Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byZechariah Guise Modified over 2 years ago

1
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem Robert Krauthgamer (IBM Almaden) Joint work with Uri Feige (Weizmann)

2
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 2 Max-Clique Given a graph on n vertices, find a clique (complete subgraph) of maximum size. Equivalently, find a maximum stable set (induced empty graph) Not approximable within ratio n 1- for every fixed >0, unless NP has randomized polynomial time algorithms [Hastad’96].

3
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 3 Hidden/planted clique model Suggested by [Jerrum’92], [Kucera’95]: 1. Generate a random graph G n,1/2. Every two vertices connected by edge w/ probability ½. 2. Plant a clique of size k. (kÀ2log n) Placed on k randomly chosen vertices. WHP it is a unique maximum clique. Goal: Efficiently find the maximum clique with high probability (WHP) over inputs.

4
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 4 Why is this problem interesting? A heuristic is an algorithm that need not always output an optimal solution (no worst- case guarantee). Can evaluate heuristics: Experimental performance – benchmarks Performance guarantees – families of inputs on which a heuristic performs well This talk – random and semi-random inputs. Similar in spirit to Smooth Analysis [Spielman-Teng] Average-case hardness [Levin]

5
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 5 Known results (G n,1/2 + k-clique) Motivation: No planted clique – finding maximum clique in a random graph G n,1/2 [Karp’72] k>(n log n) 1/2 Highest degree vertices[Kucera’95] k = (n 1/2 ) Spectral properties of the graph [Alon-Krivelevich- Sudakov’98] Semidefinite relaxation (semi-random inputs) [Feige-K.’99] Spectral algorithm[McSherry’01] k = n 1/2 - Open[Jerrum’92] [Feige-K.,’02]

6
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 6 Semi-random (sandwich) model 1. Generate two graphs G L µ G H Both contain the same k-clique (Inclusion is with respect to edges) 2. Adversary chooses arbitrary graph G * sandwiched in between G L µ G * µ G H. Can have less structure (e.g., highly irregular) In our case: G H = G n,1/2 + planted clique G L = empty graph + k-clique. Sandwich model suggested by [Feige-Kilian’98] motivated by [Santha-Vazirani’95, Blum-Spencer’95] semi-random models.

7
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 7 Heuristic for sandwich model Plan: Start with an algorithm for G H Then show the same algorithms works for G * Unlike the eigenvalue technique of [AKS] Additional trick (from [AKS]): May assume k ¸ cn 1/2 for a large constant c. For a small fixed c>0, “guess” O(log 1/c) vertices of the clique (by brute force) and work with (subgraph induced on) their neighbors.

8
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 8 The Lovasz theta function (G) A relaxation for stable set problem And thus also for max-clique (abusing notation). (Stable set = induced subgraph with no edges) Computable in polynomial time Up to small additive error By semidefinite programming Worst-case integrality ratio is n 1-o(1) [Feige’95] On random graph, (G n,1/2 ) ' n 1/2 [Juhasz’82]

9
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 9 Using this relaxation for hidden clique Lemma. WHP (G H ) = k. Proof idea: As a relaxation, clearly (G H ) ¸ k. Use a characterization of (G) as a minimization problem (SDP duality): ( G) = min M { 1 (M) : constraints on M } Make a careful choice of the matrix M to conclude that (G H ) · k.

10
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 10 Locating the clique Let v be a vertex of G H. G H -v is also a random graph + planted clique. Hence, WHP ( G H -v) (G H ) iff v belongs to the planted clique WHP holds for all vertices simultaneously

11
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 11 The hidden clique heuristic The algorithm: Compute S = { v2V : ( G H -v) (G H ) } Check that S forms a clique (Actually one SDP computation suffices.) Main Theorem. For k=cn 1/2 WHP The algorithm finds the planted clique And gives a certificate it is a maximum clique. Similar approach previously used for min- bisection by [Boppana’87].

12
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 12 Sandwich model Theta function is monotone with respect to addition/removal of edges. Recal that G L µ G * µ G H. Hence, k · (G L ) · (G * ) · (G H ) · k. Hence, WHP (G * ) = k. Whenever the proof works for G H it also works for G *, i.e. an adversary cannot affect the algorithm performance. WHP

13
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 13 The [Lovasz-Schrijver’91] relaxations A method for generating stronger relaxations Works for any 0-1 integer programming relaxation P Two main flavors: polyhedral N(P) and semidefinite N + (P) A Lift-and-project method: Add n 2 variables y ij (relaxed quadratic constraints x i 2 =x i ) Then project on the n original variables Can be applied iteratively N n (P) is a tight relaxation (convex hull of integral solutions) Weak optimization oracle for P implies weak optimization for N(P) and N + (P). Argument can be iterated any fixed number of times.

14
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 14 Application to stable set Start with naive relaxation for G=(V,E): FR(G): x i +x j · 1for all ij2E x i ¸ 0for all i2V Lemma [LS’91]: N + (FR) is at least as strong as the theta function. N + -rank = least k such that N + k (FR) is tight. Lemma [LS’91]: N + -rank · (G). What is the probable value of N + k (FR)? Does it lead to improved hidden clique heuristics?

15
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 15 The probable value of the [LS] relaxations Main Theorem. For random graph G n,1/2 WHP The value of N + k (FR) is roughly (n/2 k ) 1/2. And thus the N + -rank is (log n). Relaxations do not offer heuristic for k=o(n 1/2 ) They do not seem to distinguish G H from G n,1/2. Not better than “guessing” O(1) clique vertices.

16
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 16 The upper bound The [LS’91] proof that N + -rank · (G) shows: Each application of N + is at least as strong as “guessing” one vertex in the stable set. After k iterations we are left with a random graph G’ on n’ ' n/2 k vertices Hence, N + (FR) is at least as strong as theta function and its value is at most O((n’) 1/2 ).

17
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 17 The lower bound Show iteratively that a “uniform” solution (x i =1/(2 k n) 1/2 for all i) is feasible for N + k (FR) Follows by definition, given that All degrees in G’ are about their expectation n’/2 All eigenvalues of G’ are >-n 1/2 (as expected) The base case N + (FR) is similar to the theta function

18
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 18 Related Work [Stephen-Tuncel’99]: N + -rank = (G) for the line graph of the complete graph K t (a stable set is a perfect matching in K t ) [Cook-Dash’01], [Goemans-Tuncel’01]: There exists a polytope P whose N + -rank is n. (not a stable set relaxation) Question: When does N + k perform better than “guessing” k variables? The first iteration is exceptional (introduces semidefiniteness)

19
Heuristics for the Hidden Clique Problem 19 Open problems Better Heuristics? Or evidence it is impossible? Use in approximation algorithms? For vertex cover, N k (FR) has integrality ratio 2-o(1) [Arora- Bollobas-Lovasz’03] What about other problems?

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google