Query Lower Bounds for Matroids via Group Representations Nick Harvey.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Quantum Lower Bounds The Polynomial and Adversary Methods Scott Aaronson September 14, 2001 Prelim Exam Talk.
Advertisements

Xiaoming Sun Tsinghua University David Woodruff MIT
Iterative Rounding and Iterative Relaxation
Bart Jansen 1.  Problem definition  Instance: Connected graph G, positive integer k  Question: Is there a spanning tree for G with at least k leaves?
Minimum Clique Partition Problem with Constrained Weight for Interval Graphs Jianping Li Department of Mathematics Yunnan University Jointed by M.X. Chen.
Lecture 24 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck
1 LP Duality Lecture 13: Feb Min-Max Theorems In bipartite graph, Maximum matching = Minimum Vertex Cover In every graph, Maximum Flow = Minimum.
Midwestern State University Department of Computer Science Dr. Ranette Halverson CMPS 2433 – CHAPTER 4 GRAPHS 1.
C&O 355 Mathematical Programming Fall 2010 Lecture 22 N. Harvey TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A.
Multicut Lower Bounds via Network Coding Anna Blasiak Cornell University.
Lecture 17 Path Algebra Matrix multiplication of adjacency matrices of directed graphs give important information about the graphs. Manipulating these.
Chapter 3 The Greedy Method 3.
1 Network Coding: Theory and Practice Apirath Limmanee Jacobs University.
1 Discrete Structures & Algorithms Graphs and Trees: II EECE 320.
Learning Submodular Functions Nick Harvey, Waterloo C&O Joint work with Nina Balcan, Georgia Tech.
Greedy Algorithms for Matroids Andreas Klappenecker.
The Complexity of the Network Design Problem Networks, 1978 Classic Paper Reading
Totally Unimodular Matrices Lecture 11: Feb 23 Simplex Algorithm Elliposid Algorithm.
Math443/543 Mathematical Modeling and Optimization
Implicit Hitting Set Problems Richard M. Karp Harvard University August 29, 2011.
Chapter 9 Graph algorithms Lec 21 Dec 1, Sample Graph Problems Path problems. Connectedness problems. Spanning tree problems.
Deterministic Network Coding by Matrix Completion Nick Harvey David Karger Kazuo Murota.
Algebraic Structures and Algorithms for Matching and Matroid Problems Nick Harvey.
An Algebraic Algorithm for Weighted Linear Matroid Intersection
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under contract.
Randomness in Computation and Communication Part 1: Randomized algorithms Lap Chi Lau CSE CUHK.
Lecture 20: April 12 Introduction to Randomized Algorithms and the Probabilistic Method.
Phylogenetic Networks of SNPs with Constrained Recombination D. Gusfield, S. Eddhu, C. Langley.
Ramanujan Graphs of Every Degree Adam Marcus (Crisply, Yale) Daniel Spielman (Yale) Nikhil Srivastava (MSR India)
Packing Element-Disjoint Steiner Trees Mohammad R. Salavatipour Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Joint with Joseph Cheriyan Department.
Graph Operations And Representation. Sample Graph Problems Path problems. Connectedness problems. Spanning tree problems.
ⅠIntroduction to Set Theory 1. Sets and Subsets
Polyhedral Optimization Lecture 3 – Part 2
C&O 355 Mathematical Programming Fall 2010 Lecture 17 N. Harvey TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA A.
1 February 24 Matrices 3.2 Matrices; Row reduction Standard form of a set of linear equations: Chapter 3 Linear Algebra Matrix of coefficients: Augmented.
Approximating the MST Weight in Sublinear Time Bernard Chazelle (Princeton) Ronitt Rubinfeld (NEC) Luca Trevisan (U.C. Berkeley)
1 Quantum query complexity of some graph problems C. DürrUniv. Paris-Sud M. HeiligmanNational Security Agency P. HøyerUniv. of Calgary M. MhallaInstitut.
Approximating Minimum Bounded Degree Spanning Tree (MBDST) Mohit Singh and Lap Chi Lau “Approximating Minimum Bounded DegreeApproximating Minimum Bounded.
1 Introduction to Approximation Algorithms. 2 NP-completeness Do your best then.
GRAPHS CSE, POSTECH. Chapter 16 covers the following topics Graph terminology: vertex, edge, adjacent, incident, degree, cycle, path, connected component,
Topics in Algorithms 2005 Constructing Well-Connected Networks via Linear Programming and Primal Dual Algorithms Ramesh Hariharan.
Theory of Computing Lecture 13 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Greedy Algorithms and Matroids Andreas Klappenecker.
 Ⅰ Introduction to Set Theory  1. Sets and Subsets  Representation of set:  Listing elements, Set builder notion, Recursive definition  , ,  
Lower Bounds for Property Testing Luca Trevisan U.C. Berkeley.
Data Structures & Algorithms Graphs
Unit 9: Coping with NP-Completeness
Asymmetric Communication Complexity And its implications on Cell Probe Complexity Slides by Elad Verbin Based on a paper of Peter Bro Miltersen, Noam Nisan,
CS223 Advanced Data Structures and Algorithms 1 Maximum Flow Neil Tang 3/30/2010.
Speeding Up Enumeration Algorithms with Amortized Analysis Takeaki Uno (National Institute of Informatics, JAPAN)
Implicit Hitting Set Problems Richard M. Karp Erick Moreno Centeno DIMACS 20 th Anniversary.
Some Properties of Switching Games on oriented Matroids. Adrien Vieilleribière. LRI Université Paris-Sud. joint work with David Forge. LRI Université Paris-Sud.
Strings Basic data type in computational biology A string is an ordered succession of characters or symbols from a finite set called an alphabet Sequence.
GRAPHS. Graph Graph terminology: vertex, edge, adjacent, incident, degree, cycle, path, connected component, spanning tree Types of graphs: undirected,
Graph Algorithms Maximum Flow - Best algorithms [Adapted from R.Solis-Oba]
C&O 355 Lecture 19 N. Harvey TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A A A A A A A A.
Approximation Algorithms Greedy Strategies. I hear, I forget. I learn, I remember. I do, I understand! 2 Max and Min  min f is equivalent to max –f.
Sketching complexity of graph cuts Alexandr Andoni joint work with: Robi Krauthgamer, David Woodruff.
Submodularity Reading Group Matroids, Submodular Functions M. Pawan Kumar
Lap Chi Lau we will only use slides 4 to 19
Introduction to Randomized Algorithms and the Probabilistic Method
Hans Bodlaender, Marek Cygan and Stefan Kratsch
Topics in Algorithms Lap Chi Lau.
Approximating the MST Weight in Sublinear Time
Summary of lectures Introduction to Algorithm Analysis and Design (Chapter 1-3). Lecture Slides Recurrence and Master Theorem (Chapter 4). Lecture Slides.
Bart M. P. Jansen June 3rd 2016, Algorithms for Optimization Problems
Hiroshi Hirai University of Tokyo
Lecture 19-Problem Solving 4 Incremental Method
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power
Distance-preserving Subgraphs of Interval Graphs
Presentation transcript:

Query Lower Bounds for Matroids via Group Representations Nick Harvey

Matroids Definition A matroid is a pair (S, B ) where B ⊂ 2 S s.t. Example: B = { spanning trees of graph G } Sets in B are called bases Rank of matroid is |A| for any A ∈ B Exchange Property Let A and B ∈ B  a ∈ A\B,  b ∈ B\A s.t. B+a-b ∈ B

Matroids Definition A matroid is a pair (S, B ) where B ⊂ 2 S s.t. Example: B = { spanning trees of graph G } Applications –Generalize Graph Problems –Approximation Algorithms –Network Coding Exchange Property Let A and B ∈ B  a ∈ A\B,  b ∈ B\A s.t. B+a-b ∈ B b1⊕b2b1⊕b2 b1⊕b2b1⊕b2 b1⊕b2b1⊕b2 s t b1b1 b2b2

Multicast Network Coding Goal: Multicast source  sinks at maximum rate Algorithm: Can construct optimal solution in P Flow: [Jaggi et al. ’05], Matroids: [H., Karger, Murota ’05] Source Sinks a b a b ab a+b

Reversibility of Network Codes Sources Sinks a b ab a+b sasa sbsb tbtb tata G

Reversibility of Network Codes Flow: G feasible  G rev feasible Coding:  feasible G s.t. G rev not feasible [Dougherty, Zeger ’06] Sources Sinks a b ab a+b sasa sbsb tbtb tata G rev

Constructed from Fano and non-Fano matroids Reversibility of Network Codes [Dougherty, Zeger ’06]

Discrete Optimization Problems Matroid Intersection Bipartite Matching Non-Bip. Matching Network Flow Submodular Function Minimization Submodular Flow Matroid Matching Minimum Spanning Tree Matroid Greedy Algorithm Spanning Tree Packing Min-cost Arboresence Matroid Intersection Matroid Intersection Given matroids M 1 =(S, B 1 ) and M 2 =(S, B 2 ), is B 1 ⋂ B 2 = ∅ ?

n = # elements r = rank Unweighted Edmonds/Lawler ’68- ’75 O(nr 2 ) oracle Cunningham ’86O(nr 1.5 ) oracle Gabow-Xu ’89-’96O(nr 1.62 ) Harvey ’06O(nr 1.38 ) Matroid Intersection Algorithms Linear Matroids W = max weight Weighted Lawler/Edmonds ~’75O(nr 2 ) oracle Shigeno-Iwata ’95 O ( nr 1.5 log(rW) ) oracle Gabow-Xu ’89-’96 O ( nr 1.77 log(rW) ) Harvey ’07O(nr 1.38 W) Linear Matroids

n = # elements r = rank Unweighted Edmonds/Lawler ’68- ’75 O(nr 2 ) oracle Cunningham ’86O(nr 1.5 ) oracle Gabow-Xu ’89-’96O(nr 1.62 ) Harvey ’06O(nr 1.38 ) Linear Matroids Weighted Are these algorithms optimal? W = max weight Lawler/Edmonds ~’75O(nr 2 ) oracle Shigeno-Iwata ’95 O ( nr 1.5 log(rW) ) oracle Gabow-Xu ’89-’96 O ( nr 1.77 log(rW) ) Harvey ’07O(nr 1.38 W) Linear Matroids

Algorithm Computational Lower Bounds Strong lower bounds in unrestricted computational models are beyond our reach –5n - o(n) is best-known lower bound on circuit size for an explicit boolean function. [Iwama et al. ’05] –We believe 3SAT requires 2  (n) time, but best-known result is  (n). A super-linear lower bound for any natural problem in P is hopeless. Data

Query Lower Bounds Strong lower bounds can be proven in concrete computational models –Sorting in comparison model –Monotone graph properties [Rivest-Vuillemin ’76] –Volume of convex body Deterministic [Elekes ’86] Randomized [Rademacher-Vempala ’06] Our work –Matroid intersection, Submodular Function Minimization B Out In Data Black Box Algorithm Queries

Query Model for Matroids (Independence Oracle) Out In Matroid (S, B ) Algorithm “Yes” if  B ∈ B s.t. T ⊆ B “No” otherwise T⊆ST⊆S Example: if B = { spanning trees of graph G }, then query asks if T is an acyclic subgraph of G

Algorithms O(nr 2 ) queries [Lawler ’75] Matroid Intersection Complexity Are  (nr 2 ) queries necessary and sufficient to solve matroid intersection? D. J. A. Welsh, “Matroid Theory”, 1976.

Algorithms O(nr 2 ) queries [Lawler ’75] Matroid Intersection Complexity O(nr 1.5 ) queries [Cunningham ’86] Can one prove any non-trivial lower bound on # queries to solve matroid intersection? Are  (nr 2 ) queries necessary and sufficient to solve matroid intersection? D. J. A. Welsh, “Matroid Theory”, 1976.

Algorithms O(nr 2 ) queries [Lawler ’75] # queries Rank r 0nn/2 O(nr 1.5 ) queries [Cunningham ’86] Trivial LB Cunningham UB Matroid Intersection Complexity n 2n 0

Algorithms O(nr 1.5 ) queries [Cunningham ’86] # queries Rank r 0nn/2 Trivial LB Cunningham UB Via Dual Matroids Matroid Intersection Complexity n 2n 0

Algorithms O(nr 1.5 ) queries [Cunningham ’86] # queries Rank r 0nn/2 Trivial LB Cunningham UB Via Dual Matroids Optimal UB? Matroid Intersection Complexity n 2n 0

Matroid Intersection Complexity Algorithms O(nr 1.5 ) queries [Cunningham ’86] # queries Rank r 0n n 2n 0 n/2 Trivial LB Cunningham UB Via Dual Matroids Optimal UB? 1.58n New LB [Harvey ’08]

A family M of matroids, each of rank n/2 # oracle queries for any deterministic algorithm on inputs from M is:  (log 2 3) n - o(n) > 1.58n Lower Bound [Harvey ’08] Hard Instances Communication Complexity Rank Computation AliceBob M =M =

Hard Instances Bipartite Matching in Almost-2-Regular Graphs Is there a perfect matching? Four vertices have degree 1

Hard Instances Bipartite Matching in Almost-2-Regular Graphs Is there a perfect matching? No: if path from 1 to 2 Yes: otherwise Four vertices have degree 1

Alice given  ∈ S n and Bob given  ∈ S n Elements 1 and 2 are not in the same cycle Permutation  Permutation  ’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ In-Same-Cycle Problem: Are elements 1 and 2 in the same cycle of composition  -1 º  ? Permutation Formulation

LB from Rank Computation Let C be a matrix with rows and columns indexed by permutations in S n C ,  = where G = {  : 1 & 2 are in the same cycle of  } C is adjacency matrix of Cayley graph for S n with generators G 1 0 if  -1 º  ∈ G otherwise Main Result: rank C = (Moreover, it’s diagonalizable, all eigenvalues are integers, and they can be explicitly computed.) Corollary: # queries  log rank C = (log 2 3) n - o(n).

Main Proof A Tour of Algebraic Combinatorics Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n

Young Diagrams Young diagram of shape =( 1, 2,..., k ) Standard Young Tableau of shape Main Result: rank C = # of SYT with n boxes such that 3  1 Row i has i boxes 1  2  … k >0 # boxes = n = ∑ i i Place numbers {1,..,n} in boxes Rows increase → Columns increase ↓ (and some other minor conditions)

Main Proof Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n

Decomposing S n Claim:  ∈ S n   = ◦ ( n,  -1 ( n ) ), where ∈ S n-1 Example: Let ∈ S 6 be Then ◦ ( 7, 3 ) ∈ S 7 is  ˜  ˜  ˜  ˜

Decomposing S n Restatement: Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i }. Then S n = X 2 × … × X n (2,2)  = = ◦ (1,3)◦ (2,4)◦ (3,5)◦ (5,6)◦ (3,7) Claim:  ∈ S n   = ◦ ( n,  -1 ( n ) ), where ∈ S n-1  ˜  ˜

Decomposing G Let G = {  : 1 & 2 are in the same cycle } Claim: Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i }. Then G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n. 1 & 2 remain in the same cycle (1,2)  = = ◦ (1,3)◦ (4,4)◦ (2,5)◦ (5,6)◦ (3,7)

Main Proof Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n

Decomposing C Regular Representation Recall: C is defined C ,  = Definition: R(  ) is defined R(  ) ,  = Thus: C = ∑  ∈ G R(  ) 1 0 if  -1 º  ∈ G otherwise 1 0 if  -1 º  =  otherwise

Main Proof Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n C = ∑  ∈ G R(  )

Decomposing R “Fourier Transform” R()R()BR(  )B -1 Irreducible Representations Young Tableaux  change-of-basis matrix B block-diagonalizing R(  ) ′ ′′

Main Proof Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n C = ∑  ∈ G R(  )

Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1, restricted to irreducible block R()R() BR(  )B -1 Young Tableaux ′ ′′ Diagonalizing X i Jucys-Murphy Elements

Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1, restricted to irreducible block ∑∈Xi R()∑∈Xi R() ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1 Young Tableaux ′ ′′ Y (X i ) Diagonalizing X i Jucys-Murphy Elements

Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1, restricted to irreducible block Fact: Y (X i ) is diagonal (and entries known) ∑∈Xi R()∑∈Xi R() ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1 Young Tableaux ′ ′′ Y (X i )

Diagonalizing X i Jucys-Murphy Elements Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1, restricted to irreducible block Fact: Y (X i ) is diagonal (and entries known) Y (X 4 ) = Young Tableau SYT t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 t2t2 t3t3 t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 t1t1 Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1, restricted to irreducible block Fact: Y (X i ) is diagonal, and entry Y (X i ) t j,t j is c-r+1, where i is in row r and col c of t j. Content Value

Diagonalizing X i Jucys-Murphy Elements Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B, restricted to irreducible block Fact: Y (X i ) is diagonal (and entries known) Y (X 4 ) = Young Tableau SYT t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 t2t2 t3t3 t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 t1t1 Let X i = { (j,i) : 1  j  i } Let Y (X i ) = ∑  ∈ X i BR(  )B -1, restricted to irreducible block Fact: Y (X i ) is diagonal, and entry Y (X i ) t j,t j is c-r+1, where i is in row r and col c of t j. Content Value

Main Proof Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n C = ∑  ∈ G R(  )

Wrap-up Diagonalizing C Y ({ (1,2) }) ∙ Y (X 3 ) … Y (X n ) is diagonal  Y ({ (1,2) } × X 3 × … × X n ) is diagonal  Y ( G ) is diagonal  ∑  ∈ G BR(  )B -1 is diagonal  BCB -1 is diagonal (homomorphism) (Step 1) (Step 3) (Step 2) (Step 4)

Y ( G ) t j,t j  0  Y (X i ) t j,t j  0  i  3  If i  3 is in row c and col r of t j, then c-r+1  0  rank C = # SYT with 3  1 (and 2 below 1,...) Wrap-up What are eigenvalues of C? c-r Content Value Content Values SYT t j No i  3 can go here  3  1 Y ( G )=Y ({ (1,2) } × X 3 × … × X n )

Main Proof Step 0: Young Tableaux Step 1: Decomposing G Step 2: Decomposing C Step 3: Block diagonalizing R Step 4: Diagonalizing X i Wrap-up G = { (1,2) } × X 3 × X 4 … × X n C = ∑  ∈ G R(  ) QED