1 / 18

On the hardness of approximating Sparsest-Cut and Multicut

On the hardness of approximating Sparsest-Cut and Multicut. Shuchi Chawla, Robert Krauthgamer, Ravi Kumar, Yuval Rabani, D. Sivakumar. Multicut. s 3. s 1. s 2. t 4. s 4. Goal: separate each s i from t i removing the fewest edges. t 2. t 3. t 1. Cost = 7. Sparsest Cut. s 3.

lotta
Télécharger la présentation

On the hardness of approximating Sparsest-Cut and Multicut

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the hardness of approximating Sparsest-Cut and Multicut Shuchi Chawla, Robert Krauthgamer, Ravi Kumar, Yuval Rabani, D. Sivakumar

  2. Multicut s3 s1 s2 t4 s4 Goal: separate each si from ti removing the fewest edges t2 t3 t1 Cost = 7 Shuchi Chawla

  3. Sparsest Cut s3 s1 For a set S, “demand” D(S) = no. of pairs separated “capacity” C(S) = no. of edges separated s2 t4 s4 Sparsity = C(S)/D(S) t2 Goal: find a cut that minimizes sparsity t3 t1 Sparsity = 1/1 = 1 Shuchi Chawla

  4. Approximating Multicut & Sparsest Cut Multicut O(log n) approx via LPs [GVY’96] APX-hard [DJPSY’94] Integrality gap of O(log n) for LP & SDP [ACMM’05] Sparsest Cut O(log n) for “uniform” demands [LR’88] O(log n) via LPs [LLR’95, AR’98] O(log n) for uniform demands via SDP [ARV’04] O(log3/4n)[CGR’05], O(log n log log n)[ALN’05] Nothing known! Shuchi Chawla

  5. Our results • Use Khot’s Unique Games Conjecture (UGC) • A certain label cover problem is NP-hard to approximate The following holds for Multicut, Sparsest Cut and Min-2CNF Deletion : • UGC  L-hardness for any constant L > 0 • Stronger UGC W(log log n)-hardness Shuchi Chawla

  6. ( , , , ) A label-cover game Given: A bipartite graph Set of labels for each vertex Relation on labels for edges To find: A label for each vertex Maximize no. of edges satisfied Value of game = fraction of edges satisfied by best solution “Is value = or value <  ?” is NP-hard Shuchi Chawla

  7. ( , , , ) Unique Games Conjecture Given: A bipartite graph Set of labels for each vertex Bijection on labels for edges To find: A label for each vertex Maximize no. of edges satisfied Value of game = fraction of edges satisfied by best solution UGC: “Is value >  or value <  ?” is NP-hard [Khot’02] Shuchi Chawla

  8. The power of UGC • Implies the following hardness results • Vertex-Cover 2  [KR’03] • Max-cut GW = 0.878 [KKMO’04] • Min 2-CNF Deletion • Max-k-cut • 2-Lin-mod-2 . . . UGC: “Is value >  or value <  ?” is NP-hard [Khot’02] Shuchi Chawla

  9. Conjecture is plausible Conjecture is true (1) 1- (1) conjectured NP-hard [Khot 02] 1/k 1-k-0.1 solvable [Khot 02] L()  known NP-hard [FR 04] 1- 1/3 1- (/log n) solvable [Trevisan 05] The plausibility of UGC k : # labels   n : # nodes 1 0 Strongest plausible version: 1/, 1/ < min ( k , log n ) Shuchi Chawla

  10. Our results • Use Khot’s Unique Games Conjecture (UGC) • A certain label cover problem is hard to approximate The following holds for Multicut, Sparsest Cut and Min-2CNF Deletion : • UGC  W( log 1/(d+) )-hardness  L-hardness for any constant L > 0 • Stronger UGC W( log log n )-hardness ( k  log n, ,  1/log n ) Shuchi Chawla

  11. The key gadget • Cheapest cut – a “dimension cut” cost = 2d-1 • Most expensive cut – “diagonal cut” cost = O(d 2d) • Cheap cuts lean heavily on few dimensions [KKL88]: Suppose: size of cut < x 2d-1 Then,  a dimension h such that: fraction of edges cut along h > 2-W(x) Shuchi Chawla

  12. ( , , ) Relating cuts to labels Shuchi Chawla

  13. Good Multicut  good labeling Suppose that “cross-edges” cannot be cut Each cube must have exactly the same cut! cut < log (1/) 2d-1 per cube  -fraction of edges can be satisfied Conversely, a “NO”-instance of UG  cut > log (1/) 2d-1 per cube Picking labels for a vertex: # edges cut in dimension h total # edges cut in cube * * Prob[ label1 = h1 & label2 =h2 ] > * * Prob[ label = h ] = 2-2x x2 2-x x > [ If cut < x 2d-1 ] >  for x = O(log 1/) Shuchi Chawla

  14. Good labeling  good Multicut Constructing a good cut given a label assignment: For every cube, pick the dimension corresponding to the label of the vertex a “YES”-instance of UG  cut < 2d per cube What about unsatisfied edges? Remove the corresponding cross-edges Cost of cross-edges = n/m no. of nodes no. of edges in UG Total cost  2d-1 n + m2d-1 n/m  O(2d n) = O(2d) per cube Shuchi Chawla

  15. Revisiting the “NO” instance • Cheapest multicut may cut cross-edges • Cannot cut too many cross-edges on average For most cube-pairs, few edges cut  Cuts on either side are similar, if not the same • Same analysis as before follows Shuchi Chawla

  16. A recap… “NO”-instance of UG  cut > log 1/(+) 2d-1 per cube “YES”-instance of UG  cut < 2d per cube UGC: NP-hard to distinguish between “YES” and “NO” instances of UG NP-hard to distinguish between whether cut < 2dn or cut > log 1/(+) 2d-1 n W( log 1/(+) )-hardness for Multicut   Shuchi Chawla

  17. A related result… [Khot Vishnoi 05] • Independently obtain ( min (1/, log 1/)1/6 ) hardness based on the same assumption • Use this to develop an “integrality-gap” instance for the Sparsest Cut SDP • A graph with low SDP value and high actual value • Implies that we cannot obtain a better than O(log log n)1/6 approximation using SDPs • Independent of any assumptions! Shuchi Chawla

  18. Open Problems • Improving the hardness • Fourier analysis is tight • Prove/disprove UGC • Reduction based on a general 2-prover system • Improving the integrality gap for sparsest cut • Hardness for uniform sparsest cut, min-bisection … ? Shuchi Chawla

More Related