Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published bySolomon Alkins Modified over 2 years ago

1
On the Unique Games Conjecture Subhash Khot Georgia Inst. Of Technology. At FOCS 2005

2
NP-hard Problems Vertex Cover MAX-3SAT Bin-Packing Set Cover Clique MAX-CUT ……………..

3
Approximability : Algorithms A C-approximation algorithm computes (C > 1), for problem instance I, solution A(I) s.t. Minimization problems : A(I) C OPT(I) Maximization problems : A(I) OPT(I) / C

4
Some Known Approximation Algorithms Vertex Cover 2 - approx. MAX-3SAT 8/7 - approx. Random assignment. Packing/Scheduling (1+ ) – approx. > 0 (PTAS) Set Cover ln n approx. Clique n/log n [Boppana Halldorsson’92] Many more, ref. [Vazirani’01]

5
PCP Theorem [B’85, GMR’89, BFL’91, LFKN’92, S’92,……] [PY’91] [FGLSS’91, AS’92 ALMSS’92] Theorem : It is NP-hard to tell whether a MAX-3SAT instance is * satisfiable (i.e. OPT = 1) or * no assignment satisfies more than 99% clauses (i.e. OPT 0.99). i.e. MAX-3SAT is 1/0.99 = 1.01 hard to approximate. i.e. MAX-3SAT and MAX-SNP-complete problems [PY’91] have no PTAS.

6
Approximability : Towards Tight Hardness Results [Hastad’96] Clique n 1- [Hastad’97] MAX-3SAT 8/7 - [Feige’98] Set Cover (1- ) ln n [Dinur’05] Combinatorial Proof of PCP Theorem !

7
Open Problems in Approximability –Vertex Cover (1.36 vs. 2) [DinurSafra’02] –Coloring 3-colorable graphs (5 vs. n 3/14 ) [ KhannaLinialSafra’93, BlumKarger’97 ] –Sparsest Cut (1 vs. (logn) 1/2 ) [ AroraRaoVazirani’04 ] –Max Cut (17/16 vs 1/0.878… ) [ Håstad’97, GoemansWilliamson’94] ………………………..

8
Unique Games Conjecture [Khot’02] Implies these hardness results : Vertex Cover 2- [KR’03] Coloring 3-colorable (1) [DMR’05] graphs (variant of UGC) MAX-CUT 1/0.878.. - [KKMO’04] Sparsest Cut, Multi-cut [KV’05, (1) CKKRS’04] Min-2SAT-Deletion [K’02, CKKRS’04]

9
Unique Games Conjecture Led to … [MOO’05] Majority Is Stablest Theorem [KV’05] “Negative type” metrics do not embed into L 1 with O(1) “distortion”. Optimal “integrality gap” for MAX-CUT SDP with “Triangle Inequality”.

10
Integrality Gap : Definition Given : Maximization Problem + Specific SDP relaxation. For every problem instance G, SDP(G) OPT(G) Integrality Gap = Max G SDP(G) / OPT(G) Constructing gap instance = negative result.

11
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

12
Unique Games Conjecture A maximization problem called “Unique Game” is hard to approximate. “Gap-preserving” reductions from Unique Game Hardness results for Vertex Cover, MAX-CUT, Graph-Coloring, …..

13
Example of Unique Game OPT = max fraction of equations that can be satisfied by any assignment. x 1 + x 3 = 2 (mod k) 3 x 5 - x 2 = -1 (mod k) x 2 + 5 x 1 = 0 (mod k) UGC For large k, it is NP-hard to tell whether OPT 99% or OPT 1%

14
2-Prover-1-Round Game (Constraint Satisfaction Problem ) variables constraints

15
2-Prover-1-Round Game (Constraint Satisfaction Problem ) variables k labels Here k=4 constraints

16
2-Prover-1-Round Game (Constraint Satisfaction Problem ) variables k labels Here k=4 Constraints = Bipartite graphs or Relations [k] [k]

17
2-Prover-1-Round Game (Constraint Satisfaction Problem ) variables k labels Here k=4 OPT(G) = 7/7 Find a labeling that satisfies max # constraints

18
Hardness of Finding OPT(G) Given a 2P1R game G, how hard is it to find OPT(G) ? PCP Theorem + Raz’s Parallel Repetition Theorem : For every , there is integer k( ), s.t. it is NP-hard to tell whether a 2P1R game with k = k( ) labels has OPT = 1 or OPT In fact k = 1/poly( )

19
Reductions from 2P1R Game Almost all known hardness results (e.g. Clique, MAX-3SAT, Set Cover, SVP, …. ) are reductions from 2P1R games. Many special cases of 2P1R games are known to be hard, e.g. Multipartite graphs, Expander graphs, Smoothness property, …. What about unique games ?

20
Unique Game = 2P1R Game with Permutations variable k labels Here k=4

21
Unique Game = 2P1R Game with Permutations variable k labels Here k=4 Permutations or matchings : [k] [k]

22
OPT(G) = 6/7 Find a labeling that satisfies max # constraints Unique Game = 2P1R Game with Permutations

23
Unique Games Considered before …… [Feige Lovasz’92] Parallel Repetition of UG reduces OPT(G). How hard is approximating OPT(G) for a unique game G ? Observation : Easy to decide whether OPT(G) = 1.

24
MAX-CUT is Special Case of Unique Game Vertices : Binary variables x, y, z, w, ……. Edges : Equations x + y = 1 (mod 2) [Hastad’97] NP-hard to tell whether OPT(MAX-CUT) 17/21 or OPT(MAX-CUT) 16/21

25
Unique Games Conjecture For any , , there is integer k( , ), s.t. it is NP-hard to tell whether a Unique Game with k = k( , ) labels has OPT 1- or OPT i.e. Gap-Unique Game (1- , ) is NP-hard.

26
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

27
Case Study : MAX-CUT Given a graph, find a cut that maximizes fraction of edges cut. Random cut : 2-approximation. [GW’94] SDP-relaxation and rounding. min 0 < < 1 / (arccos (1-2 ) / ) = 1/0.878 … approximation. [KKMO’04] Assuming UGC, MAX-CUT is 1/0.878… - hard to approximate.

28
Reduction to MAX-CUT Unique Game Graph H Completeness : OPT(UG) > 1-o(1) - o(1) cut. Soundness : OPT(UG) < o(1) No cut with size arccos (1-2 ) / + o(1) Hardness factor = / (arccos (1-2 ) / ) - o(1) Choose best to get 1/0.878 … (= [GW’94])

29
Reduction from Unique Game Gadget constructed via Fourier theorem + Connecting gadgets via Unique Game instance [DMR’05] “UGC reduces the analysis of the entire construction to the analysis of the gadget”. Gadget = Basic gadget ---> Bipartite gadget ---> Bipartite gadget with permutation

30
Basic Gadget A graph on {0,1} k with specific properties (e.g. cuts, vertex covers, colorability) {0,1} k k = # labels x = 011 Y = 110

31
Basic Gadget : MAX-CUT Weighted graph, total edge weight = 1. Picking random edge : x R {0,1} k y <-- flip every co-ordinate of x with probability ( 0.8) x {0,1} k y

32
MAX-CUT Gadget : Co-ordinate Cut Along Dimension i Fraction of edges cut = Pr (x,y) [x i y i ] = Observation : These are the maximum cuts. x i = 0 x i = 1

33
Bipartite Gadget A graph on {0,1} k {0,1} k (double cover of basic gadget) x = 011 y’ = 110

34
Cuts in Bipartite Gadget {0,1} k Matching co-ordinate cuts have size =

35
Bipartite Gadget with Permutation : [k] -> [k] Co-ordinates in second hypercube permuted via . x = 011 Y ’ = 110 (y’) = 011 Example : = reversal of co-ordinates.

36
Reduction from Unique Game Variables k labels OPT 1 – o(1) or OPT o(1) Permutations : [k] [k]

37
Instance H of MAX-CUT {0,1} k Vertices Edges Bipartite Gadget via

38
Proving Completeness Unique Game Graph H (Completeness) : OPT(UG) > 1-o(1) H has - o(1) cut.

39
Completeness : OPT(UG) 1-o(1) label = 2 label = 1 label = 3 label = 1 label = 3 label = 2 Labels = [1,2,3]

40
Completeness : OPT(UG) 1-o(1) {0,1} k Vertices Edges Hypercubes are cut along dimensions = labels. MAX-CUT - o(1)

41
Proving Soundness Unique Game Graph H (Soundness) : OPT(UG) < o(1) H has no cut of size arccos (1-2 ) / + o(1)

42
MAX-CUT Gadget Cuts = Boolean functions f : {0,1} k {0,1} Compare boolean functions * that depend only on single co-ordinate vs * where every co-ordinate has negligible “influence” (i.e. “non-junta” functions) {0,1} k x y f(x 1 x 2 …….. x k ) = x i f(x 1 x 2 …….. x k ) = MAJORITY Influence (i, f) = Pr x [ f(x) f(x+e i ) ]

43
Gadget : “Non-junta” Cuts How large can non-junta cuts be ? i.e. cuts with all influences negligible ? Random Cut : ½ Majority Cut : arccos (1-2 ) / > ½ [MOO’05] Majority Is Stablest (Best) Any cut slightly better than Majority Cut must have “influential” co-ordinate.

44
Non-junta Cuts in Bipartite Gadget [MOO’05] Any “special” cut with value arccos (1-2 ) / + must define a matching pair of influential co-ordinates. {0,1} k

45
Non-junta Cuts in Bipartite Gadget {0,1} k f : {0,1} k --> {0, 1} g : {0,1} k --> {0, 1} i Infl (i, f), Infl (i, g) > (1) cut > arccos (1-2 ) / +

46
Instance H of MAX-CUT {0,1} k Vertices Edges Bipartite Gadget via

47
Proving Soundness Assume arccos (1-2 ) / + cut exists. On /2 fraction of constraints, the bipartite gadget has arccos (1-2 ) / + /2 cut. matching pair of labels on this constraint. This is impossible since OPT(UG) = o(1). Done !

48
Other Hardness Results Vertex Cover Friedgut’s Theorem Every boolean function with low “average sensitivity” is a junta. Sparsest Cut, Min-2SAT Deletion KahnKalaiLinial Every balanced boolean function has a co-ordinate with influence log n/n. Bourgain’s Theorem (inspired by Hastad-Sudan’s 2-bit Long Code test) Every boolean function with low “noise sensitivity” is a junta. Coloring 3-Colorable [MOO’05] inspired. Graphs

49
Basic Paradigm by [BGS’95, Hastad’97] Hardness results for Clique, MAX-3SAT, ……. Instead of Unique Games, use reduction from general 2P1R Games (PCP Theorem + Raz). Hypercube = Bits in the Long Code [Bellare Goldreich Sudan’95] PCPs with 3 or more queries (testing Long Code). Not enough to construct 2-query PCPs.

50
Why UGC and not 2P1R Games? Power in simplicity. “Obvious” way of encoding a permutation constraint. Basic Gadget ----> Bipartite Gadget with permutation.

51
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

52
I Hope UGC is True Implies all the “right” hardness results in a unifying way. Neat applications of Fourier theorems [Bourgain’02, KKL’88, Friedgut’98, MOO’05] Surprising application to theory of metric embeddings and SDP-relaxations [KV’05]. Mere coincidence ?

53
Supporting Evidence [Feige Reichman’04] Gap-Unique Game (C , ) is NP-hard. i.e. For every constant C, there is s.t. it is NP-hard to tell if a UG has OPT > C or OPT < . However C --> 0 as --> 0.

54
Supporting Evidence [Khot Vishnoi’05] SDP relaxation for Unique Game has integrality gap (1- , ).

55
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

56
Disproving UGC means.. For small enough (constant) , given a UG with optimum 1- , algorithm that finds a labeling satisfying (say) 50% constraints.

57
Algorithmic Results Algorithm that finds a labeling satisfying f( , k, n) fraction of constraints. [Khot’02] 1- 1/5 k 2 [Trevisan’05] 1- 1/3 log 1/3 n [Gupta Talwar’05] 1- log n [CMM’05] 1/k , 1- 1/2 log 1/2 k None of these disproves UGC.

58
Quadratic Integer Program For Unique Game [Feige Lovasz’92] variable k labels : [k] [k] u 1, u 2, …, u k {0,1} v 1, v 2, …, v k {0,1} u v v i = 1 if Label(v) = i = 0 otherwise

59
Quadratic Program for Unique Games Constraints on edge-set E. Maximize u i v π(i) (u, v) E i=1,2,..,k u i [k], u i {0,1} u u i 2 = 1 i u i ≠ j, u i u j = 0

60
SDP Relaxation for Unique Games Maximize u i, v π(i) (u, v) E i=1,2,..,k u i [k], u i is a vector. u || u i || 2 = 1 i=1,2,..,k u i≠j [k], u i, u j = 0

61
[Feige Lovasz’92] OPT(G) SDP(G) 1. If OPT(G) < 1, then SDP(G) < 1. SDP(G m ) = (SDP(G)) m Parallel Repetition Theorem for UG : OPT(G) < 1 OPT(G m ) 0

62
[Khot’02] Rounding Algorithm u1u1 ukuk u2u2 vkvk v2v2 v1v1 r r Label(u) = 2, Label(v) = 2 Pr [ Label(u) = Label(v) ] > 1 - 1/5 k 2 Labeling satisfies 1 - 1/5 k 2 fraction of constraints in expected sense. Random r u v

63
[CMM’05] Algorithm Labeling that satisfies 1/k fraction of constraints. ( Optimal [KV’05]) vkvk v2v2 v1v1 r u1u1 ukuk u2u2 r All i s.t. u i is “close” to r are taken as candidate labels to u. Pick one of them at random.

64
[Trevisan’05] Algorithm Given a unique game with optimum 1- 1/log n, algorithm finds a labeling that satisfies 50% of constraints. Limit on hardness factors achievable via UGC (e.g. loglog n for Sparsest Cut).

65
[Trevisan’05] Algorithm [Leighton Rao’88] Delete a few constraints and remaining graph has connected components of low diameter. Variables and constraints

66
[Trevisan’05] Algorithm A good algorithm for graphs with low diameter.

67
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

68
Already Covered Let’s move on ….

69
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

70
[KV’05] Integrality Gaps for SDP-relaxations MAX-CUT Sparsest Cut Unique Game Gaps hold for SDPs with “Triangle Inequality”.

71
Integer Program for MAX-CUT Given G(V,E) Maximize ¼ |v i - v j | 2 (i, j) E i, v i {-1,1} Triangle Inequality (Optional) : i, j, k, |v i - v j | 2 + |v j - v k | 2 |v i - v k | 2

72
Goemans-Williamson’s SDP Relaxation for MAX-CUT Maximize ¼ || v i - v j || 2 (i, j) E i, v i R n, || v i || = 1 Triangle Inequality (Optional) : i, j, k, || v i - v j || 2 + || v j - v k || 2 || v i - v k || 2

73
Integrality Gap for MAX-CUT [Goemans Williamson’94] Integrality gap 1/0.878.. [Karloff’99] [Feige Schetchman ’01] Integrality gap 1/0.878.. - SDP solution does not satisfy Triangle Inequality. Does Triangle Inequality make the SDP tighter ? NO if Unique Games Conj. is true !

74
Integrality Gap for Unique Games SDP Unique Game G with OPT(G) = o(1) SDP(G) = 1-o(1) Orthonormal Bases for R k u 1, u 2, …, u k v 1, v 2, …, v k variables k labels Matchings [k] [k] u v

75
Integrality Gap for MAX-CUT with Triangle Inequality {-1,1} k u 1, u 2, …, u k u 1 u 2 u 3 ……… u k-1 u k PCP Reduction OPT(G) = o(1) No large cut Good SDP solution

76
Overview of the talk The UGC Hardness of Approximation Results I hope UGC is true Attempts to Disprove : Algorithms Connections/applications : Fourier Analysis Integrality Gaps Metric Embeddings

77
Metrics and Embeddings Metric is a distance function on [n] such that d(i, j) + d(j, k) d(i, k). Metric d embeds into metric with distortion 1 if i, j d(i, j) (i, j) d(i, j).

78
Negative Type Metrics Given a set of vectors satisfying Triangle Inequality : i, j, k, || v i - v j || 2 + || v j - v k || 2 || v i - v k || 2 d(i, j) = || v i - v j || 2 defines a metric. These are called “negative type metrics”. L 1 NEG METRICS

79
NEG vs L 1 Question [Goemans, Linial’ 95] Conjecture : NEG metrics embed into L 1 with O(1) distortion. Sparsest Cut O(1) Integrality Gap O(1) Approximation [Linial London Rabinovich’94] [Aumann Rabani’98] Unique Games Conjecture [Chawla Krauthgamer Kumar Rabani Sivakumar ’05] [KV’05] (1) hardness result

80
NEG vs L 1 Lower Bound ( loglog n) integrality gap for Sparsest Cut SDP. [KhotVishnoi’05, KrauthgamerRabani’05] A negative type metric that needs distortion ( loglog n) to embed into L 1.

81
Open Problems (Dis)Prove Unique Games Conjecture. Prove hardness results bypassing UGC. NEG vs L 1, Close the gap. (log log n) vs ( log n loglog n) [Arora Lee Naor’04]

82
Open Problems Prove hardness of Min-Deletion version of Unique Games. (log n approx. [GT’05]) Integrality gaps with “k-gonal” inequalities. Is hypercube (Long Code) necessary ?

83
Open Problems More hardness results, integrality gaps, embedding lower bounds, Fourier Analysis, …… [Samorodnitsky Trevisan’05] “Gowers Uniformity, Influence of Variables, and PCPs”. UGC Boolean k-CSP is hard to approximate within 2 k- log k Independent Set on degree D graphs is hard to approximate within D/poly(log D).

84
Open Problems in Approximability Traveling Salesperson Steiner Tree Max Acyclic Subgraph, Feedback Arc Set Bin-packing (additive approximation) …………………… Recent progress on Edge Disjoint Paths Network Congestion Shortest Vector Problem Asymmetric k-center (log * n) Group Steiner Tree (log 2 n) Hypergraph Vertex Cover ………………

85
Linear Unique Games System of linear equations mod k. x 1 + x 3 = 2 3 x 5 - x 2 = -1 x 2 + 5 x 1 = 0 [KKMO’04] UGC UGC in the special case of linear equations mod k.

86
Variations of Conjecture 2-to-1 Conjecture [K’02] -Conjecture [DMR’05] NP-hard to color 3-colorable graphs with O(1) colors. [k] [k]

Similar presentations

OK

Prasad Raghavendra University of Washington Seattle Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?

Prasad Raghavendra University of Washington Seattle Optimal Algorithms and Inapproximability Results for Every CSP?

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Well made play ppt on website Ppt on addition and subtraction of like fractions Ppt on wind power in india Ppt on council of ministers iran Ppt on bio and non biodegradable waste Ppt on historical site in need of conservation in india Ppt on lateral thinking Ppt online open school Ppt on nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fixation meaning Burn ppt on dvd