Constructing Linear-Sized Spectral Sparsification in Almost-Linear Time
|
|
- Jeffery Day
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Constructing Linear-Sized Spectral Sparsification in Almost-Linear Time Yin Tat Lee MIT Cambridge, USA He Sun The University of Bristol Bristol, UK Abstract We present the first almost-linear time algorithm for constructing linear-sized spectral sparsification for graphs. This improves all previous constructions of linear-sized spectral sparsification, which requires Ωn time [BSS1, Zou1, AZLO15]. A key ingredient in our algorithm is a novel combination of two techniques used in literature for constructing spectral sparsification: Random sampling by effective resistance [SS11], and adaptive construction based on barrier functions [BSS1, AZLO15]. keywords: algorithmic spectral graph theory, spectral sparsification
2 1 Introduction Graph sparsification is the procedure of approximating a graph G by a sparse graph G such that certain quantities between G and G are preserved. For instance, spanners are defined between two graphs in which the distances between any pair of vertices in these two graphs are approximately the same [Che89]; cut sparsifiers are reweighted sparse graphs of the original graphs such that the weights of every cut between the sparsifiers and the original graphs are approximatedly the same [BK96]. Since both storing and processing large-scale graphs are expensive, graph sparsification is one of the most fundamental building blocks in designing fast graph algorithms, including solving Laplacian systems [ST04, KMP10, KMP11, KLP1, PS14, LPS15], designing approximation algorithms for the maximum flow problem [BK96, KLOS14, She13], and solving streaming problems [KL13, KLM + 14]. Beyond graph problems, techniques developed for spectral sparsification are widely used in randomized linear algebra [Mah11, LMP13, CLM + 15], sparsifying linear programs [LS14], and various pure mathematics problems [SS1, Sri1, MSS13, Bar14]. In this work, we study spectral sparsification introduced by Spielman and Teng [ST11]: A spectral sparsifier is a reweighted sparse subgraph of the original graph such that, for all real vectors, the Laplacian quadratic forms between that subgraph and the original graph are approximately the same. Formally, for any undirected and weighted graph G = V, E, w with n vertices and m edges, we call a subgraph G of G, with proper reweighting of the edges, is a 1 + ε spectral sparsifier if it holds for any x R n that 1 εx L G x x L G x 1 + εx L G x, where L G and L G are the respective graph Laplacian matrices of G and G. Spielman and Teng [ST11] presented the first algorithm for constructing spectral sparsification. For any undirected graph G of n vertices, their algorithm runs in On log c n/ε time, for some big constant c, and produces a spectral sparsifier with On log c n/ε edges for some c. Since then, there has been a wealth of work on spectral sparsification. For instance, Spielman and Srivastava [SS11] presented a nearly-linear time algorithm for constructing a spectral sparsifier of On log n/ε edges. Batson, Spielman and Srivastava [BSS1] presented an algorithm for constructing spectral sparsifiers with On/ε edges, which is optimal up to a constant. However, all previous constructions either require Ω n +ε time in order to produce linear-sized sparsifiers [BSS1, Zou1, AZLO15], or On log O1 n/ε time but the number of edges in the sparsifiers is sub-optimal. In this paper we present the first almost-linear time algorithm for constructing linear-sized spectral sparsification for graphs. Our result is summarized as follows: Theorem 1.1. Given any integer q 10 and 0 < ε 1/10. Let G = V, E, w be an undirected and weighted graph with n vertices and m edges. Then, there is an algorithm that outputs a 1 + ε- spectral sparsifier of G with O qn ε edges. The algorithm runs in Õ q m n 5/q time. ε 4+4/q Graph sparsification is known as a special case of sparsifying sums of rank-1 positive semidefinite PSD matrices [BSS1, SS11], and our algorithm works in this general setting as well. Our result is summarized as follows: Theorem 1.. Given any integer q 10 and 0 < ε 1/10. Let I = m v iv i be the sum of m rank-1 PSD matrices. Then, there is an algorithm that outputs scalers {s i } m with {s i : s i 0} = O qn ε such that m 1 ε I s i v i v i 1 + ε I. 1
3 The algorithm runs in Õ qm n ω 1+3/q time, where ω is the matrix-multiplication constant. ε A key ingredient in our algorithm is a novel combination of two techniques used in literature for constructing spectral sparsification: Random sampling by effective resistance of edges [SS11], and adaptive construction based on barrier functions [BSS1, AZLO15]. We will present an overview of the algorithm, and the intuitions behind it in Section. Preliminaries Let G = V, E, w be a connected, undirected and weighted graph with n vertices and m edges, and weight function w : V V R 0. The Laplacian matrix of G is an n by n matrix L defined by wu, v if u v, L G u, v = degu if u = v, 0 otherwise, where degu = v u wu, v. It is easy to see that x L G x = u v w u,v x u x v 0, for any x R n. For any matrix A, let λ max A and λ min A be the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of A. The condition number of matrix A is defined by λ max A/λ min A. For any two matrices A and B, we write A B to represent B A is positive semi-definite PSD, and A B to represent B A is positive definite. For any two matrices A and B of equal dimensions, let A B tr A B. For any function f, we write Õf Of logo1 f. For matrices A and B, we write A ε B if 1 ε A B 1 + εa. Algorithm We study the algorithm of sparsifying the sum of rank-1 PSD matrices in this section. Our goal is to, for any vectors v 1, v m with m v iv i = I, find scalars {s i} m satisfying qn {s i : s i 0} = O ε, such that 1 ε I m s i v i v i 1 + ε I. We will use this algorithm to construct graph sparsifiers in Section 3..1 Overview of Our Approach Our construction is based on a probabilistic view of the algorithm presented in Batson et al. [BSS1]. We refer their algorithm BSS for short, and give a brief overview of the BSS algorithm at first. At a high level, the BSS algorithm proceeds by iterations, and adds a rank-1 matrix c v i v i with some scaling factor c to the currently constructed matrix A j in iteration j. To control the spectral properties of matrix A j, the algorithm maintains two barrier values u j and l j, and initially u 0 > 0, l 0 < 0. It was proven that one can always find a vector in {v i } m and update u j, l j in a proper manner in each iteration, such that the invariant l j I A j u j I.1
4 always holds, [BSS1]. To guarantee this, Batson et al. [BSS1] introduces a potential function Φ u,l A trui A 1 + tra li 1. to measure how far the eigenvalues of A are from the barriers u and l, since a small value of Φ u,l A implies that no eigenvalue of A is close to u or l. With the help of the potential function, it was proven that, after k = Θ n/ε iterations, it holds that l k cu k for some constant c, implying that the resulting matrix A k is a linear-sized and A k Oε I. The original BSS algorithm is deterministic, and in each iteration the algorithm finds a rank-1 matrix which maximizes certain quantities. To informally explain our algorithm, let us look at the following randomized variant of the BSS algorithm: In each iteration, we choose a vector v i with probability p i, and add a rank-1 matrix A ε t 1 p i v i v i to the current matrix A. See Algorithm 1 for formal description. Algorithm 1 Randomized BSS algorithm 1: j = 0; : l 0 = 8n/ε, u 0 = 8n/ε; 3: A 0 = 0; 4: while u j l j < 8n/ε do 5: Let t = tr u j I A j 1 + tr A j l j I 1 ; 6: Sample a vector v i with probability p i v i u ji A j 1 v i + v i A j l j I 1 v i /t; 7: A j+1 = A j + ε t 1 p i v i v i ; 8: u j+1 = u j + ε 9: j j + 1; 10: Return A j ; t 1 ε and l j+1 = l j + ε t 1+ε ; Let us look at any fixed iteration j, and analyze how the added A impacts the potential function. We drop the subscript representing the iteration j for simplicity. After adding A, the first-order approximation of Φ u,l A gives that Φ u,l A + A Φ u,l A + ui A A A li A..3 Since we have that E [ A ] = m p i ε t 1 p i v i v i = ε t m v iv i = ε t I, E [Φ u,l A + A ] Φ u,l A + ε t ui A I ε t A li I = Φ u,l A + ε t tr ui A ε tr A li t = Φ u,l A ε t d du Φ u,la ε t d dl Φ u,la. Notice that if we increase u by ε t and l by ε t, Φ u,l approximately increases by ε t d du Φ u,la + ε t d dl Φ u,la. 3
5 Hence, comparing Φ u+ε/t,l+ε/t A + A with Φ u,l A, the increase of the potential function due to the change of barrier values is approximately compensated by the drop of the potential function by the effect of A. For a more rigorous analysis, we need to look at the higher-order terms and increase u slightly more than l to compensate that. Batson et al. [BSS1] gives the following estimate: Lemma.1 [BSS1], proof of Lemma 3.3 and 3.4. Let A R n n, and u, l be parameters satisfying li A ui. Suppose that w R n satisfies ww δui A and ww δa li for some 0 < δ < 1. Then, it holds that Φ u,l A + ww Φ u,l A + w ui A w 1 δ w A li w. 1 + δ The estimate above shows that the first-order approximation.3 is good if ww δui A and ww δa li for small δ. It is easy to check that, by setting δ = ε, the added matrix A satisfies these two conditions, since ε t 1 v i v i = p i ε v i v i v i ui A 1 v i + v i A li 1 v i ε v i v i v i ui A 1 v i ε ui A, where we used the fact that vv v B 1 vb for any vector v and PSD matrix B. Similarly, we have that ε t 1 v i v i εa li. p i Hence, if Φ u,l A is small initially, our crude calculations above gives a good approximation and Φ u,l A is small throughout the executions of the whole algorithm. Up to a constant factor, this gives the same result as [BSS1], and therefore Algorithm 1 constructs an Θn/ε -sized 1+Oε- spectral sparsifier. Our algorithm follows the same framework as Algorithm 1. However, to construct a spectral sparsifier in almost-linear time, we expect that the sampling probability {p i } m of vectors i can be approximately computed fast, and ii can be further reused for a few iterations. For fast approximation of the sampling probabilities, we adopt the idea proposed in [AZLO15]: Instead of defining the potential function by., we define the potential function by Φ u,l A trui A q + tra li q. Since q is a large constant, the value of the potential function becomes larger when some eigenvalue of A is close to u or l. Hence, a bounded value of Φ u,l A insures that the eigenvalues of A never get too close to u or l, which further allows us to compute the sampling probabilities {p i } m efficiently simply by Taylor expansion. Moreover, by defining the potential function based on tr q, one can prove a similar result as Lemma.1. This gives an alternative analysis of the algorithm presented in [AZLO15], which is the first almost-quadratic time algorithm for constructing linear-sized spectral sparsifiers. To reuse the sampling probabilities, we re-compute {p i } m after every Θ n 1 1/q iterations: We show that as long as the sampling probability satisfies p i C v i ui A 1 v i + v i A li 1 v i m v i ui A 1 v i + v i A li 1 v i for some constant C > 0, we can still sample v i with probability p i and get the same guarantee on the potential function. The reason is as follows: Assume that A = T A,i is the sum 4
6 of the sampled matrices within T = O n 1 1/q iterations. If a randomly chosen matrix A,i satisfies A,i 1 Cq ui A, then by the matrix Chernoff bound A 1 ui A holds with high probability. By scaling every sampled rank-1 matrix q times smaller, the sampling probability only changes by a constant factor within T iterations. Since we choose Θn/ε vectors in total, our algorithm only recomputes the sampling probabilities Θ n 1/q /ε times. Hence, our algorithm runs in almost-linear time if q is a large constant.. Algorithm Description The algorithm follows the same framework as Algorithm 1, and proceeds by iterations. Initially, the algorithm sets u 0 n 1/q, l 0 n 1/q, A 0 0. After iteration j the algorithm updates u j, l j by u,j, l,j respectively, i.e., u j+1 u j + u,j, l j+1 l j + l,j, and updates A j with respect to the chosen matrix in iteration j. The choice of u,j and l,j insures that l j I A j u j I holds for any j. In iteration j, the algorithm computes the relative effective resistance of vectors {v i } m defined by R i A j, u j, l j v i u ji A j 1 v i + v i A j l j I 1 v i, and samples N j vectors independently with replacement, where vector v i is chosen with probability proportional to R i A j, u j, l j, and N j 1 m n /q R i A j, u j, l j min {λ min u j I A j, λ min A j l j I}. The algorithm sets A j+1 to be the sum of A j and sampled v i v i with proper reweighting. For technical reasons, we define u,j and l,j by u,j 1 + ε ε N j q m R ia j, u j, l j, ε N j l,j 1 ε q m R ia j, u j, l j. See Algorithm for formal description. We remark that, although exact values of N j and relative effective resistances are difficult to compute in almost-linear time, we can use approximated values of R i and N j instead. It is easy to see that in each iteration an over estimate of R i, and an under estimate of N j with constant-factor approximation suffice for our purpose. 3 Analysis We analyze Algorithm in this section. To make the calculation less messy, we assume the following: Assumption 3.1. We always assume that 0 < ε 1/10, and q is an integer satisfying q 10. 5
7 Algorithm Algorithm for constructing spectral sparsifiers Require: ε 1/10, q 10 1: j = 0; : l 0 = n 1/q, u 0 = n 1/q, A 0 = 0; 3: while u j l j < 4 n 1/q do 4: W j = 0; 5: Compute R i A j, u j, l j for all vectors v i ; 6: Sample N j vectors independently with replacement, where every v i is chosen with probability proportional to R i A j, u j, l j. For every sampled v, add ε/q R i A j, u j, l j 1 vv to W j ; 7: A j+1 = A j + W j ; 8: u j+1 = u j + u,j, l j+1 = l j + l,j ; 9: j = j + 1; 10: Return A j ; Our analysis is based on a potential function Φ u,l with barrier values u, l R. Formally, for a symmetric matrix A R n n with eigenvalues λ 1 λ n and parameters u, l satisfying li A ui, let Φ u,l A trui A q + tra li q n 1 q n 1 q = u λ i λ i l We will show how the potential function evolves after each iteration in Section 3.1. Combing this with the ending condition of the algorithm, we will prove in Section 3. that the algorithm outputs a linear-sized spectral sparsifier. We will prove Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1. in Section Analysis of a Single Iteration We analyze the sampling scheme within a single iteration, and drop the subscript representing the iteration j for simplicity. Recall that in each iteration the algorithm samples N vectors independently from V = {v i } m satisfying m v iv i = I, where every vector v i is sampled with probability R i A,u,l m j=1 R ja,u,l. We use v 1,, v N to denote these N sampled vectors, and define the reweighted vectors by for any 1 i N. Let ε w i q R i A, u, l v i, W N w i w i, and we use W DA, u, l to represent that W is sampled in this way with parameters A, u and l. We will show that with high probability matrix W satisfies 0 W 1 ui A. We first recall the following Matrix Chernoff Bound. Lemma 3. Matrix Chernoff Bound, [Tro1]. Let {X k } be a finite sequence of independent, random, and self-adjoint matrices with dimension n. Assume that each random matrix satisfies 6
8 X k 0, and λ max X k D. Let µ λ max k E [ X k ]. Then, it holds for any δ 0 that P [ λ max k X k 1 + δµ ] e δ µ/d n 1 + δ 1+δ. Lemma 3.3. Assume that the number of samples satisfies N < m n /q R i A, u, l λ min ui A. Then, it holds that E [ W ] = ε q N m R ia, u, l I, and [ P 0 W 1 ] ui A 1 ε 100qn. Proof. By the description of the sampling procedure, it holds that E [ w i w i ] = m j=1 R j A, u, l m t=1 R ta, u, l ε q v j v j R j A, u, l = ε q 1 m t=1 R ta, u, l I, and [ N E [ W ] = E w i w i which proves the first statement. Now for the second statement. Let ] = ε q N m R ia, u, l I, z i = ui A 1/ w i. It holds that tr z i z i = tr ui A 1/ w i w i ui A 1/ = ε q tr ui A 1/ v i v i ui A 1/ R i A, u, l ε q v i ui A 1 v i v i ui A 1 v i + v i A li 1 v i ε q, and λ max z i z i ε q. Moreover, it holds that [ N ] E z i z i = ε q ε q N m t=1 R ui A 1 ta, u, l N 1 m t=1 R ta, u, l λ max I. 3. ui A 7
9 This implies that [ N λ max E z i z i ] ε q N 1 m t=1 R ta, u, l λ max. ui A By setting µ = ε q N 1 m R ia, u, l λ max, ui A it holds by the Matrix Chernoff Bound cf. Lemma 3. that Set the value of 1 + δ to be [ N ] P λ max z i z i 1 + δµ 1 + δ = 1 µ = q εn n m R j A, u, l j=1 e δ 1 + δ 1+δ 1 λ max 1 ui A = q m εn R j A, u, l λ min ui A q 4ε n/q, j=1 µ q/ε. where the last inequality follows from the condition on N. Hence, with probability at least 1 n we have that e δ 1 + δ 1+δ µ q/ε e 1+δ µ q/ε 1 n 1 n 1 + δ N λ max z i z i 1 + δ µ = 1, q e ε ε δ 100qn, which implies that 0 N z iz i 1 I and 0 W 1 ui A. Now we analyze the change of the potential function after each iteration, and show that the expected value of the potential function decreases over time. By Lemma 3.3, with probability at least 1 ε 100qn, it holds that 0 W 1 ui A. We define [ Ẽ [fw ] P W is chosen and W 1 ] ui A f W. W DA,u,l Lemma 3.4 below shows how the potential function changes after each iteration, and plays a key role in our analysis. This lemma was first proved in [BSS1] for the case of q = 1, and was extended in [AZLO15] to general values of q. For completeness, we include the proof of the lemma in the appendix. 8
10 Lemma 3.4 [AZLO15]. Let q 10 and ε 1/10. Suppose that w ui A 1 w ε q and w A li 1 w ε q. It holds that tra + ww li q tra li q q1 ε w A li q+1 w, and trui A ww q trui A q + q1 + ε w ui A q+1 w. Lemma 3.5. Let j be any iteration. It holds that Ẽ [ Φ uj+1,l j+1 A j+1 ] Φ uj,l j A j. Proof. Let w 1 w 1,, w N j w N j be the matrices picked in iteration j, and define for any 0 i N j that i B i = A j + w t w t. We study the change of the potential function after adding a rank-1 matrix within each iteration. For this reason, we use and u = u,j N j = 1 + ε l = l,j N j = 1 ε t=1 ε q m t=1 R ta j, u j, l j, ε q m t=1 R ta j, u j, l j to express the average change of the barrier values u,j and l,j. We further define for 0 j N j that û i = u j + i u, ˆli = l j + i l. Assuming 0 W j 1 u ji A j, we claim that w i w i ε q û ii B i 1 and w i w i ε q B i 1 ˆl i I, 3.3 for any 1 i N j. Based on this, we apply Lemma 3.4 and get that [ ] Ẽ B Φûi,ˆli i 1 + w i w i Φûi,ˆl i B i 1 + q1 + εtr û i I B i 1 q+1 E [ w i w i ] q1 εtr B i 1 ˆl q+1 i I E [ wi w i ] = Φûi,ˆl i B i 1 + q u tr û i I B i 1 q+1 q l tr B i 1 ˆl i I q We define a function f i by Notice that df i t dt f i t = tr q q û i 1 + t u I Bi 1 + tr B i 1 ˆli 1 + t l I. = q u tr û i 1 + t u I Bi 1 q+1 + q l tr 9 q+1 B i 1 ˆli 1 + t l I.
11 Since f is convex, we have that df i t dt Putting 3.4 and 3.5 together, we have that f i 1 f i 0 = Φûi t=1,ˆl i B i 1 Φûi 1,ˆl i 1 B i [ ] Ẽ Φûi,ˆl i B i Φûi,ˆl i B i 1 df it dt Φûi 1 t=1,ˆl i 1 B i 1. Repeat this argument, we have that Ẽ [ Φ uj+1,l j+1 A j+1 ] [ = Ẽ ] ΦûNj,ˆl BNj Nj Φû0,ˆl 0 B 0 = Φ uj,l j A j, which proves the statement. So, it suffices to prove the claim 3.3. Since vv v B 1 vb for any vector v and PSD matrix B, we have that v i v i R i A j, u j, l j By the assumption of W j 1 u ji A j, it holds that w i w i = This proves the first statement of the claim. For the second statement, notice that v i v i v i u ji A j 1 v i u j I A j. ε qr i A j, u j, l j v iv i ε q u ji A j ε q û ii B i 1. and hence εn j l j+1 l j = l,j q m t=1 R ta j, u j, l j 1 λ mina j l j I w i w i ε q A j l j I ε q A j ˆl i I ε B i 1 q ˆl i I. 3. Analysis of the Approximation Guarantee In this subsection we will prove that the algorithm produces a linear-sized 1 + Oε-spectral sparsifier. We assume that the algorithm finishes after k iterations, and will prove that the output A k is a 1 + Oε-spectral sparsifier. It suffices to show that the condition number of A k is small, which follows directly from our setting of parameters. Lemma 3.6. The output matrix A k has condition number at most 1 + Oε. Proof. Since the condition number of A k is at most it suffices to prove that u k l k /u k = Oε. u k = 1 u k l 1 k, l k u k 10
12 Since the increase rate of u,j l,j with respect to u,j for any iteration j is we have that u,j l,j 1 + ε 1 ε = = 4ε 4ε, u,j 1 + ε 1 + ε u k l k = n1/q + k 1 u,j l,j u k n 1/q + k 1 u,j n1/q + k 1 u,j l,j n 1/q + 4ε 1 k 1 u,j l,j. By the ending condition of the algorithm, it holds that u k l k 4 n 1/q, i.e. Hence, it holds that which finishes the proof. k 1 u,j l,j n 1/q. u k l k n1/q + n 1/q u k n 1/q + 4ε 1 8ε, n 1/q Now we prove that the algorithm finishes in O total. Lemma 3.7. The following statements hold: qn 3/q ε With probability at least 4/5, the algorithm finishes in 10qn3/q ε With probability at least 4/5, the algorithm chooses at most 10qn ε iterations, and picks O qn ε vectors in iterations. Proof. Notice that after iteration j the barrier gap u j l j is increased by vectors. u,j l,j = 4ε q = 4ε q 4ε q N j m R ia j, u j, l j 1 n /q min {λ minu j I A j, λ min A j l j I} 1 n /q Φ uj,l j A j 1/q. Since the algorithm finishes within k iterations if k 1 u,j l,j n 1/q, 11
13 it holds that k 1 P [ algorithm finishes within k iterations ] P u,j l,j n 1/q k 1 P 4ε qn /q Φ uj,l j A j 1/q n 1/q k 1 = P Φuj,l j A j 1/q q ε n 3 1/q k 1 P Φuj,l j A j 1/q k ε q where the last inequality follows from the fact that k 1 Φuj,l j A j k 1 1/q Φuj,l j A j 1/q k. By Lemma 3.3, every picked matrix W j in iteration j satisfies 0 W j 1 u ji A 1 1/q n 3, with probability at least 1 ε 10qn 100qn, and with probability 9/10 all matrices picked in k = ε iterations satisfy the condition above. Also, by Lemma 3.5 we have that k 1 k 1 [ Ẽ Φ uj,l j A j 1/q ] k 1 = Ẽ Φ uj,l j A j 1/q [ Ẽ Φuj,l j A j ] 1/q k, 3.6 since the initial value of the potential function is at most 1. Therefore, it holds that P [ algorithm finishes in more than k iterations ] k 1 P Φuj,l j A j 1/q k ε 1 1/q q n 3 k 1 P Φuj,l j A j 1/q k ε 1 1/q q n 3 and j : W j 1 u ji A j [ + P j : W j 1 ] u ji A j q kε n 3 1/q + 1/10 1/5, where the second last inequity follows from Markov s inequality and 3.6, and the last inequality follows by our choice of k. This proves the first statement. 1
14 Now for the second statement. Notice that for every vector chosen in iteration j, the barrier gap u,j l,j is increased on average by u,j l,j N j = 4ε q m R ia j, u j, l j. To bound R i A j, u j, l j, let the eigenvalues of matrix A j be λ 1,, λ n. Then, it holds that m R i A j, u j, l j = Therefore, we have that m v i u ji A j 1 v i + u,j l,j N j m v i A j l j I 1 v i n 1 n 1 = + u j λ i λ i l j n 1/q n u j λ i q + λ i l j q n 1 1/q = Φ uj,l j A j 1/q n 1 1/q. 4ε q 1 n 1 1/q. 3.7 Φ uj,l j A j 1/q Let v 1,, v z be the vectors sampled by the algorithm, and v j is picked in iteration τ j, where 1 j z. We first assume that the algorithm could check the ending condition after adding every single vector. In such case, it holds that P [ algorithm finishes after choosing z vectors ] z P 4ε q 1 n 1 1/q n1/q Φ j=1 uτj,l τj A τj 1/q z = P Φ uτj,l τj A τj 1/q qn/ε. j=1 Following the same proof as the first part and noticing that in the final iteration the algorithm chooses at most On extra vectors, we obtain the second statement. 3.3 Proof of the Main Results Now we analyze the runtime of the algorithm, and prove the main results. We first analyze the algorithm for sparsifying sums of rank-1 PSD matrices, and prove Theorem 1.. Proof of Theorem 1.. By Lemma 3.7, with probability at least 4/5 the algorithm chooses at most 10qn vectors, and by Lemma 3.6 the condition number of A ε k is at most 1 + Oε, implying that the matrix A k is a 1 + Oε-approximation of I. These two results together prove that A k is a linear-sized spectral sparsifier. For the runtime, Lemma 3.7 proves that the algorithm finishes in 10qn3/q iterations, and it is ε easy to see that all the required quantities in each iteration can be approximately computed in Õm n ω 1 time using fast matrix multiplication. Therefore, the total runtime of the algorithm is Õ q m n ω 1+3/q. ε 13
15 Next we show how to apply our algorithm in the graph setting, and prove Theorem 1.1. Let L = m u iu i be the Laplacian matrix of an undirected graph G, where u i u i is the Laplacian matrix of the graph consisting of a single edge e i. By setting v i = L 1/ u i for 1 i m, it is easy to see that constructing a spectral sparsifier of G is equivalent to sparsifing the matrix m v iv i. We will present in the appendix almost-linear time algorithms to approximate the required quantities λ min u j I A j, λ min A j l j I, v i u ji A j 1 v i, and v i A j l j I 1 v i in each iteration, and this gives Theorem 1.1. Proof of Theorem 1.1. By applying the same analysis as in the proof of Theorem 1., we know that the output matrix A k is a linear-sized spectral sparsifier, and it suffices to analyze the runtime of the algorithm. By Lemma 3.3 and the Union Bound, with probability at least 9/10 all the matrices picked in k = 10qn3/q ε iterations satisfy W j 1 u ji A j. Conditioning on the event, with constant probability E [ Φ uj,l j A j ] for all iterations j, and by Markov s inequality with high probability it holds that Φ uj,l j A j = O qn ε for all iterations j. On the other hand, notice that it holds for any 1 j n that u λ j q n u λ i q < Φ u,l A, which implies that λ j < u Φ u,l A 1/q. Similarly, it holds that λ j > l + Φ u,l A 1/q for any 1 j n. Therefore, we have that ε 1/q ε 1/q l j + O I A j u j O I. qn qn Since both of u j and l j are of the order On 1/q, we set η = O ε/n /q and obtain that l j + l j ηi A j 1 ηu j I. Hence, we apply Lemma A.5 and Lemma A.6 to compute all required quantities in each iteration up to constant approximation in time m Õ ε = η Õ m n /q ε +/q. Since by Lemma 3.7 the algorithm finishes in 10qn3/q iterations with probability at least 4/5, the ε total runtime of the algorithm is q m n 5/q Õ. ε 4+4/q 14
16 Acknowledgment This work was partially supported by NSF awards and Part of this work was done while both authors were visiting the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing, UC Berkeley, and the second author was affiliated with the Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany. We thank Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Zhenyu Liao, and Lorenzo Orecchia for sending us their manuscript of [AZLO15] and the inspiring talk Zeyuan Allen-Zhu gave at the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing. Finally, we thank Michael Cohen for pointing out a gap in a previous version of the paper and his fixes for the gap, as well as Lap-Chi Lau for many insightful comments on improving the presentation of the paper. References [AZLO15] Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Zhenyu Liao, and Lorenzo Orecchia. Spectral sparsification and regret minimization beyond multiplicative updates. In 47th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC 15, pages 37 45, 015. [Bar14] Alexander Barvinok. Thrifty approximations of convex bodies by polytopes. International Mathematics Research Notices, 01416: , 014. [BK96] András Benczúr and David Karger. Approximating s-t minimum cuts in Õn time. In 8th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC 96, pages 47 55, [BSS1] Joshua D. Batson, Daniel A. Spielman, and Nikhil Srivastava. Twice-Ramanujan sparsifiers. SIAM Journal on Computing, 416: , 01. [Che89] L. Paul Chew. There are planar graphs almost as good as the complete graph. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 39:05 19, [CLM + 15] Michael B Cohen, Yin Tat Lee, Cameron Musco, Christopher Musco, Richard Peng, and Aaron Sidford. Uniform sampling for matrix approximation. In 6th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science ITCS 15, pages , 015. [KL13] Jonathan A Kelner and Alex Levin. Spectral sparsification in the semi-streaming setting. Theory of Computing Systems, 53:43 6, 013. [KLM + 14] Michael Kapralov, Yin Tat Lee, Cameron Musco, Christopher Musco, and Aaron Sidford. Single pass spectral sparsification in dynamic streams. In 55th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 14, pages , 014. [KLOS14] Jonathan A. Kelner, Yin Tat Lee, Lorenzo Orecchia, and Aaron Sidford. An almostlinear-time algorithm for approximate max flow in undirected graphs, and its multicommodity generalizations. In 5th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms SODA 14, pages 17 6, 014. [KLP1] Ioannis Koutis, Alex Levin, and Richard Peng. Improved spectral sparsification and numerical algorithms for SDD matrices. In 9th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science STACS 1, pages 66 77, 01. [KMP10] Ioannis Koutis, Gary L Miller, and Richard Peng. Approaching optimality for solving SDD linear systems. In 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 10, pages 35 44, 010. [KMP11] Ioannis Koutis, Gary L. Miller, and Richard Peng. A nearly-m log n time solver for 15
17 SDD linear systems. In 5nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 11, pages , 011. [LMP13] Mu Li, Gary L Miller, and Richard Peng. Iterative row sampling. In 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 13, pages , 013. [LPS15] Yin Tat Lee, Richard Peng, and Daniel A Spielman. Sparsified Cholesky solvers for SDD linear systems. arxiv: , 015. [LS14] Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Path finding methods for linear programming: Solving linear programs in Õ rank iterations and faster algorithms for maximum flow. In 55th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 14, pages , 014. [LT76] E Lieb and W Thirring. Inequalities for the moments of the eigenvalues of the Schrödinger equation and their relation to Sobolev inequalities. Studies in Mathematical Physics: Essays in honor of Valentine Bargman, Lieb, E., Simon, B., Wightman, AS eds., pages , [Mah11] Michael W Mahoney. Randomized algorithms for matrices and data. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 3:13 4, 011. [MSS13] Adam Marcus, Daniel A Spielman, and Nikhil Srivastava. Interlacing families II: Mixed characteristic polynomials and the Kadison-Singer problem. arxiv: , 013. [PS14] Richard Peng and Daniel A Spielman. An efficient parallel solver for SDD linear systems. In 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC 14, pages , 014. [She13] Jonah Sherman. Nearly maximum flows in nearly linear time. In 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 13, pages 63 69, 013. [Sri1] Nikhil Srivastava. On contact points of convex bodies. In Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis, pages [SS11] Daniel A. Spielman and Nikhil Srivastava. Graph sparsification by effective resistances. SIAM Journal on Computing, 406: , 011. [SS1] Daniel A Spielman and Nikhil Srivastava. An elementary proof of the restricted invertibility theorem. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 1901:83 91, 01. [ST04] Daniel A Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. Nearly-linear time algorithms for graph partitioning, graph sparsification, and solving linear systems. In 36th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS 04, pages 81 90, 004. [ST11] Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. Spectral sparsification of graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 404: , 011. [Tro1] Joel A. Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 14: , 01. [Zou1] Anastasios Zouzias. A matrix hyperbolic cosine algorithm and applications. In 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming ICALP 1, pages ,
18 A Omitted Proofs A.1 Estimates of the Potential Functions In this subsection we prove Lemma 3.4. We first list the following two lemmas, which will be used in our proof. Lemma A.1 Sherman-Morrison Formula. Let A R n n be an invertible matrix, and u, v R n. Suppose that 1 + v A 1 u 0. Then it holds that A + uv 1 = A 1 A 1 uv A v A 1 u. Lemma A. Lieb Thirring Inequality, [LT76]. Let A and B be positive definite matrices, and q 1. Then it holds that trbab q trb q A q B q. Proof of Lemma 3.4. Let Y = A li. By the Sherman-Morrison Formula Lemma A.1, it holds that try + ww q = tr Y 1 Y 1 ww Y 1 q 1 + w Y 1. A.1 w By the assumption of w Y 1 w ε q, we have that try + ww q tr Y 1 Y 1 ww Y 1 q A. 1 + ε/q q = tr Y 1/ I Y 1/ ww Y 1/ Y 1/ 1 + ε/q q tr Y q/ I Y 1/ ww Y 1/ Y q/ A ε/q q = tr Y q I Y 1/ ww Y 1/, A ε/q where A. uses the fact that A B implies that tr A q tr B q, A.3 follows from the Lieb- Thirring inequality Lemma A., and A.4 uses the fact that the trace is invariant under cyclic permutations. Let D = Y 1/ ww Y 1/. 1 + ε/q Note that 0 D ε q I, and I D q qq 1 I qd + I q εq 1 D D 17
19 Therefore, we have that q I Y 1/ ww Y 1/ I q 1 + ε/q This implies that try + ww q tr I I q q 1 εq 1 Y 1/ ww Y 1/ 1 + ε/q εq 1 εq + 1 q Y 1/ ww Y 1/ 1 ε q Y 1/ ww Y 1/ I q 1 ε Y 1/ ww Y 1/. Y q I q1 εy 1/ ww Y 1/ tr Y q q1 ε w Y q+1 w, which proves the first statement. Now for the second inequality. Let Z = ui A. By the Sherman-Morrison Formula Lemma A.1, it holds that trz ww q = tr Z 1 + Z 1 ww Z 1 q 1 w Z 1. A.5 w By the assumption of w Z 1 w ε q, it holds that trz ww q tr Z 1 + Z 1 ww Z 1 q A.6 1 ε/q q = tr Z 1/ I + Z 1/ ww Z 1/ Z 1/ 1 ε/q q tr Z q/ I + Z 1/ ww Z 1/ Z q/ A.7 1 ε/q q = tr Z q I + Z 1/ ww Z 1/, A.8 1 ε/q where A.6 uses the fact that A B implies that tr A q tr B q, A.7 follows from the Lieb- Thirring inequality Lemma A., and A.8 uses the fact that the trace is invariant under cyclic permutations. Let E = Z 1/ ww Z 1/. Combing E ε q I with the assumption that q 10 and ε 1/10, we have that I + E q I + qe qq ε/q q E 1 ε/q 1 ε/q 1 ε/q 1 ε/q I + q ε qq 1 E E q Therefore, we have that which proves the second statement. I + q ε E + 0.7εqE I + q 1 + ε E. trz ww q tr Z q + q1 + ε w Z q+1 w, 18
20 A. Implementation of the Algorithm In this section, we show that the algorithm for constructing graph sparsification runs in almostlinear time. Based on previous discussion, we only need to prove that, for any iteration j, the number of samples N j and {R i A j, u j, l j } m can be approximately computed in almost-linear time. By definition, it suffices to compute λ min u j I A j, λ min A j l j I, v i u ji A j 1 v i, and v i A j l j I 1 v i for all i. For simplicity we drop the subscript j expressing the iterations in this subsection. We will assume that the following assumption holds on A. We remark that an almost-linear time algorithm for computing similar quantities was shown in [AZLO15]. Assumption A.3. Let L and L be the Laplacian matrices of graph G and its subgraph after reweighting. Let A = L 1/ LL 1/, and assume that holds for some 0 < η < 1. l + l η I A 1 ηu I Lemma A.4. Under Assumption A.3, the following statements hold: We can construct a matrix S u such that and S u = pa for a polynomial p of degree O We can construct a matrix S l such that S u ε/10 ui A 1/,. log1/εη η S l ε/10 A li 1/. Moreover, S l is of the form A 1/ qa 1,where q is a polynomial of degree O and A = L 1/ L L 1/ for some Laplacian matrix L. Proof. By Taylor expansion, it holds that 1 x 1/ = 1 + k 1 k=1 j + 1 x k k!. log1/εη η We define for any T N that p T x = 1 + T k 1 k=1 j + 1 x k k!. Then, it holds for any 0 < x < 1 η that p T x 1 x 1/ = p T x + p T x + k 1 k=t +1 k=t +1 x k 1 ηt +1 p T x +. η j + 1 x k k! 19
21 Hence, it holds that and ui A 1/ = u 1/ I u 1 A 1/ u 1/ p T u 1 A, ui A 1/ u 1/ p T u 1 1 ηt +1 A + I, η since u 1 A 1 ηi. Notice that u 1/ I ui A 1/, and therefore ui A 1/ u 1/ p T u 1 1 ηt +1 A + η ui A 1/. Setting T = c log1/εη η for some constant c and defining S u = u 1/ p T u 1 A gives us that S u ε/10 ui A 1/. Now for the second statement. Our construction of S l is based on the case distinction l > 0, and l 0. Case 1: l > 0. Notice that A li 1/ = A 1/ I la 1 1/, and p T la 1 I la 1 1/ pt la 1 1 η/t +1 + η/ Using the same analysis as before, we have that I. A 1/ I la 1 1/ ε/10 A 1/ p T la 1. By defining S l = A 1/ p T la 1, i.e., A = A and q A 1 = p T la 1, we have that Case : l 0. We look at the matrix S l ε/10 A li 1/. A li = L 1/ LL 1/ li = L 1/ L lll 1/. Notice that L ll is a Laplacian matrix, and hence this reduces to the case of l = 0, for which we simply set S l = A li 1/. Therefore, we can write S l as a desired form, where A = A li and polynomial q = 1. Lemma A.5 below shows how to estimate v i ui A 1 v i, and v i A li 1 v i, for all v i in nearly-linear time. Lemma A.5. Let A = m v iv i, and suppose that A satisfies Assumption A.3. Then, we can compute {r i } m and {t i} m in Õ m time such that ε η 1 εr i v i ui A 1 v i 1 + εr i, and 1 εt i v i A li 1 v i 1 + εt i. 0
22 Proof. Define u i = L 1/ v i for any 1 i m. By Lemma A.4, we have that v i ui A 1 v i 3ε/10 pav i = p L 1/ 1/ LL L 1/ u i = L 1/ p L 1 L L 1 u i. Let L = B B for some B R m n. Then, it holds that v Bp i ui A 1 v i 3ε/10 L 1 L L 1 u i. We invoke the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma and find a random matrix Q R Olog n/ε m : With high probability, it holds that v QBp i ui A 1 v i 4ε/10 L 1 L L 1 u i. We apply a nearly-linear time Laplacian solver to compute up to 1 ± ε/10-multiplicative error in time Õ m ε η The computation for {t i } m QBp L 1 L L 1 u i for all {ui } m. This gives the desired {r i } m. is similar. By Lemma A.4, it holds for any 1 i m that v i A li 1 v i 3ε/10 A 1/ qa 1 v i = A 1/ q L 1/ L 1 L 1/ L 1/ u i = A 1/ L 1/ qll 1 u i. Let L = B B for some B R m n. Then, it holds that v i A li 1 v i 3ε/10 L 1/ q LL 1 u i = L 1/ L 1 q LL 1 u i = B L 1 q LL 1 u i. We invoke the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma and a nearly-linear time Laplacian solver as before to obtain required {t i } m. The total runtime is Õ m ηε. Lemma A.6 shows that how to approximate λ min ui A and λ min A li in nearly-linear time. Lemma A.6. Under Assumption A.3, we can compute values α, β in Õ m time such that ηε 3 1 εα λ min ui A 1 + εα and 1 εβ λ min A li 1 + εβ. 1
23 Proof. By Lemma A.4, we have that S u ε/10 ui A 1/. Hence, λ max S u 3ε/10 λ min ui A, and it suffices to estimate λ max S u. Since λ max S u tr S k u 1/k n 1/k λ max S u, by picking k = log n/ε we have that trsu k 1/k ε/ λ max S u. Notice that tr = tr p k L 1/ 1/ LL = tr p k L 1 L. S k u Set L = B B for some matrix B R m n, and we have that tr Su k = tr p k BL 1 B. Since we can apply p k BL 1 B to vectors in Õ m ηε time, we invoke the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma and approximate tr Su k in Õ m time. ηε 3 We approximate λ min A li in a similar way. Notice that tr S 4k l 4k = tr A 1/ qa 1 = tr qa 1 A 1 qa 1 k. Let z be a polynomial defined by zx = xq x and L = B B. Then, we have that trsl z 4k = tr k A 1 = tr z k L 1/ L 1 L 1/. Applying the same analysis as before, we can estimate the trace in Õ m ηε 3 time.
An SDP-Based Algorithm for Linear-Sized Spectral Sparsification
An SDP-Based Algorithm for Linear-Sized Spectral Sparsification ABSTRACT Yin Tat Lee Microsoft Research Redmond, USA yile@microsoft.com For any undirected and weighted graph G = V, E, w with n vertices
More informationA Tutorial on Matrix Approximation by Row Sampling
A Tutorial on Matrix Approximation by Row Sampling Rasmus Kyng June 11, 018 Contents 1 Fast Linear Algebra Talk 1.1 Matrix Concentration................................... 1. Algorithms for ɛ-approximation
More informationGraph Sparsification I : Effective Resistance Sampling
Graph Sparsification I : Effective Resistance Sampling Nikhil Srivastava Microsoft Research India Simons Institute, August 26 2014 Graphs G G=(V,E,w) undirected V = n w: E R + Sparsification Approximate
More informationSparsification by Effective Resistance Sampling
Spectral raph Theory Lecture 17 Sparsification by Effective Resistance Sampling Daniel A. Spielman November 2, 2015 Disclaimer These notes are not necessarily an accurate representation of what happened
More informationORIE 6334 Spectral Graph Theory November 8, Lecture 22
ORIE 6334 Spectral Graph Theory November 8, 206 Lecture 22 Lecturer: David P. Williamson Scribe: Shijin Rajakrishnan Recap In the previous lectures, we explored the problem of finding spectral sparsifiers
More informationSparsification of Graphs and Matrices
Sparsification of Graphs and Matrices Daniel A. Spielman Yale University joint work with Joshua Batson (MIT) Nikhil Srivastava (MSR) Shang- Hua Teng (USC) HUJI, May 21, 2014 Objective of Sparsification:
More informationConstant Arboricity Spectral Sparsifiers
Constant Arboricity Spectral Sparsifiers arxiv:1808.0566v1 [cs.ds] 16 Aug 018 Timothy Chu oogle timchu@google.com Jakub W. Pachocki Carnegie Mellon University pachocki@cs.cmu.edu August 0, 018 Abstract
More informationApproximate Gaussian Elimination for Laplacians
CSC 221H : Graphs, Matrices, and Optimization Lecture 9 : 19 November 2018 Approximate Gaussian Elimination for Laplacians Lecturer: Sushant Sachdeva Scribe: Yasaman Mahdaviyeh 1 Introduction Recall sparsifiers
More informationLecture 21 November 11, 2014
CS 224: Advanced Algorithms Fall 2-14 Prof. Jelani Nelson Lecture 21 November 11, 2014 Scribe: Nithin Tumma 1 Overview In the previous lecture we finished covering the multiplicative weights method and
More informationGraph Sparsifiers: A Survey
Graph Sparsifiers: A Survey Nick Harvey UBC Based on work by: Batson, Benczur, de Carli Silva, Fung, Hariharan, Harvey, Karger, Panigrahi, Sato, Spielman, Srivastava and Teng Approximating Dense Objects
More informationGraph Sparsifiers. Smaller graph that (approximately) preserves the values of some set of graph parameters. Graph Sparsification
Graph Sparsifiers Smaller graph that (approximately) preserves the values of some set of graph parameters Graph Sparsifiers Spanners Emulators Small stretch spanning trees Vertex sparsifiers Spectral sparsifiers
More informationto be more efficient on enormous scale, in a stream, or in distributed settings.
16 Matrix Sketching The singular value decomposition (SVD) can be interpreted as finding the most dominant directions in an (n d) matrix A (or n points in R d ). Typically n > d. It is typically easy to
More informationLecture 24: Element-wise Sampling of Graphs and Linear Equation Solving. 22 Element-wise Sampling of Graphs and Linear Equation Solving
Stat260/CS294: Randomized Algorithms for Matrices and Data Lecture 24-12/02/2013 Lecture 24: Element-wise Sampling of Graphs and Linear Equation Solving Lecturer: Michael Mahoney Scribe: Michael Mahoney
More informationGraph Sparsification III: Ramanujan Graphs, Lifts, and Interlacing Families
Graph Sparsification III: Ramanujan Graphs, Lifts, and Interlacing Families Nikhil Srivastava Microsoft Research India Simons Institute, August 27, 2014 The Last Two Lectures Lecture 1. Every weighted
More informationGraph Sparsification II: Rank one updates, Interlacing, and Barriers
Graph Sparsification II: Rank one updates, Interlacing, and Barriers Nikhil Srivastava Simons Institute August 26, 2014 Previous Lecture Definition. H = (V, F, u) is a κ approximation of G = V, E, w if:
More informationU.C. Berkeley CS270: Algorithms Lecture 21 Professor Vazirani and Professor Rao Last revised. Lecture 21
U.C. Berkeley CS270: Algorithms Lecture 21 Professor Vazirani and Professor Rao Scribe: Anupam Last revised Lecture 21 1 Laplacian systems in nearly linear time Building upon the ideas introduced in the
More informationAlgorithmic Primitives for Network Analysis: Through the Lens of the Laplacian Paradigm
Algorithmic Primitives for Network Analysis: Through the Lens of the Laplacian Paradigm Shang-Hua Teng Computer Science, Viterbi School of Engineering USC Massive Data and Massive Graphs 500 billions web
More informationRandom Matrices: Invertibility, Structure, and Applications
Random Matrices: Invertibility, Structure, and Applications Roman Vershynin University of Michigan Colloquium, October 11, 2011 Roman Vershynin (University of Michigan) Random Matrices Colloquium 1 / 37
More informationRamanujan Graphs of Every Size
Spectral Graph Theory Lecture 24 Ramanujan Graphs of Every Size Daniel A. Spielman December 2, 2015 Disclaimer These notes are not necessarily an accurate representation of what happened in class. The
More informationThe Method of Interlacing Polynomials
The Method of Interlacing Polynomials Kuikui Liu June 2017 Abstract We survey the method of interlacing polynomials, the heart of the recent solution to the Kadison-Singer problem as well as breakthrough
More informationApproximate Spectral Clustering via Randomized Sketching
Approximate Spectral Clustering via Randomized Sketching Christos Boutsidis Yahoo! Labs, New York Joint work with Alex Gittens (Ebay), Anju Kambadur (IBM) The big picture: sketch and solve Tradeoff: Speed
More informationGraphs, Vectors, and Matrices Daniel A. Spielman Yale University. AMS Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture January 6, 2016
Graphs, Vectors, and Matrices Daniel A. Spielman Yale University AMS Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture January 6, 2016 From Applied to Pure Mathematics Algebraic and Spectral Graph Theory Sparsification: approximating
More informationCS 435, 2018 Lecture 3, Date: 8 March 2018 Instructor: Nisheeth Vishnoi. Gradient Descent
CS 435, 2018 Lecture 3, Date: 8 March 2018 Instructor: Nisheeth Vishnoi Gradient Descent This lecture introduces Gradient Descent a meta-algorithm for unconstrained minimization. Under convexity of the
More informationLecture 18: March 15
CS71 Randomness & Computation Spring 018 Instructor: Alistair Sinclair Lecture 18: March 15 Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the usual scrutiny accorded to formal publications. They may
More informationORIE 6334 Spectral Graph Theory October 25, Lecture 18
ORIE 6334 Spectral Graph Theory October 25, 2016 Lecturer: David P Williamson Lecture 18 Scribe: Venus Lo 1 Max Flow in Undirected Graphs 11 Max flow We start by reviewing the maximum flow problem We are
More informationSpectral Sparsification in Dynamic Graph Streams
Spectral Sparsification in Dynamic Graph Streams Kook Jin Ahn 1, Sudipto Guha 1, and Andrew McGregor 2 1 University of Pennsylvania {kookjin,sudipto}@seas.upenn.edu 2 University of Massachusetts Amherst
More informationLecture 18 Oct. 30, 2014
CS 224: Advanced Algorithms Fall 214 Lecture 18 Oct. 3, 214 Prof. Jelani Nelson Scribe: Xiaoyu He 1 Overview In this lecture we will describe a path-following implementation of the Interior Point Method
More informationEfficient Sampling for Gaussian Graphical Models via Spectral Sparsification
JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings vol 40: 27, 205 Efficient Sampling for Gaussian Graphical Models via Spectral Sparsification Dehua Cheng Yu Cheng Yan Liu Richard Peng 2 Shang-Hua Teng University
More informationLaplacian Matrices of Graphs: Spectral and Electrical Theory
Laplacian Matrices of Graphs: Spectral and Electrical Theory Daniel A. Spielman Dept. of Computer Science Program in Applied Mathematics Yale University Toronto, Sep. 28, 2 Outline Introduction to graphs
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.lg] 16 Jun 2015
Spectral Sparsification and Regret Minimization Beyond Matrix Multiplicative Updates Zeyuan Allen-Zhu zeyuan@csailmitedu MIT CSAIL Zhenyu Liao zhenyul@buedu Boston University Lorenzo Orecchia orecchia@buedu
More informationTowards Practically-Efficient Spectral Sparsification of Graphs. Zhuo Feng
Design Automation Group Towards Practically-Efficient Spectral Sparsification of Graphs Zhuo Feng Acknowledgements: PhD students: Xueqian Zhao, Lengfei Han, Zhiqiang Zhao, Yongyu Wang NSF CCF CAREER grant
More informationFast Approximate Matrix Multiplication by Solving Linear Systems
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 117 (2014) Fast Approximate Matrix Multiplication by Solving Linear Systems Shiva Manne 1 and Manjish Pal 2 1 Birla Institute of Technology,
More informationLecture 14: Random Walks, Local Graph Clustering, Linear Programming
CSE 521: Design and Analysis of Algorithms I Winter 2017 Lecture 14: Random Walks, Local Graph Clustering, Linear Programming Lecturer: Shayan Oveis Gharan 3/01/17 Scribe: Laura Vonessen Disclaimer: These
More informationGraph Partitioning Algorithms and Laplacian Eigenvalues
Graph Partitioning Algorithms and Laplacian Eigenvalues Luca Trevisan Stanford Based on work with Tsz Chiu Kwok, Lap Chi Lau, James Lee, Yin Tat Lee, and Shayan Oveis Gharan spectral graph theory Use linear
More informationA Matrix Expander Chernoff Bound
A Matrix Expander Chernoff Bound Ankit Garg, Yin Tat Lee, Zhao Song, Nikhil Srivastava UC Berkeley Vanilla Chernoff Bound Thm [Hoeffding, Chernoff]. If X 1,, X k are independent mean zero random variables
More informationProperties of Expanders Expanders as Approximations of the Complete Graph
Spectral Graph Theory Lecture 10 Properties of Expanders Daniel A. Spielman October 2, 2009 10.1 Expanders as Approximations of the Complete Graph Last lecture, we defined an expander graph to be a d-regular
More informationU.C. Berkeley CS294: Spectral Methods and Expanders Handout 11 Luca Trevisan February 29, 2016
U.C. Berkeley CS294: Spectral Methods and Expanders Handout Luca Trevisan February 29, 206 Lecture : ARV In which we introduce semi-definite programming and a semi-definite programming relaxation of sparsest
More informationLecture 18. Ramanujan Graphs continued
Stanford University Winter 218 Math 233A: Non-constructive methods in combinatorics Instructor: Jan Vondrák Lecture date: March 8, 218 Original scribe: László Miklós Lovász Lecture 18 Ramanujan Graphs
More informationSpectral Partitiong in a Stochastic Block Model
Spectral Graph Theory Lecture 21 Spectral Partitiong in a Stochastic Block Model Daniel A. Spielman November 16, 2015 Disclaimer These notes are not necessarily an accurate representation of what happened
More informationA Robust APTAS for the Classical Bin Packing Problem
A Robust APTAS for the Classical Bin Packing Problem Leah Epstein 1 and Asaf Levin 2 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, 31905 Haifa, Israel. Email: lea@math.haifa.ac.il 2 Department of Statistics,
More informationDiscrepancy Theory in Approximation Algorithms
Discrepancy Theory in Approximation Algorithms Rajat Sen, Soumya Basu May 8, 2015 1 Introduction In this report we would like to motivate the use of discrepancy theory in algorithms. Discrepancy theory
More informationLower Bounds for Testing Bipartiteness in Dense Graphs
Lower Bounds for Testing Bipartiteness in Dense Graphs Andrej Bogdanov Luca Trevisan Abstract We consider the problem of testing bipartiteness in the adjacency matrix model. The best known algorithm, due
More informationSpectral Analysis of Random Walks
Graphs and Networks Lecture 9 Spectral Analysis of Random Walks Daniel A. Spielman September 26, 2013 9.1 Disclaimer These notes are not necessarily an accurate representation of what happened in class.
More informationOn Sketching Quadratic Forms
On Sketching Quadratic Forms Alexandr Andoni Jiecao Chen Robert Krauthgamer Bo Qin David P. Woodruff Qin Zhang December 18, 2015 Abstract We undertake a systematic study of sketching a quadratic form:
More informationsublinear time low-rank approximation of positive semidefinite matrices Cameron Musco (MIT) and David P. Woodru (CMU)
sublinear time low-rank approximation of positive semidefinite matrices Cameron Musco (MIT) and David P. Woodru (CMU) 0 overview Our Contributions: 1 overview Our Contributions: A near optimal low-rank
More informationLecture 17: Cheeger s Inequality and the Sparsest Cut Problem
Recent Advances in Approximation Algorithms Spring 2015 Lecture 17: Cheeger s Inequality and the Sparsest Cut Problem Lecturer: Shayan Oveis Gharan June 1st Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected
More information1 Matrix notation and preliminaries from spectral graph theory
Graph clustering (or community detection or graph partitioning) is one of the most studied problems in network analysis. One reason for this is that there are a variety of ways to define a cluster or community.
More informationAlgorithms, Graph Theory, and the Solu7on of Laplacian Linear Equa7ons. Daniel A. Spielman Yale University
Algorithms, Graph Theory, and the Solu7on of Laplacian Linear Equa7ons Daniel A. Spielman Yale University Rutgers, Dec 6, 2011 Outline Linear Systems in Laplacian Matrices What? Why? Classic ways to solve
More informationSemidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2001 Lecture 5
Semidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2001 Lecture 5 Instructor: Farid Alizadeh Scribe: Anton Riabov 10/08/2001 1 Overview We continue studying the maximum eigenvalue SDP, and generalize
More informationLabel Cover Algorithms via the Log-Density Threshold
Label Cover Algorithms via the Log-Density Threshold Jimmy Wu jimmyjwu@stanford.edu June 13, 2017 1 Introduction Since the discovery of the PCP Theorem and its implications for approximation algorithms,
More informationRandNLA: Randomized Numerical Linear Algebra
RandNLA: Randomized Numerical Linear Algebra Petros Drineas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Computer Science Department To access my web page: drineas RandNLA: sketch a matrix by row/ column sampling
More informationLow-Rank PSD Approximation in Input-Sparsity Time
Low-Rank PSD Approximation in Input-Sparsity Time Kenneth L. Clarkson IBM Research Almaden klclarks@us.ibm.com David P. Woodruff IBM Research Almaden dpwoodru@us.ibm.com Abstract We give algorithms for
More informationGraph Partitioning Using Random Walks
Graph Partitioning Using Random Walks A Convex Optimization Perspective Lorenzo Orecchia Computer Science Why Spectral Algorithms for Graph Problems in practice? Simple to implement Can exploit very efficient
More informationAn Improved Approximation Algorithm for Requirement Cut
An Improved Approximation Algorithm for Requirement Cut Anupam Gupta Viswanath Nagarajan R. Ravi Abstract This note presents improved approximation guarantees for the requirement cut problem: given an
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 15 Apr 2005
Quantum walks on directed graphs Ashley Montanaro arxiv:quant-ph/0504116v1 15 Apr 2005 February 1, 2008 Abstract We consider the definition of quantum walks on directed graphs. Call a directed graph reversible
More informationLecture: Local Spectral Methods (3 of 4) 20 An optimization perspective on local spectral methods
Stat260/CS294: Spectral Graph Methods Lecture 20-04/07/205 Lecture: Local Spectral Methods (3 of 4) Lecturer: Michael Mahoney Scribe: Michael Mahoney Warning: these notes are still very rough. They provide
More informationSketching as a Tool for Numerical Linear Algebra
Sketching as a Tool for Numerical Linear Algebra (Part 2) David P. Woodruff presented by Sepehr Assadi o(n) Big Data Reading Group University of Pennsylvania February, 2015 Sepehr Assadi (Penn) Sketching
More informationLecture 8: Linear Algebra Background
CSE 521: Design and Analysis of Algorithms I Winter 2017 Lecture 8: Linear Algebra Background Lecturer: Shayan Oveis Gharan 2/1/2017 Scribe: Swati Padmanabhan Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected
More informationLecture Approximate Potentials from Approximate Flow
ORIE 6334 Spectral Graph Theory October 20, 2016 Lecturer: David P. Williamson Lecture 17 Scribe: Yingjie Bi 1 Approximate Potentials from Approximate Flow In the last lecture, we presented a combinatorial
More informationRandomized Algorithms
Randomized Algorithms Saniv Kumar, Google Research, NY EECS-6898, Columbia University - Fall, 010 Saniv Kumar 9/13/010 EECS6898 Large Scale Machine Learning 1 Curse of Dimensionality Gaussian Mixture Models
More informationA Generalized Eigenmode Algorithm for Reducible Regular Matrices over the Max-Plus Algebra
International Mathematical Forum, 4, 2009, no. 24, 1157-1171 A Generalized Eigenmode Algorithm for Reducible Regular Matrices over the Max-Plus Algebra Zvi Retchkiman Königsberg Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
More informationEffective Resistance and Schur Complements
Spectral Graph Theory Lecture 8 Effective Resistance and Schur Complements Daniel A Spielman September 28, 2015 Disclaimer These notes are not necessarily an accurate representation of what happened in
More informationAn Empirical Comparison of Graph Laplacian Solvers
An Empirical Comparison of Graph Laplacian Solvers Kevin Deweese 1 Erik Boman 2 John Gilbert 1 1 Department of Computer Science University of California, Santa Barbara 2 Scalable Algorithms Department
More informationRandomized sparsification in NP-hard norms
58 Chapter 3 Randomized sparsification in NP-hard norms Massive matrices are ubiquitous in modern data processing. Classical dense matrix algorithms are poorly suited to such problems because their running
More informationGraph Sparsification by Edge-Connectivity and Random Spanning Trees
Graph Sparsification by Edge-Connectivity and Random Spanning Trees Wai Shing Fung Nicholas J. A. Harvey Abstract We present new approaches to constructing graph sparsifiers weighted subgraphs for which
More informationCS 229r: Algorithms for Big Data Fall Lecture 17 10/28
CS 229r: Algorithms for Big Data Fall 2015 Prof. Jelani Nelson Lecture 17 10/28 Scribe: Morris Yau 1 Overview In the last lecture we defined subspace embeddings a subspace embedding is a linear transformation
More informationThe Complexity of the Permanent and Related Problems
The Complexity of the Permanent and Related Problems Tim Abbott and Alex Schwendner May 9, 2007 Contents 1 The Permanent 2 1.1 Variations on the Determinant...................... 2 1.2 Graph Interpretation...........................
More informationQuantum Algorithms for Graph Traversals and Related Problems
Quantum Algorithms for Graph Traversals and Related Problems Sebastian Dörn Institut für Theoretische Informatik, Universität Ulm, 89069 Ulm, Germany sebastian.doern@uni-ulm.de Abstract. We study the complexity
More informationOptimality of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma
Optimality of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma Kasper Green Larsen Jelani Nelson September 7, 2016 Abstract For any integers d, n 2 and 1/(min{n, d}) 0.4999 < ε < 1, we show the existence of a set of n
More informationHardness of Embedding Metric Spaces of Equal Size
Hardness of Embedding Metric Spaces of Equal Size Subhash Khot and Rishi Saket Georgia Institute of Technology {khot,saket}@cc.gatech.edu Abstract. We study the problem embedding an n-point metric space
More informationEstimating Current-Flow Closeness Centrality with a Multigrid Laplacian Solver
Estimating Current-Flow Closeness Centrality with a Multigrid Laplacian Solver E. Bergamini, M. Wegner, D. Lukarski, H. Meyerhenke October 12, 2016 SIAM WORKSHOP ON COMBINATORIAL SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING (CSC16)
More informationThe Quantum Query Complexity of Algebraic Properties
The Quantum Query Complexity of Algebraic Properties Sebastian Dörn Institut für Theoretische Informatik Universität Ulm 89069 Ulm, Germany Thomas Thierauf Fak. Elektronik und Informatik HTW Aalen 73430
More informationACO Comprehensive Exam October 14 and 15, 2013
1. Computability, Complexity and Algorithms (a) Let G be the complete graph on n vertices, and let c : V (G) V (G) [0, ) be a symmetric cost function. Consider the following closest point heuristic for
More informationFast Angular Synchronization for Phase Retrieval via Incomplete Information
Fast Angular Synchronization for Phase Retrieval via Incomplete Information Aditya Viswanathan a and Mark Iwen b a Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University; b Department of Mathematics & Department
More informationSampling Contingency Tables
Sampling Contingency Tables Martin Dyer Ravi Kannan John Mount February 3, 995 Introduction Given positive integers and, let be the set of arrays with nonnegative integer entries and row sums respectively
More informationA Linear Round Lower Bound for Lovasz-Schrijver SDP Relaxations of Vertex Cover
A Linear Round Lower Bound for Lovasz-Schrijver SDP Relaxations of Vertex Cover Grant Schoenebeck Luca Trevisan Madhur Tulsiani Abstract We study semidefinite programming relaxations of Vertex Cover arising
More informationComputing the Gromov hyperbolicity of a discrete metric space
Computing the Gromov hyperbolicity of a discrete metric space Hervé Fournier Anas Ismail Antoine Vigneron May 11, 2014 Abstract We give exact and approximation algorithms for computing the Gromov hyperbolicity
More informationA fast randomized algorithm for overdetermined linear least-squares regression
A fast randomized algorithm for overdetermined linear least-squares regression Vladimir Rokhlin and Mark Tygert Technical Report YALEU/DCS/TR-1403 April 28, 2008 Abstract We introduce a randomized algorithm
More informationThe 2-valued case of makespan minimization with assignment constraints
The 2-valued case of maespan minimization with assignment constraints Stavros G. Kolliopoulos Yannis Moysoglou Abstract We consider the following special case of minimizing maespan. A set of jobs J and
More informationA lower bound for the Laplacian eigenvalues of a graph proof of a conjecture by Guo
A lower bound for the Laplacian eigenvalues of a graph proof of a conjecture by Guo A. E. Brouwer & W. H. Haemers 2008-02-28 Abstract We show that if µ j is the j-th largest Laplacian eigenvalue, and d
More informationLecture 2: Stable Polynomials
Math 270: Geometry of Polynomials Fall 2015 Lecture 2: Stable Polynomials Lecturer: Nikhil Srivastava September 8 Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the usual scrutiny reserved for formal
More informationA Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Pliable Index Coding
1 A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Pliable Index Coding Linqi Song and Christina Fragouli arxiv:1610.06845v [cs.it] 9 Aug 017 Abstract In pliable index coding, we consider a server with m messages and n
More informationRegularized Laplacian Estimation and Fast Eigenvector Approximation
Regularized Laplacian Estimation and Fast Eigenvector Approximation Patrick O. Perry Information, Operations, and Management Sciences NYU Stern School of Business New York, NY 1001 pperry@stern.nyu.edu
More informationApproximate Second Order Algorithms. Seo Taek Kong, Nithin Tangellamudi, Zhikai Guo
Approximate Second Order Algorithms Seo Taek Kong, Nithin Tangellamudi, Zhikai Guo Why Second Order Algorithms? Invariant under affine transformations e.g. stretching a function preserves the convergence
More informationLecture 9: Low Rank Approximation
CSE 521: Design and Analysis of Algorithms I Fall 2018 Lecture 9: Low Rank Approximation Lecturer: Shayan Oveis Gharan February 8th Scribe: Jun Qi Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the
More informationOn the exponential convergence of. the Kaczmarz algorithm
On the exponential convergence of the Kaczmarz algorithm Liang Dai and Thomas B. Schön Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, arxiv:4.407v [cs.sy] 0 Mar 05 75 05 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail:
More informationReport on PIR with Low Storage Overhead
Report on PIR with Low Storage Overhead Ehsan Ebrahimi Targhi University of Tartu December 15, 2015 Abstract Private information retrieval (PIR) protocol, introduced in 1995 by Chor, Goldreich, Kushilevitz
More informationOn Sketching Quadratic Forms
On Sketching Quadratic Forms Alexandr Andoni Jiecao Chen Robert Krauthgamer Bo Qin David P. Woodruff Qin Zhang April 2, 2015 Abstract We initiate the study of sketching a quadratic form: given an n n matrix
More informationCell-Probe Lower Bounds for Prefix Sums and Matching Brackets
Cell-Probe Lower Bounds for Prefix Sums and Matching Brackets Emanuele Viola July 6, 2009 Abstract We prove that to store strings x {0, 1} n so that each prefix sum a.k.a. rank query Sumi := k i x k can
More informationFast Linear Solvers for Laplacian Systems
s Solver for UCSD Research Exam University of California, San Diego osimpson@ucsd.edu November 8, 2013 s Solver 1 2 Matrices Linear in the Graph 3 Overview 4 Solving Linear with Using Computing A of the
More informationA local algorithm for finding dense bipartite-like subgraphs
A local algorithm for finding dense bipartite-like subgraphs Pan Peng 1,2 1 State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences 2 School of Information Science
More informationGeneralized comparison trees for point-location problems
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 74 (208) Generalized comparison trees for point-location problems Daniel M. Kane Shachar Lovett Shay Moran April 22, 208 Abstract Let H be
More informationConvex and Semidefinite Programming for Approximation
Convex and Semidefinite Programming for Approximation We have seen linear programming based methods to solve NP-hard problems. One perspective on this is that linear programming is a meta-method since
More informationStrongly connected graphs and polynomials
Strongly connected graphs and polynomials Jehanne Dousse August 27, 2011 Abstract In this report, we give the exact solutions ofthe equation P(A) = 0 where P is a polynomial of degree2 with integer coefficients,
More informationAn Elementary Construction of Constant-Degree Expanders
An Elementary Construction of Constant-Degree Expanders Noga Alon Oded Schwartz Asaf Shapira Abstract We describe a short and easy to analyze construction of constant-degree expanders. The construction
More informationSketching as a Tool for Numerical Linear Algebra
Sketching as a Tool for Numerical Linear Algebra David P. Woodruff presented by Sepehr Assadi o(n) Big Data Reading Group University of Pennsylvania February, 2015 Sepehr Assadi (Penn) Sketching for Numerical
More informationarxiv: v1 [stat.ml] 23 Dec 2015
k-means Clustering Is Matrix Factorization Christian Bauckhage arxiv:151.07548v1 [stat.ml] 3 Dec 015 B-IT, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany Fraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany http://mmprec.iais.fraunhofer.de/bauckhage.html
More informationLecture notes for quantum semidefinite programming (SDP) solvers
CMSC 657, Intro to Quantum Information Processing Lecture on November 15 and 0, 018 Fall 018, University of Maryland Prepared by Tongyang Li, Xiaodi Wu Lecture notes for quantum semidefinite programming
More information2.1 Laplacian Variants
-3 MS&E 337: Spectral Graph heory and Algorithmic Applications Spring 2015 Lecturer: Prof. Amin Saberi Lecture 2-3: 4/7/2015 Scribe: Simon Anastasiadis and Nolan Skochdopole Disclaimer: hese notes have
More informationNear-Optimal Algorithms for Maximum Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Near-Optimal Algorithms for Maximum Constraint Satisfaction Problems Moses Charikar Konstantin Makarychev Yury Makarychev Princeton University Abstract In this paper we present approximation algorithms
More information