log m/m)
x K(r) if PSD matrix Y s.t.
1. diagonal is x
2. “columns” K(r1) 2’. Show some set S K(r1)
where “columns” conv(S)
x = (½ + )1
r = (/)
(i, j) = (1 )m
VC 1 o(n)
x K(r)
Requiring that ||vi-vj||2 is l1?
As is, no l1 inequalities are not implied. The results of [HMM] (showing that metric-cut ineqaities
and pentagonal inequalities hold) suggest the examples are still good.
Need to Give Sherali Adams LB introduce dij = ||vi-vj||2
Add more reqs the LS+ proof need to satisfy.
Sherali-Adams [SA’90] Lift-and-Project
Idea: Keep “lifting” but never project!Simulate third, fourth, etc, degree products with linear vars
Only known integrality gap [FK’06]:(log n) SA rounds int. gap ≤ 2 for MAX-CUT
SA+ lower bound would inequalities for lifted variables Triangle, pentagonal, etc., inequalities derivable
E.g., x1x2x3 Y123
LP not SDP version
Relations to Unique Games Conjecture (UGC)
LS+ lower bounds may provide evidence of inapproximability
UGC [Khot’02] implies optimal inapproximability results for Vertex Cover, MAX-CUT, etc
Strong LS+, SA+ lower bounds for VC, MAX-CUT
Thanks