1 / 22

Linear Programming Relaxations for MaxCut

Linear Programming Relaxations for MaxCut. Wenceslas Fernandez de la Vega Claire Kenyon -Mathieu. Technique for approximation. IP formulation with 0-1 variables LP relaxation  algorithm Strengthen LP: add valid inequalities Reduce integrality gap =  Better approximation.

lynley
Télécharger la présentation

Linear Programming Relaxations for MaxCut

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. Linear Programming Relaxations for MaxCut Wenceslas Fernandez de la Vega Claire Kenyon-Mathieu

  2. Technique for approximation • IP formulation with 0-1 variables • LP relaxation  algorithm • Strengthen LP: add valid inequalities • Reduce integrality gap = •  Better approximation

  3. Example: Min Cost Perfect (non-bipartite) Matching Unbounded gap LP: Edge e is taken with probability x(e) Every vertex has exactly one adjacent edge [Edmonds 1965] Reduce gap to 1 by adding: Every odd vertex set has at least one edge to the outside outside

  4. Lift and Project (L&P) [BCC, LS, SA, L] Systematic way to strengthen LPs. Rounds: • After 0 rounds: basic LP • After k rounds: contains all valid inequalities with support k • After n rounds: IP Poly-time solvable for any fixed k.

  5. L&P and int gaps • Vertex cover [KG’98,AB,L’02,C’02STT’06] • Max 3 SAT, Set cover, Hypergraph vertex cover [BOGH+03,AAT05] Here: Maxcut Because: Theory people like Maxcut!

  6. L&P for MaxCut • LP relaxation has gap=2 [PT’94] • Thm [here]: gap is still 2 even after log(n)ˆc rounds of Sherali-Adams L&P • Thm [STT]: (for another LP) gap is still 2 even after a linear number of rounds of Lovasz-Shrijver L&P. • The moral: for MaxCut, SDP is better than LP, even if the LPs are greatly enhanced.

  7. Questions • Definition of L&P? • Differences Lovasz-Shrijver vs. Sherali-Adams vs. others? • SDP variant of L&P? • Compare proof to other lower bound proofs for L&P? No answers in this talk.

  8. What I like about this work Not the result:somewhat unsurprising Not the “broader impacts”… The proof: Relatively clean: few short calculations, all driven by intuition Next: some key ideas for a simple case No need to know about lift and project!

  9. MaxCut LP relaxation… • x(i,j) indicates whether {i,j} crosses the cut x(i,j)+x(j,k)+x(k,i) ≤ 2 x(i,j) ≤ x(j,k)+x(k,i) • Gap = 2 i j k

  10. … enhanced • Additional valid inequalities: x(a,b)+x(a,c)+…+x(d,e) ≤ 6 • We will prove that we still haveGap = 2. d a e b I cut at most 6 edges c

  11. Gap=2! • Graph: sparse random, altered for large girth. • MaxCut ≈|E|/2 w.h.p. • To definex(i,j): threshold T. if distance > T then x(i,j)=1/2; else, construct a random labeling on the shortest path, and let x(i,j)=Pr(labels differ). • Such that x(i,j)=1- for i and j adjacent  FRAC ≈ |E|

  12. Core of proof: feasibility • (x(i,j)) satisfies everyconstraint: let S be the vertices involved in ax-b0. • Define a distribution over labels of S only, and let y(i,j)=Pr(labels differ). • y is a fractional cut, and constraint is valid inequality, so by definition ay-b ≥ 0: no calculations needed for this! • Observe that y(i,j) ≈ x(i,j) • Thus: ax-b ≈ ay-b ≥ 0.

  13. Defining x(i,j)

  14. Defining y(i,j) when S={i,j,k,u,v}

  15. Coupling x(i,j) and y(i,j)

  16. Positive results Without SDP, is L&P actually useful? Thm [here]: in dense graphs, gap~1 after O(1) rounds of Sherali-Adams L&P Note: this is not surprising since there already exist at least 3 PTAS for MaxCut in dense graphs.

  17. Conclusion • L&P is potentially an attractive alternative to ad hoc fumbling with existing LPs • Unfortunately, most results so far are negative if we don’t use SDP. • To justify continued work on L&P, we need some positive results: for some problem, find a new, better approximation algorithm by using L&P explicitly and voluntarily.

  18. That’s it • The end

  19. Makespan minimization • Independent jobs, m parallel machines • LP: x(i,j) indicates whether job j goes on machine i, and t=makespan. Constraints: Every job must go on some machine Makespan greater than load on each machine • Unbounded gap • Add: “makespan≥p(j) for every job” reduces gap to 2, but this does not appear in L&P until after m rounds.

  20. Proof(1/1) based on [AFKK]

  21. Proof(4/4) • Given S set of 5 vertices or less, define (y(i,j)) over cuts of S • Subgraph H(S)={edges on some i-to-j path with i,j in S and distance < T} • Large girth  H(S) is a forest • Remove each edge of H(S) w.p. 2 independently; In each connected component, label vertices alternating 1 and 0 from a random starting point Set Y(i,j)=1 iff i and j have different labels. set y(i,j)=Expectation of Y(i,j).

More Related