AKOTRACE: The structure of an optimal electrical heat tracing solution for CSP Plants
Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?
description
Transcript of Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?
![Page 1: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Prasad RaghavendraUniversity of Washington
Seattle
Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for
Every CSP?
![Page 2: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Constraint Satisfaction ProblemA Classic Example : Max-3-SAT
Given a 3-SAT formula,Find an assignment to the variables that satisfies the maximum number of clauses.
))()()(( 145532532321 xxxxxxxxxxxx Equivalently the
largest fraction of clauses
![Page 3: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Variables : {x1 , x2 , x3 ,x4 , x5} Constraints : 4 clauses
Constraint Satisfaction Problem
Instance :• Set of variables.• Predicates Pi applied on variables
Find an assignment that satisfies the largest fraction of constraints.
Problem :
Domain : {0,1,.. q-1}Predicates : {P1, P2 , P3 … Pr}
Pi : [q]k -> {0,1}
Max-3-SAT
Domain : {0,1}Predicates :
P1(x,y,z) = x ѵ y ѵ z
))()()(( 145532532321 xxxxxxxxxxxx
![Page 4: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Generalized CSP (GCSP)
Replace Predicates by Payoff Functions (bounded real valued)
Problem :
Domain : {0,1,.. q-1}Pay Offs: {P1, P2 , P3 … Pr}
Pi : [q]k -> [-1, 1]Pay Off Functions can be Negative
Can model Minimization Problems like Multiway Cut, Min-Uncut.
Objective :
Find an assignment that maximizes the
Average Payoff
![Page 5: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Examples of GCSPs
Max-3-SATMax CutMax Di CutMultiway CutMetric Labelling
0-ExtensionUnique Gamesd- to - 1 GamesLabel CoverHorn Sat
![Page 6: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Unique GamesA Special Case
E2LIN mod pGiven a set of linear equations of the form:
Xi – Xj = cij mod p
Find a solution that satisfies the maximum number of equations.
x-y = 11 (mod 17)x-z = 13 (mod 17)
…….
z-w = 15(mod 17)
![Page 7: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Unique Games Conjecture [Khot 02]
An Equivalent Version [Khot-Kindler-Mossel-O’Donnell]
For every ε> 0, the following problem is NP-hard for large enough prime p
Given a E2LIN mod p system, distinguish between:• There is an assignment satisfying 1-ε fraction of the equations.• No assignment satisfies more than ε fraction
of equations.
![Page 8: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Unique Games Conjecture
A notorious open problem, no general consensus either way.
Hardness Results: No constant factor approximation for unique games. [Feige-Reichman]
Algorithm On (1-Є) satisfiable instances
[Khot 02]
[Trevisan]
[Gupta-Talwar] 1 – O(ε logn)
[Charikar-Makarychev-Makarychev]
[Chlamtac-Makarychev-Makarychev]
[Arora-Khot-Kolla-Steurer-Tulsiani-Vishnoi]
)2/( p)loglog(1 pnO
)log(1 3 nO
))/1log((1 5/12 pO
1log1
![Page 9: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Why is UGC important?Problem Best
Approximation Algorithm
NP Hardness Unique Games Hardness
Vertex CoverMax CUTMax 2- SATSPARSEST CUTMax k-CSP
20.878
0.9401
1.360.941
0.95461+ε
20.878
0.9401Every Constant
nlog
kk 2/ kkO 2/2 kkO 2/
UG hardness results are intimately connected to the limitations of Semidefinite Programming
![Page 10: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Semidefinite Programming
![Page 11: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Max Cut
10
15
3
7
11
Input : a weighted graph G
Find a cut that maximizes the number of crossing edges
![Page 12: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Max Cut SDP
Quadratic Program
Variables : x1 , x2 … xn
xi = 1 or -1
Maximize
10
15
3
7
11
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1-1
-1
Eji
jiij xxw),(
2)(4
1
Relax all the xi to be unit vectors instead of {1,-1}. All products are replaced by inner products of vectors
Semidefinite Program
Variables : v1 , v2 … vn
| vi |2 = 1
Maximize
Eji
jiij vvw),(
2||4
1
![Page 13: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
MaxCut Rounding
v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
Cut the sphere by a random hyperplane, and output the induced graph cut.
- A 0.878 approximation for the problem.
![Page 14: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
General Boolean 2-CSPs
Total PayOff
In Integral Solutionvi = 1 or -1V0 = 1
Triangle Inequality
![Page 15: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
2-CSP over {0,..q-1}
Total PayOff
![Page 16: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Arbitrary k-ary GCSP
•SDP is similar to the one used by [Karloff-Zwick] Max-3-SAT algorithm.•It is weaker than k-rounds of Lasserre / LS+ heirarchies
![Page 17: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Results
![Page 18: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Two CurvesIntegrality Gap CurveS(c) = smallest value of the integral solution, given SDP value c.
UGC Hardness CurveU(c) = The best polytime computable solution, assuming UGC given an instance with value c.
0 1Optimum Solution
S(c)
U(c)
Fix a GCSP
If UGC is true:U(c) ≥ S(c)
If UGC is false:U(c) is
meaningless!
![Page 19: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
UG Hardness Result
Roughly speaking,Assuming UGC, the SDP(I), SDP(II),SDP(III) give best
possible approximation for every CSP
c = SDP ValueS(c) = SDP Integrality GapU(c) = UGC Hardness Curve
Theorem 1:For every constant η > 0, and every GCSP Problem,
U(c) < S(c+ η) + η
0 1Optimum Solution
S(c)
U(c)
U(c)
![Page 20: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Consequences
If UGC is true, then adding more constraints does not help for any CSP
Lovasz-Schriver, Lasserre, Sherali-Adams heirarchies do not yield better approximation ratios for any CSP in the worst case.
![Page 21: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Efficient Rounding Scheme
Roughly speaking, There is a generic
polytime rounding scheme that is optimal for every CSP, assuming UGC.
Theorem:For every constant η > 0, and every GCSP,there is a polytime rounding scheme that outputs a solution of value U(c-η) – η
c = SDP ValueS(c) = SDP Integrality GapU(c) = UGC Hardness Curve
0 1Optimum Solution
S(c)
U(c)
![Page 22: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
0 1Optimum Solution
S(c)U(c)
NP-hard
algorithm
If UGC is true, then for every Generalized Constraint Satisfaction Problem :
If UGC is false??
•Hardness result doesn’t make sense.
•How good is the rounding scheme?
![Page 23: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Unconditionally Roughly Speaking,For 2-CSPs, the Approximation ratio obtained is at least the red curve S(c)
The rounding scheme achieves the integrality gap of SDP for 2-CSPs (both binary and q-ary cases)
S(c) = SDP Integrality Gap
Theorem: Let A(c) be rounding scheme’s performance on input with SDP value = c. For every constant η > 0
A(c) > S(c- η) - η0 1Optimum Solution
S(c)
![Page 24: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
As good as the best
SDP(II) and SDP(III) are the strongest SDPs used in approximation algorithms for 2-CSPs
The Generic Algorithm is at least as good as the best known algorithms for 2-CSPs
Examples:
Max Cut [Goemans-Williamson]Max-2-SAT [Lewin-Livnat-Zwick]Unique Games [Charikar-Makarychev-Makarychev]
![Page 25: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Computing Integrality Gaps
Theorem: For any η, and any 2-CSP, the curve S(c) can be computed within error η.(Time taken depends on η and domain size q)
0 1Optimum Solution
S(c)
Explicit bounds on the size of an integrality gap instance for any 2-CSP.
![Page 26: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Related WorkProblem Best
Approximation Algorithm
Unique Games Hardness
Vertex CoverMax CUTMax 2- SATSPARSEST CUTMax k-CSP
20.878
0.9401
2 [Khot-Regev] 0.878 [Khot-Kindler-Mossel-O’donnell]0.9401 [Per Austrin]Every Constant [Chawla-Krauthgamer-..] [Trevisan-Samorodnitsky]
kk 2/ kkO 2/nlog
[Austrin 07]Assuming UGC, and a certain additional conjecture:
``For every boolean 2-CSP, the best approximation is given by SDP(III)”
[O’Donnell-Wu 08]Obtain matching approximation algorithm, UGC hardness and SDP gaps for MaxCut
![Page 27: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Proof Overview
![Page 28: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Dictatorship TestGiven a function F : {-1,1}R {-1,1}•Toss random coins•Make a few queries to F •Output either ACCEPT or REJECT
F is a dictator functionF(x1 ,… xR) = xi
F is far from every dictator function
(No influential coordinate)
Pr[ACCEPT ] = Completeness
Pr[ACCEPT ] =Soundness
![Page 29: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
ConnectionsSDP Gap Instance
SDP = 0.9OPT = 0.7
UG Hardness
0.9 vs 0.7
Dictatorship Test
Completeness = 0.9Soundness = 0.7
[Khot-Kindler-Mossel-O’Donnell]
[Khot-Vishnoi]For sparsest cut, max cut.[This Paper]
All these conversions hold for every GCSP
![Page 30: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
A Dictatorship Test for Maxcut
CompletenessValue of Dictator Cuts
F(x) = xi
SoundnessThe maximum value attained by a cut far from a dictator
A dictatorship test is a graph G on the hypercube.A cut gives a function F on the hypercube
Hypercube = {-1,1}100
![Page 31: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
An Example : Maxcutv1
v2
v3
v4
v5
10
15
3
71
1
100 dimensional hypercube
Graph G SDP Solution
CompletenessValue of Dictator Cuts =
SDP Value (G)
SoundnessGiven a cut far from every dictator :It gives a cut on graph G with the same value.
In other words, Soundness ≤ OPT(G)
![Page 32: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
From Graphs to Tests10
15
3
7
11
v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
Graph G (n vertices)
100 dimensional hypercube : {-1,1}100
SDP Solution
For each edge e, connect every pair of vertices in hypercube separated by the length of e
Constant independent of
size of G
H
![Page 33: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Completeness
Echoice of edge e=(u,v) in G
[EX,Y in 100 dim hypercube with dist |u-v|^2 [ (F(X)-F(Y))2 ] ]
v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
100 dimensional hypercube
-1
-1-1
1
1
1
For each edge e, connect every pair of vertices in hypercube separated by the length of e
Set F(X) = X1
(X1 – Y1)2
X1 is not equal to Y1 with probability |u-v|2 , hence completeness = SDP Value (G)
![Page 34: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The Invariance Principle
Invariance Principle for Low Degree Polynomials[Rotar] [Mossel-O’Donnell-Oleszkiewich], [Mossel 2008]
“If a low degree polynomial F has no influential coordinate, then F({-1,1}n) and F(Gaussian) have similar distribution.”
A generalization of the following fact :
``Sum of large number of {-1,1} random variableshas similar distribution as
Sum of large number of Gaussian random variables.”
![Page 35: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
From Hypercube to the Sphere
100Dimensional hypercube
100 dimensio
nal sphere
F : [-1,1]
Express F as a multilinear polynomial using Fourier expansion, thus extending it to the sphere.
P : Real numbers
Since F is far from a dictator, by invariance principle, its behaviour on the sphere is similar to its behaviour on hypercube.
Nearly always [-1,1]
![Page 36: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
A Graph on the Sphere10
15
3
7
11
v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
Graph G (n vertices)
100 dimensional sphere
SDP Solution
For each edge e, connect every pair of vertices in sphere separated by the length of e
S
![Page 37: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Hypercube vs Sphere
H S
F:{-1,1}100 -> {-1,1} is a cut far from every dictator.
P : sphere -> Nearly {-1,1}Is the multilinear extension of F
By Invariance Principle,
MaxCut value of F on H ≈ Maxcut value of P on S.
![Page 38: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Soundnessv1
v2
v3
v4
v5 For each edge e in the graph G connect every pair of vertices in hypercube separated by the length of e
SG
Alternatively, generate S as follows:Take the union of all possible rotations of the graph G
S consists of union of disjoint copies of G. Thus, MaxCut Value of S < Max cut value of G.
Hence MaxCut value of F on H is at most the max cut value of G. Soundness ≤ MaxCut(G)
![Page 39: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Algorithmically,
Given a cut F of the hypercube graph H• Extend F to a function P on the sphere using
its Fourier expansion.• Pick a random rotation of the SDP solution to
the graph G• This gives a random copy Gc of G inside the
sphere graph S• Output the solution assigned by P to GC
![Page 40: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Roughly FormallySample R Random Directions
Sample R independent vectors : g(1), g(2) ,.. g(100) Each with i.i.d Gaussian components.
Project along them
Project each vi along all directions g(1), g(2) ,.. g(100)
Yi(j) = v0 v∙ i + (1-ε)(vi – (v0 v∙ i)v0) g∙ (100)
Compute P on projections
Compute xi = P(Yi
(1) , Yi(2) ,.. Yi
(100))Round the output of P
If xi > 1, xi = 1 If xi < -1, xi = -1 If xi is in [-1,1]
xi = 1 with probability (1+xi)/2 -1 with probability (1-xi)/2
Given the Polynomial P(y1,… y100)
![Page 41: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Key Lemma
Any CSP Instance
G
DICTGDictatorship Test
on functionsF : {-1,1}n ->{-1,1}
If F is far from a dictator,RoundF (G) ≈ DICTG (F)
1) Tests of the verifier are same as the constraints in instance G2) Completeness = SDP(G)
Any Function
F: {-1,1}n → {-1,1}
RoundFRounding Schemeon CSP Instances G
![Page 42: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
UG Hardness Result
InstanceSDP = cOPT = s
Dictatorship Test
Completeness = cSoundness <= s
UG Hardness
Completeness = cSoundness <= s
Worst Case Gap Instance
Theorem 1:For every constant η > 0, and every GCSP Problem,
U(c) < S(c+ η) + η
![Page 43: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Generic Rounding Scheme
Solve SDP(III) to obtain vectors (v1 ,v2 ,… vn )
Add little noise to SDP solution (v1 ,v2 ,… vn )
For all multlinear polynomials P(y1 ,y2, .. y100) do
Round using P(y1 ,y2, .. y100)
Output the best solution obtained
P is Multilinear polynomial in 100 variables with coefficients in [-1,1]
![Page 44: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Algorithm
Instance ISDP = cOPT = ?
AnyDictatorship
TestCompleteness = c
UG Hardness
Completeness = c
Soundness of any Dictatorship Test ≥ U(c)
There is some function F : {0,1}R -> {0,1} that hasPr[F is accepted] ≥ U(c)
By Key Lemma, Performance of F as rounding polynomial on instance I = Pr[F is accepted] > U(c)
Dictatorship Test (I)
Completeness = c
![Page 45: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Related Developments
• Multiway Cut and Metric Labelling problems.
• Maximum Acyclic Subgraph problem
• Bipartite Quadratic Optimization Problem (Computing the Grothendieck constant)
[Manokaran, Naor, Schwartz, Raghavendra]
[Guruswami,Manokaran, Raghavendra]
[Raghavendra,Steurer]
![Page 46: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Conclusions
Unique Games and Invariance Principle connect : Integrality Gaps, Hardness Results ,Dictatorship tests and Rounding Algorithms.
These connections lead to new algorithms, and hardness results unifying several known results.
![Page 47: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Thank You
![Page 48: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Rounding Scheme(For Boolean CSPs)
Rounding Scheme was discovered by the reversing the soundness analysis.This fact was independently observed by Yi Wu
![Page 49: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
MaxCut Rounding
v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
Cut the sphere by a random hyperplane, and output the induced graph cut.
Equivalently,
•Pick a random direction g.•For each vector vi , project vi along g
yi = vi . g•Assign
xi = 1 if yi > 0xi = 0 otherwise.
![Page 50: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
SDP Rounding Schemes
SDP Vectors (v1 , v2 .. vn )
Projections(y1 , y2 .. yn )
Assignment
Random Projection
Process the projections
For any CSP, it is enough to do the following:
Instead of one random projection, pick sufficiently many (say 100) projections
Use a multi linear polynomial P to process the projections
![Page 51: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
UG Hardness Results
InstanceSDP = cOPT = s
Dictatorship Test
Completeness = cSoundness <= s
UG Hardness
Completeness = cSoundness <= s
Worst Case Gap Instance
Theorem 1:For every constant η > 0, and every GCSP Problem,
U(c) < S(c+ η) + η
![Page 52: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Multiway Cut and Labelling Problems
Theorem: Assuming Unique Games Conjecture,The earthmover linear program gives the best approximation.
Theorem: Unconditionally, the simple SDP does not give better approximations than the LP.
10
15
3
7
11
3-Way Cut:Separate the 3-terminals while
separating the minimum number of edges
[Manokaran, Naor, Schwartz, Raghavendra]
![Page 53: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Maximum Acyclic Subgraph
Given a directed graph, order the vertices to maximize the number of forward edges.
[Guruswami,Manokaran, Raghavendra]
Theorem: Assuming Unique Games Conjecture,The best algorithm’s output is as good as a random ordering.
Theorem: Unconditionally, the simple SDP does not give better approximations than random.
![Page 54: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
The Grothendieck Constant
The Grothendieck constant is the smallest constant k(H) for which the following inequality holds for all matrices :
The constant is just the integrality gap of the SDP for bipartite quadratic optimization.
Value of the constant is between 1.6 and 1.7 but is unknown yet.
[Raghavendra,Steurer]
![Page 55: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Grothendieck Constant[Raghavendra,Steurer]
Theorem: There is an algorithm to compute arbitrarily good approximations to the Grothendieck constant.
Theorem: There is an efficient algorithm that solves the bipartite quadratic optimization problem to an approximation equal to Grothendieck constant.
![Page 56: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
If all this looks deceptively simple, then it is because there was deception
Working with several probability distributions at once.
![Page 57: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
UG Hardness Results
InstanceSDP = cOPT = s
Dictatorship Test
Completeness = cSoundness <= s
UG Hardness
Completeness = cSoundness <= s
Worst Case Gap Instance
Best UG Hardness =
Integrality GapU(c) < S(c+η) + η
![Page 58: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Algorithm
Instance ISDP = cOPT = ?
AnyDictatorship
TestCompleteness = c
UG Hardness
Completeness = c
Soundness of any Dictatorship Test ≥ U(c)
There is some function F : {0,1}R -> {0,1} that hasPr[F is accepted] ≥ U(c)
By Key Lemma, Performance of F as rounding polynomial on instance I = Pr[F is accepted] > U(c)
Dictatorship Test (I)
Completeness = c
![Page 59: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
On some instance I with SDP value = c , algorithm outputs a solution with value s.
For every function F far from dictator ,
Performance of F in rounding I ≤ s
By Key Lemma, For every such F
Pr[ F is accepted by Dict(I) ] ≤ s
Thus the Dict(I) is a test with soundness s.
Unconditional Results For 2-CSPs
![Page 60: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Unconditional Results For 2-CSPs
Dictatorship Test(I)
Completeness = cSoundness = s
UG Hardness
Completeness = cSoundness = s
UG Integrality Gap instance
Integrality Gap instanceSDP = cOPT ≤ sAlgorithm’s performance
matches the integrality gap of the SDP
[Khot-Vishnoi]
![Page 61: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Computing Integrality Gaps
Integrality gap of a SDP relaxation = Worst case ratio of Integral Optimum
SDP Optimum
Worst Case over all instances - an infinite set
Due to tight relation of integrality gaps/ dictatorship tests for 2-CSPs
Integrality gap of a SDP relaxation = Worst case ratio of Soundness
CompletenessThis time the worst case is along all dictatorship tests on {-1,1}R
- a finite set that can be discretized.
![Page 62: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Key Lemma : Through An Example
1
2132
322
21 ||||||3
1vvvvvv
SDP:Variables : v1 , v2 ,v3
|v1|2 = |v2|2 = |v3|2 =1
Maximize2 3
![Page 63: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
E[a1 a2] = v1 v∙ 2
E[a12] = |v1|2 E[a2
2] = |v2|2
For every edge, there is a local distribution over integral solutions such that:All the moments of order at most 2 match the inner products.
Local Random Variables
1
32
Fix an edge e = (1,2).
There exists random variables a1 a2 taking values {-1,1} such that:
c = SDP Valuev1 , v2 , v3 = SDP Vectors
A12A13
A23
![Page 64: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Dictatorship TestPick an edge (i,j)Generate ai,aj in {-1,1}R as follows:The kth coordinates aik ,ajk come from distribution Aij
Add noise to ai,aj
Accept if F(ai) ≠ F(aj)
c = SDP Valuev1 , v2 , v3 = SDP Vectors
A12,A23,A31 = Local Distributions
1
32
A12
Input Function:F : {-1,1}R -> {-1,1}
Max Cut Instance
![Page 65: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
AnalysisPick an edge (i,j)Generate ai,aj in {-1,1}R as follows:
The kth coordinates aik,ajk come from distribution Aij
Add noise to ai,aj
Accept if F(ai) ≠ F(aj)
A12,A23,A31 = Local Distributions
1
32
Max Cut Instance
]))()([(
4
1]))()([(
4
1]))()([(
4
1
3
1 213
232
221 312312
aFaFEaFaFEaFaFE AAA
Input Function:F : {-1,1}R -> {-1,1}
![Page 66: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
]))()([(
4
1]))()([(
4
1]))()([(
4
1
3
1 213
232
221 312312
aFaFEaFaFEaFaFE AAA
CompletenessA12,A23,A31 = Local Distributions
Input Function is a Dictator : F(x) = x1
])[(
4
1])[(
4
1])[(
4
1
3
1 21131
23121
22111 312312
aaEaaEaaE AAA
Suppose (a1 ,a2) is sampled from A12 then :E[a11 a21] = v1 v∙ 2 E[a11
2] = |v1|2 E[a212] = |v2|2
221
221 ||])[(
12vvaaEA
Summing up, Pr[Accept] = SDP Value(v1 , v2 ,v3)
![Page 67: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
E[b1 b2] = v1 v∙ 2 E[b2 b3] = v2 v∙ 3 E[b3 b1] = v3 v∙ 1
E[b1
2] = |v1|2 E[b22] = |v2|2 E[b3
2] = |v3|2
There is a global distribution B=(b1 ,b2 ,b3) over real numbers such that:All the moments of order at most 2 match the inner products.
Global Random Variablesc = SDP Value
v1 , v2 , v3 = SDP Vectors
g = random Gaussian vector.(each coordinate generated by i.i.d normal variable)
b1 = v1 g∙b2 = v2 g∙b3 = v3 g∙
1
32
B
![Page 68: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Rounding with Polynomials
Input Polynomial : F(x1 ,x2 ,.. xR)
Generate b1 = (b11 ,b12 ,… b1R)
b2 = (b21 ,b22 ,… b2R)
b3 = (b31 ,b32 ,… b3R)
with each coordinate (b1t ,b2t ,b3t) according to global distribution B
Compute F(b1),F(b2) ,F(b3)
Round F(b1),F(b2),F(b3) to {-1,1}
Output the rounded solution.
1
32
B
]))()([(
4
1]))()([(
4
1]))()([(
4
1
3
1 213
232
221 bFbFEbFbFEbFbFE BBB
![Page 69: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Invariance
Suppose F is far from every dictator then since A12 and B have same first two moments,
F(a1),F(a2) has nearly same distribution as F(b1),F(b2)
•
• F(b1), F(b2) are close to {-1,1}
]))()([(4
1]))()([(
4
1 221
22112
bFbFEaFaFE BA
![Page 70: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
From Gap instances to Gap instances
InstanceSDP = cOPT = s
Dictatorship Test
Completeness = cSoundness = s
UG Hardness
Completeness = cSoundness = s
UG Gap instance for a
Strong SDP
A Gap Instance for the Strong SDP for
CSP
![Page 71: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
For each variable u in CSP,Introduce q variables : {u0 , u1 ,.. uq-1 }
uc = 1,
ui = 0 for i≠c
Payoff for u,v :P(u,v) = ∑a ∑b P(a,b)ua vb
2-CSP over {0,..q-1}
u = c
![Page 72: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
2-CSP over {0,..q-1}
Total PayOff
![Page 73: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Arbitrary k-ary GCSP
SDP is similar to the one obtained by k-rounds of Lasserre
![Page 74: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Rounding Scheme(For Boolean CSPs)
Rounding Scheme was discovered by the reversing the soundness analysis.This fact was independently observed by Yi Wu
![Page 75: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
SDP Rounding Schemes
SDP Vectors (v1 , v2 .. vn )
Projections(y1 , y2 .. yn )
Assignment
Random Projection
Process the projections
For any CSP, it is enough to do the following:
Instead of one random projection, pick sufficiently many projections
Use a multilinear polynomial P to process the projections
![Page 76: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Roughly FormallySample R Random Directions
Sample R independent vectors : w(1), w(2) ,.. w(R) Each with i.i.d Gaussian components.
Project along them
Project each vi along all directions w(1), w(2) ,.. w(R)
Yi(j) = v0 v∙ i + (1-ε)(vi – (v0 v∙ i)v0) w∙ (j)
Compute P on projections
Compute xi = P(Yi
(1) , Yi(2) ,.. Yi
(R))Round the output of P
If xi > 1, xi = 1 If xi < -1, xi = -1 If xi is in [-1,1]
xi = 1 with probability (1+xi)/2 -1 with probability (1-xi)/2
Rounding By Polynomial P(y1,… yR)
![Page 77: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Algorithm
Solve SDP(III) to obtain vectors (v1 ,v2 ,… vn )
Smoothen the SDP solution (v1 ,v2 ,… vn )
For all multlinear polynomials P(y1 ,y2, .. yR) do
Round using P(y1 ,y2, .. yR)
Output the best solution obtained
R is a constant parameter
![Page 78: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
“For all multilinear polynomials P(y1 ,y2, .. yR) do”
- All multilinear polynomials with coefficients bounded within [-1,1]- Discretize the set of all such multi-linear polynomials
There are at most a constant number of such polynomials.
Discretization
![Page 79: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Smoothening SDP Vectors
Let u1 ,u2 .. un denote the SDP vectors corresponding to the following distribution over integral solutions:``Assign each variable uniformly and independently at random”
Substitute vi
* v∙ j* = (1-ε) (vi v∙ j) + ε (ui u∙ j)
![Page 80: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Non-Boolean CSPs
There will be q rounding polynomials instead of one polynomial.
Projection is in the same fashion: Yi
(j) = v0 v∙ i + (1-ε)(vi – (v0 v∙ i)v0) w∙ (j)
To Round the Output of the polynomial, do the following:
![Page 81: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
From Gap instances to Gap instances
InstanceSDP = cOPT = s
Dictatorship Test
Completeness = cSoundness = s
UG Hardness
Completeness = cSoundness = s
UG Gap instance for a
Strong SDP
A Gap Instance for the Strong SDP for
CSPWorst Case
Instance
![Page 82: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Backup Slides
![Page 83: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Rounding for larger domains
![Page 84: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Remarks
For every CSP and every ε > 0, there is a large enough constant R such that
• Approximation achieved is within ε of optimal for all CSPs if Unique Games Conjecture is true.
• For 2-CSPs, the approximation ratio is within ε of the integrality gap of the SDP(I).
![Page 85: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Rounding Schemes
Very different rounding schemes for every CSP.with often complex analysis.
Max Cut - Random hyperplane cutting Multiway cut - Complicated Cutting the simplex.
• Our algorithm is a generic rounding procedure.• Analysis does not compute the approximation
factor, but indirectly shows that it is equal to the integrality gap.
![Page 86: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
“Sample R independent vectors : w1, w2 ,.. wR each with i.i.d Gaussian components.For all multlinear polynomials P(y1 ,y2, .. yR) do
Compute xi = P(vi w∙ 1 , vi w∙ 2 ,.. vi w∙ R)”
Goemans-Williamson rounding uses one single random projection, this algorithm uses a constant number of random projections.
![Page 87: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
Semidefinite Programming
• Linear program over the inner products• Strongest algorithmic tool in approximation
algorithms• Used in a large number of algorithms.
Integrality gap of a SDP relaxation = Worst case ratio of Integral Optimum
SDP Optimum
![Page 88: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
More Constraints?
Most SDP algorithms use simple relaxations with few constraints.
[Arora-Rao-Vazirani] used the triangle inequalities to get sqrt(log n) approximation for sparsest cut.
Can the stronger SDPs yield better approximation ratios for problems of interest?
![Page 89: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Max Cut
10
15
3
7
11
Input : a weighted graph G
Find a cut that maximizes the number of crossing edges
![Page 90: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Max Cut SDP
Quadratic Program
Variables : x1 , x2 … xn
xi = 1 or -1
Maximize
10
15
3
7
11
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1-1
-1
Eji
jiij xxw),(
2)(4
1
Relax all the xi to be unit vectors instead of {1,-1}. All products are replaced by inner products of vectors
Semidefinite Program
Variables : v1 , v2 … vn
| vi |2 = 1
Maximize
Eji
jiij vvw),(
2||4
1
![Page 91: Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56815b28550346895dc8e6c3/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Semidefinite Program
Variables : v1 , v2 … vn
| vi |2 = 1
Maximize
Max Cut SDP
10
15
3
7
11
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1-1
-1
Eji
jiij vvw),(
2||4
1