Upload
maurice-patt
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Hardness of Approximating
Multicut
S. Chawla, R. Krauthgamer, R. Kumar, Y. Rabani, D. Sivakumar
(2005)
Presented by Adin Rosenberg
Multicut
Input: An undirected graph G=(V,E), where |V|=n k pairs of vertices {si,ti}i=1,…,k, called demand pairs Optional: a cost function c on E
Goal: A multicut: a subset of edges M, whose removal
disconnects all of the demand pairs. Of course, minimize c(M) (or |M| if c isn’t defined)
Multicut – an example
What are we going to prove?
Assuming the Unique Games conjecture is true, Multicut is NP-hard to approximate within any constant factor L
How are we going to prove this?
We will show a reduction from a UG instance to a Multicut instance.
Unique Games
Input: A bipartite graph G=(Q,EQ) Each side p=1,2 contains n=|Q|/2 vertices (or questions)
labeled q1p, q2
p, …, qnp
Each edge (qi1,qj
2) (called a question edge) is associated with a bijection bij:[d]→[d]
Each edge (qi1,qj
2) has a nonnegative (normalized) weight wij
Unique Games (cont.)
A solution is an answer 1≤Aip≤d for each question
qip
A solution satisfies an edge (qi1,qj
2) if the answers Ai
1 and Aj2 agree, i.e. Aj
2=bij(Ai1)
Goal: Find a solution with maximum value (total weight of
satisfied edges)
Unique Games Conjecture [Khot 2002]
For every η,δ>0 there exists d=d(η,δ) such that it is NP-hard to determine whether a unique 2-prover game with answer set of size d has a value of: at least (1- η), or at most δ
A Little About Hypercubes
A d-dimensional hypercube is a graph G=(V,E) where V={0,1}d and there is an edge between two vertices if they differ in exactly one coordinate.
An edge (u,v) is called a dimension-a edge if u and v differ in coordinate a.
A dimension-a cut is the set of dimension-a edges.
The antipodal of a vertex u is the vertex which differs from u in every coordinate.
A Little About Hypercubes
(0,0,0) (1,0,0)
(0,1,0) (1,1,0)
(0,0,1) (1,0,1)
(0,1,1) (1,1,1)
Dimension-1 edges
The Reduction from Unique Games to Multicut
For every vertex qip construct a d-dimensional
hypercube Cip. Let the edges of these 2n cubes
(called hypercube edges) have cost 1. For each question edge (qi
1,qj2) extend bij to a
bijection b’ij:{0,1}d→{0,1}d defined by
Connect each vertex with using and edge (called a cross edge) with cost wijΛ, where Λ=n/η.
Define the demand pairs to be the antipodal pairs.
),...,,()(')()2()1( 111 dbbbij
ijijijuuub u
1iCu 2)(' jij Cub
The Reduction from Unique Games to Multicut
w11
w23
w11Λ
w23Λ
1 1
11
The Yes Instance
Claim: If there is a solution A for the unique 2-prover game with value of at least 1-η, then there exists a multicut M for the Multicut instance such that c(M) ≤ 2d+1n
Proof: Construct the following multicut M: For every answer Ai
p take the dimension- Aip cut in
cube Cip.
For every edge (qi1,qj
2) that the solution A doesn’t satisfy, take all the cross edges between Ci
1 and Cj
2.
The Yes Instance (cont.)
Removing M disconnects all the demand pairs: For every vertex v in Ci
p, define f(v) to be the Aip-th
coordinate of v. For every edge (u,v) left, f(u)≠f(v)
The cost of M is at most 2d+1n: Let S be the set of question edges not satisfied by the
solution A. nnwnMc dndd
Sqqij
dd
ji
1
),(
1 222222)(21
A Little More About Hypercubes
For a function f on the vertices of a hypercube, define Ia
f to be the fraction of dimension-a edges (u,v) for which f(u) ≠ f(v).
For a cutset M in a hypercube, define IaM to
be the fraction of dimension-a edges that belong to M.
Observe that |M| = 2d-1ΣaIaM
And now some lemmas…
Lemma 1
Let M be a cutset in a hypercube, and let g be the function labeling each vertex with the index of the connected component it belongs to. Then Ia
M≥Iag.
Proof: M contains every edge (u,v) for which g(u) ≠ g(v)
Lemma 2
Let M be a cutset in a hypercube H. Suppose M disconnects at least a β fraction
of the antipodal pairs in H. Then for every x>0, if ΣaIa
M ≤ βx then there exists a dimension a* such that Ia*
M ≥ 2-6x/27
Lemma 3
Let f,g be two function on the vertices of a hypercube.
If f(v) = g(v) for all but a β fraction of the vertices v, then for every dimension a we have |Ia
f – Iag| ≤ 2β.
The No Instance
Claim: There exists a constant c such that if the Multicut instance has a cutset of cost at most 2dnL (where L=c(log(1/(η+δ))) ) whose removal disconnects α≥7/8 fraction of the demand pairs, then there exists a solution for the unique 2-prover game whose value is larger than δ.
The No Instance (cont.)
Proof: Let M we such a cutset for the Multicut instance. Let Ia
p,i be the influence of M for each cube Cip.
Construct a randomized solution A for the unique 2-prover game instance.
For each vertex qip, we choose Ai
p to be the answer a with probability Ia
p,i / Σa Iap,i.
The expected value of A is at least δ, and therefore there exist a solution with such a value.
The No Instance (cont.)
Bound the probability of the following “bad” events (for a choice of the question edge (qi
1,qj2) ):
E1 – fewer than half the demand pairs in Ci1 are
disconnected in G \ M E2 – M contains more than 2d+2L hypercube edges in Ci
1.
E3 – M contains more than 2d+2L hypercube edges in Cj2.
E4 – M contains more than 2d / 296L+7 cross edges between Ci
1 and Cj2.
All “bad” events do not occur with probability of at least 1/8.
The No Instance (cont.)
Assuming none of the “bad” events occur: There exists a dimension a* s.t. Ia*
1,I ≥ 2-96L/27 (according to Lemma 2)
Ibij(a*)2,j ≥ Ia*
1,i – 2-96L-6 ≥ 2-96L/54 (Lemma 3)
The expected value of A is
)2(8
1
*)](*,Pr[)](Pr[
962,2
,2*)(
,1
,1*
2112
L
a
ja
jab
a
ia
ia
ijjiiijj
LI
I
I
I
abAaAAbA
ij
ji
Liijjij LAbAw
,
96212 )2()](Pr[
What have we seen?
If the unique game has a value greater than 1-η, then the Multicut instance has a cutset M which disconnects all of the demand pairs with cost c(M) ≤ 2d+1n
If the unique game has a value less than δ, then the disconnected 7/8 of the demand pairs in the Multicut instance costs (at least) 2dLn
Therefore, the Unique Games Conjecture implies that it is NP-hard to approximate Multicut within a factor of any L>0.
Proof of Lemma 2
ΣaIaM ≤ βx means Ia*
M ≥ 2-6x/27 for some a* Proof:
Convert M to a two-sided cut M’ Define a Boolean function f according to the
connected components of M’ Use KKL’s lemma: ΣaIa
f/α + Σa(Iaf)4/3 ≥ 2p*logα/α
(where f is a Boolean function on a hypercube and p ≤ ½ is the balance of f)
Proof of Lemma 3
If f(v) = g(v) for all but a β fraction of the vertices v, then for every dimension a we have |Ia
f – Iag| ≤ 2β.
Proof: For all but at most β2d of the edges, we have
f(u)=g(u) and f(v)=g(v). Therefore, only a β2d/2d-1=2β fraction of edges
can contribute to the difference between Iaf and
Iag.
Credits to…
The authors of the paper for giving me what to talk about.
Kahn, Kalai and Linial for saving us the Fourier analysis.
Sarai for taking care of the lights. And of course, thank you all for listening…