Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byJagger Kimberley Modified over 2 years ago

1
1/26 Constructive Algorithms for Discrepancy Minimization Nikhil Bansal (IBM)

2
2/26 Combinatorial Discrepancy Universe: U= [1,…,n] Subsets: S 1,S 2,…,S m Color elements red/blue so each set is colored as evenly as possible. S1S1 S2S2 S3S3 S4S4

3
3/26 Applications CS: Computational Geometry, Comb. Optimization, Monte-Carlo simulation, Machine learning, Complexity, Pseudo-Randomness, … Math: Dynamical Systems, Combinatorics, Mathematical Finance, Number Theory, Ramsey Theory, Algebra, Measure Theory, …

4
4/26 General Set System Universe: U= [1,…,n] Subsets: S 1,S 2,…,S m Find : [n] ! {-1,+1} to Minimize | (S)| 1 = max S | i 2 S (i) | For simplicity consider m=n henceforth.

5
5/26 Best Known Algorithm Random: Color each element i independently as x(i) = +1 or -1 with probability ½ each. Thm: Discrepancy = O (n log n) 1/2 Pf: For each set, expect O(n 1/2 ) discrepancy Standard tail bounds: Pr[ | i 2 S x(i) | ¸ c n 1/2 ] ¼ e -c 2 Union bound + Choose c ¼ (log n) 1/2 Analysis tight: Random actually incurs (n log n) 1/2 ).

6
6/26 Better Colorings Exist! [Spencer 85]: (Six standard deviations suffice) Always exists coloring with discrepancy · 6n 1/2 (In general for arbitrary m, discrepancy = O(n 1/2 log(m/n) 1/2 ) Tight: For m=n, cannot beat 0.5 n 1/2 (Hadamard Matrix, “orthogonal” sets) Inherently non-constructive proof (pigeonhole principle on exponentially large universe) Challenge: Can we find it algorithmically ? Certain algorithms do not work [Spencer] Conjecture [Alon-Spencer]: May not be possible.

7
7/26 Approximating Discrepancy Question: If a set system has low discrepancy (say << n 1/2 ) Can we find a good discrepancy coloring ? [Charikar, Newman, Nikolov 11]: Even 0 vs. O (n 1/2 ) is NP-Hard (Matousek): What if system has low Hereditary discrepancy? herdisc (U,S) = max U’ ½ U disc (U’, S |U’ ) Robust measure of discrepancy Widely used: TU set systems, Geometry, … S1S2…S1S2… S’ 1 S’ 2 … 1 2 … n1’ 2’ … n’

8
8/26 Our Results Thm 1: Can get Spencer’s bound constructively. That is, O(n 1/2 ) discrepancy for m=n sets. Thm 2: For any set system, can find Discrepancy · O(log (mn)) Hereditary discrepancy. General Technique: Constructive bounds for geometric problems, Beck Fiala setting, k-permutation problem, …

9
9/26 Relaxations: LPs and SDPs Not clear how to use. Linear Program is useless. Can color each element ½ red and ½ blue. Discrepancy of each set = 0! SDPs (vector coloring) | i 2 S v i | 2 · n 8 S |v i | 2 = 1 Intended solution v i = (+1,0,…,0) or (-1,0,…,0). Trivially feasible: v i = e i (all v i ’s orthogonal) Yet, SDPs will be the major tool.

10
10/26 Key Point The SDP gap example does not work if discrepancy << n 1/2 As we will see, SDPs are very useful in that regime. But seems useless for Spencer’s problem Idea: “Tighter” bounds for some sets. | i 2 S v i | 2 · 2 n | i 2 S’ v i | 2 · n/log n |v i | 2 = 1 Why can one do this: Entropy Method. Tighter bound for S’

11
11/26 Talk Outline Introduction The Method Low Hereditary discrepancy -> Good coloring Additional Ideas Spencer’s O(n 1/2 ) bound

12
12/26 Algorithm (at high level) Cube: {-1,+1} n Analysis: Few steps to reach a vertex (walk has high variance) Disc( S i ) does a random walk (with low variance) start finish Algorithm: “Sticky” random walk Each step generated by rounding a suitable SDP Move in various dimensions correlated, e.g. t 1 + t 2 ¼ 0 Each dimension: An Element Each vertex: A Coloring

13
13/26 An SDP Hereditary disc. ) the following SDP is feasible SDP: Low discrepancy: | i 2 S j v i | 2 · 2 |v i | 2 = 1 Rounding: Pick random Gaussian g = (g 1,g 2,…,g n ) each coordinate g i is iid N(0,1) For each i, consider i = g ¢ v i Obtain v i 2 R n

14
14/26 Properties of Rounding Lemma: If g 2 R n is random Gaussian. For any v 2 R n, g ¢ v is distributed as N(0, |v| 2 ) Pf: N(0,a 2 ) + N(0,b 2 ) = N(0,a 2 +b 2 ) g ¢ v = i v(i) g i » N(0, i v(i) 2 ) 1.Each i » N(0, ) 2.For each set S, i 2 S i = g ¢ ( i 2 S v i ) » N(0, · 2 ) (std deviation · ) SDP: |v i | 2 = 1 | i 2 S v i | 2 · 2 Recall: i = g ¢ v i ’s mimics a low discrepancy coloring (but is not {-1,+1})

15
15/26 Algorithm Overview Construct coloring iteratively. Initially: Start with coloring x 0 = (0,0,0, …,0) at t = 0. At Time t: Update coloring as x t = x t-1 + ( t 1,…, t n ) ( tiny: 1/n suffices) x(i) x t (i) = ( 1 i + 2 i + … + t i ) Color of element i: Does random walk over time with step size ¼ Fixed if reaches -1 or +1. time +1 Set S: x t (S) = i 2 S x t (i) does a random walk w/ step N(0, · 2 )

16
16/26 Analysis Consider time T = O(1/ 2 ) Claim 1: With prob. ½, at least n/2 elements reach -1 or +1. Pf: Each element doing random walk with size ¼ Recall: Random walk with step 1, is ¼ O(t 1/2 ) away in t steps. A Trouble: Walks for various elements are correlated Consider basic walk x(t+1) = x(t) 1 with prob ½ Define Energy (t) = x(t) 2 if never reached n 1/2 = (t-1) + 1 otherwise E[ (t)] = ½ (x(t-1)+1) 2 + ½ (x(t-1)-1) 2 = x(t-1) 2 + 1 = (t-1)+1 So, E[ (10 n) ] = 10 n. Moreover, (10 n) · 11 n So only a small fraction of walks can have < n.

17
17/26 Analysis Consider time T = O(1/ 2 ) Claim 2: Each set has O( ) discrepancy in expectation. Pf: For each S, x t (S) doing random walk with step size ¼ Define a round as T = O(1/ 2 ) time steps. Claim 1: ) Everything colored in O(log n) rounds. Claim 2: ) Expected discrepancy of a set at end = O( log n) + By Chernoff Bounds, discrepancy = O( log mn) whp over all sets.

18
18/26 Recap At each step of walk, formulate SDP on unfixed variables. Use some (existential) property to argue SDP is feasible Rounding SDP solution -> Step of walk Properties of walk: High Variance -> Quick convergence Low variance for discrepancy on sets -> Low discrepancy

19
19/26 Refinements Spencer’s six std deviations result: Goal: Obtain O(n 1/2 ) discrepancy for any set system on m = O(n) sets. Random coloring has n 1/2 (log n) 1/2 discrepancy Previous approach seems useless: Expected discrepancy for a set O(n 1/2 ), but some random walks will deviate by up to (log n) 1/2 factor Need an additional idea to prevent this.

20
20/26 Spencer’s O(n 1/2 ) result Partial Coloring Lemma: For any system with m sets, there exists a coloring on ¸ n/2 elements with discrepancy O(n 1/2 log 1/2 (2m/n)) [For m=n, disc = O(n 1/2 )] Algorithm for total coloring: Repeatedly apply partial coloring lemma Total discrepancy O( n 1/2 log 1/2 2 ) [Phase 1] + O( (n/2) 1/2 log 1/2 4 ) [Phase 2] + O((n/4) 1/2 log 1/2 8 ) [Phase 3] + … = O(n 1/2 )

21
21/26 Proving Partial Coloring Lemma Beautiful Counting argument (entropy method + pigeonhole) Idea: Too many colorings (2 n ), but few “discrepancy profiles” Key Lemma: There exist k=2 4n/5 colorings X 1,…,X k such that every two X i, X j are “similar” for every set S 1,…,S n. Some X 1,X 2 differ on ¸ n/2 positions Consider X = (X 1 – X 2 )/2 Pf: X(S) = (X 1 (S) – X 2 (S))/2 2 [-10 n 1/2, 10 n 1/2 ] X 1 = ( 1,-1, 1, …,1,-1,-1) X 2 = (-1,-1,-1, …,1, 1, 1) X = ( 1, 0, 1, …,0,-1,-1)

22
22/26 A useful generalization There exists a partial coloring with non-uniform discrepancy bounds S for set S Provided S = ( n 1/2 ) in some average sense

23
23/26 An SDP Suppose there exists partial coloring X: 1. On ¸ n/2 elements 2. Each set S has |X(S)| · S SDP: Low discrepancy: | i 2 S j v i | 2 · S 2 Many colors: i |v i | 2 ¸ n/2 |v i | 2 · 1 Pick random Gaussian g = (g 1,g 2,…,g n ) each coordinate g i is iid N(0,1) For each i, consider i = g ¢ v i Obtain v i 2 R n

24
24/26 Algorithm Initially write SDP with S = c n 1/2 Each set S does random walk and expects to reach discrepancy of O( S ) = O(n 1/2 ) Some sets will become problematic. Reduce their S on the fly. Not many problematic sets, and entropy penalty low. 0 20n 1/2 30n 1/2 35n 1/2 … Danger 1 Danger 2 Danger 3 …

25
25/26 Concluding Remarks Probable right answer: O( (log m) 1/2 ) for her. Disc. Can be derandomized [Bansal-Spencer] (add new constraints to SDP) Gives derandomization for prob. inequalities stronger than Chernoff bounds. (Exponential moment technique for derandomizing Chernoff loses (log n) 1/2 ) Other non-constructive problems: Lattices (Minkowski Thm) Fixed-Point Based (Nash, Sperner’s Lemma) Topological (Hypergraph matching), … Discrepancy problems: Beck Fiala Conjecture (more generally Komlos conjecture) Erdos Discrepancy problem 3-permutation conjecture, …

26
26/26 Thank You!

Similar presentations

OK

6.896: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 11 Constantinos Daskalakis.

6.896: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 11 Constantinos Daskalakis.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on conservation of wildlife and natural vegetation cell Ppt on video library management system Ppt on memory in computer Civil engineering ppt on environmental Ppt on stress management for students Ppt on airbag working principle of generator Ppt on railway track geometry Ppt on latest technology in ece Ppt on life in prehistoric times Ppt on food corporation of india