arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 17 Mar 2016

Transcription

1 Tight Bounds for Single-Pass Streaing Coplexity of the Set Cover Proble Sepehr Assadi Sanjeev Khanna Yang Li Abstract arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 17 Mar 2016 We resolve the space coplexity of single-pass streaing algoriths for approxiating the classic set cover proble. For finding an α-approxiate set cover (for any α = o( n using a single-pass streaing algorith, we show that Θ(n/α space is both sufficient and necessary (up to an O(log n factor; here denotes nuber of the sets and n denotes size of the universe. This provides a strong negative answer to the open question posed by Indyk et al. [17] regarding the possibility of having a single-pass algorith with a sall approxiation factor that uses sub-linear space. We further study the proble of estiating the size of a iniu set cover (as opposed to finding the actual sets, and establish that an additional factor of α saving in the space is achievable in this case and that this is the best possible. In other words, we show that Θ(n/α 2 space is both sufficient and necessary (up to logarithic factors for estiating the size of a iniu set cover to within a factor of α. Our algorith in fact works for the ore general proble of estiating the optial value of a covering integer progra. On the other hand, our lower bound holds even for set cover instances where the sets are presented in a rando order. Departent of Coputer and Inforation Science, University of Pennsylvania. Supported in part by National Science Foundation grants CCF , CCF , and IIS and an Adobe research award. Eail: {sassadi,sanjeev,yangli2}@cis.upenn.edu.

2 1 Introduction The set cover proble is a fundaental optiization proble with any applications in coputer science and related disciplines. The input is a universe [n] and a collection of subsets of [n], S = S 1,..., S, and the goal is to find a subset of S with the sallest cardinality that covers [n], i.e., whose union is [n]; we call such a collection of sets a iniu set cover and throughout the paper denote its cardinality by opt := opt(s. The set cover proble can be forulated in the well-established streaing odel [1, 23], whereby the sets in S are presented one by one in a strea and the goal is to solve the set cover proble using a space-efficient algorith. The streaing setting for the set cover proble has been studied in several recent work, including [7, 10, 12, 17, 27]. We refer the interested reader to these references for any applications of the set cover proble in the streaing odel. In this paper, we focus on algoriths that ake only one pass over the strea (i.e., single-pass streaing algoriths, and our goal is to settle the space coplexity of single-pass streaing algoriths that approxiate the set cover proble. Two versions of the set cover proble are considered in this paper: (i coputing a iniu set cover, and (ii coputing the size of a iniu set cover. Forally, Definition 1 (α-approxiation. An algorith A is said to α-approxiate the set cover proble iff on every input instance S, A outputs a collection of (the indices of at ost α opt sets that covers [n], along with a certificate of covering which, for each eleent e [n], specifies the set used for covering e. If A is a randoized algorith, we require that the certificate corresponds to a valid set cover w.p. 1 at least 2/3. We reark that the requireent of returning a certificate of covering is standard in the literature (see, e.g., [7, 12]. Definition 2 (α-estiation. An algorith A is said to α-estiate the set cover proble iff on every input instance S, A outputs an estiate for the cardinality of a iniu set cover in the range [opt, α opt]. If A is a randoized algorith, we require that: ( Pr A(S [opt, α opt] 2/3 1.1 Our Results We resolve the space coplexities of both versions of the set cover proble. Specifically, we show that for any α = o( n/ log n and any = poly(n, There is a deterinistic single-pass streaing algorith that α-approxiates the set cover proble using space Õ(n/α bits and oreover, any single-pass streaing algorith (possibly randoized that α-approxiates the set cover proble ust use Ω(n/α bits of space. There is a randoized single-pass streaing algorith that α-estiates the set cover proble using space Õ(n/α 2 bits and oreover, any single-pass streaing algorith (possibly randoized that α-estiates the set cover proble ust use Ω(n/α 2 bits of space. We should point out right away that in this paper, we are not concerned with poly-tie coputability, though, our algoriths for set cover can be ade coputationally efficient for any α log n by allowing an extra log n factor in the space requireent 2. 1 Throughout, we use w.p. and w.h.p. to abbreviate with probability and with high probability, respectively. 2 Set cover adits a classic log n-approxiation algorith [19, 28], and unless P = NP, there is no polynoial tie α-approxiation for the set cover proble for α < (1 ǫ log n (for any constant ǫ > 0 [11, 13, 22]. 1

3 We establish our upper bound result for α-estiation for a uch ore general proble: estiating the optial value of a covering integer linear progra (see Section 4 for a foral definition. Moreover, the space lower bound for α-estiation (for the original set cover proble holds even if the sets are presented in a rando order. We now describe each of these two sets of results in ore details. Approxiating Set Cover. There is a very siple deterinistic α-approxiation algorith for the set cover proble using space Õ(n/α bits which we ention in Section 1.2 for copleteness. Perhaps surprisingly, we establish that this siple algorith is essentially the best possible; any α-approxiation algorith for the set cover proble requires Ω(n/α bits of space (see Theore 1 for a foral stateent. Prior to our work, the best known lower bounds for single-pass streas ruled out (3/2 ǫ-approxiation using o(n space [17] (see also [15], o( n-approxiation in o( space [7, 12], and O(1-approxiation in o(n space [10] (only for deterinistic algoriths; see Section 1.3 for ore detail on different existing lower bounds. Note that these lower bound results leave open the possibility of a single-pass randoized 3/2-approxiation or even a deterinistic O(log n-approxiation algorith for the set cover proble using only Õ( space. Our result on the other hand, rules out the possibility of having any non-trivial tradeoff between the approxiation factor and the space requireent, answering an open question raised by Indyk et al. [17] in the strongest sense possible. We should also point out that the bound of α = o( n/ log n in our lower bound is tight up to an O(log n factor since an O( n-approxiation is known to be achievable in Õ(n space (essentially independent of for = poly(n [7, 12]. Estiating Set Cover Size. We present an Õ(n/α 2 space algorith for α-estiating the set cover proble, and in general any covering integer progra (see Theore 3 for a foral stateent. Our upper bound suggests that if one is only interested in α-estiating the size of a iniu set cover (instead of knowing the actual sets, then an additional α factor saving in the space (copare to the best possible α-approxiation algorith is possible. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first non-trivial gap between the space coplexity of α-approxiation and α-estiation for the set cover proble. We further show that the space coplexity of our Õ(n/α 2 space α-estiation algorith for the set cover proble is essentially tight (up to logarithic factors. In other words, any α-estiation algorith for set cover (possibly randoized requires Ω(n/α 2 space (see Theore 4 for a foral stateent. There are exaples of classic optiization probles in the streaing literature for which size estiation sees to be distinctly easier in the rando arrival streas 3 copare to the adversarial streas (see, e.g., [20]. However, we show that this is not the case for the set cover proble, i.e., the lower bound of Ω(n/α 2 for α-estiation continues to hold even for rando arrival streas. We note in passing two other results also: (i our bounds for α-approxiation and α- estiation also prove tight bounds on the one-way counication coplexity of the two-player counication odel of the set cover proble (see Theore 2 and Theore 5, previously studied in [7, 10, 24]; (ii the use of randoization in our α-estiation algorith is inevitable: any deterinistic α-estiation algorith for the set cover requires Ω(n/α bits of space (see Theore 6. 3 In rando arrival streas, the input (in our case, the collection of sets is randoly peruted before being presented to the algorith 2

4 1.2 Our Techniques Upper bounds. An α-approxiation using Õ(n/α bits of space can be siply achieved as follows. Merge (i.e., take the union of every α sets in the strea into a single set; at the end of the strea, solve the set cover proble over the erged sets. To recover a certificate of covering, we also record for each eleent e in each erged set, any set in the erge that covers e. It is an easy exercise to verify that this algorith indeed achieves an α-approxiation and can be ipleented in space Õ(n/α bits. Our Õ(n/α 2 -space α-estiation algorith is ore involved and in fact works for any covering integer progra (henceforth, a covering ILP for short. We follow the line of work in [10] and [17] by perforing diensionality reduction over the sets (in our case, coluns of the constraint atrix A and storing their projection over a randoly sapled subset of the universe (here, constraints during the strea. However, the goal of our constraint sapling approach is entirely different fro the ones in [10,17]. The eleent sapling approach of [10, 17] ais to find a sall cover of the sapled universe which also covers the vast ajority of the eleents in the original universe. This allows the algorith to find a sall set cover of the sapled universe in one pass while reducing the nuber of reaining uncovered eleents for the next pass; hence, applying this approach repeatedly over ultiple passes on the input allows one to obtain a coplete cover. On the other hand, the goal of our constraint sapling approach is to create a saller instance of set cover (in general, covering ILP with the property that the iniu set cover size of the sapled instance is a proxy for the iniu set cover size of the original instance. We crucially use the fact that the algorith does not need to identify the actual cover and hence it can estiate the size of the solution based on the optiu set cover size in the sapled universe. At the core of our approach is a siple yet very general lea, referred to as the constraint sapling lea (Lea 4.1 which ay be of independent interest. Inforally, this lea states that for any covering ILP instance I, the optial value of a sub-sapled instance I R, obtained by picking roughly 1/α fraction of the constraints uniforly at rando fro I, is an α estiator of the optiu value of I whenever no constraint is too hard to satisfy. Nevertheless, the constraint sapling is not enough for reducing the space to eet the desired Õ(n/α 2 bound (see Theore 3. Hence, we cobine it with a pruning step, siilar to the set filtering step of [17] for (unweighted set cover (see also GreedyPass algorith of [7] to sparsify the coluns in the input atrix A before perforing the sapling. We point out that as the variables in I can have different weights in the objective function (e.g. for weighted set cover, our pruning step needs to be sensitive to the weights. Lower bounds. As is typical in the streaing literature, our lower bounds are obtained by establishing counication coplexity lower bounds; in particular, in the one-way two-player counication odel. To prove these bounds, we use the inforation coplexity paradig, which allows one to reduce the proble, via a direct su type arguent, to ultiple instances of a sipler proble. For our lower bound for α-estiation, this sipler proble turned out to be a variant of the well-known Set Disjointness proble. However, for the lower bound of α-approxiation algoriths, we introduce and analyze a new interediate proble, called the Trap proble. The Trap proble is a non-boolean proble defined as follows: Alice is given a set S, Bob is given a set E such that all eleents of E belong to S except for a special eleent e, and the goal of the players is to trap this special eleent, i.e., to find a sall subset of E which contains e. For our purpose, Bob only needs to trap e in a set of cardinality E /2. To prove a lower bound for the Trap proble, we design a novel reduction fro the well-known Index proble, which requires Alice and Bob to use the protocol for the Trap proble over non- 3

5 legal inputs (i.e., the ones for which the Trap proble is not well-defined, while ensuring that they are not being fooled by the output of the Trap protocol over these inputs. To prove our lower bound for α-estiation in rando arrival streas, we follow the approach of [5] in proving the counication coplexity lower bounds when the input data is randoly allocated between the players (as opposed to adversarial partitions. However, the distributions and the proble considered in this paper are different fro the ones in [5]. 1.3 Related Work Counication coplexity of the set cover proble was first studied by Nisan [24]. Aong other things, Nisan showed that the two-player counication coplexity of ( 1 2 ǫ log n- estiating the set cover is Ω(. In particular, this iplies that any constant-pass streaing algorith that ( 1 2 ǫ log n-estiates the set cover ust use Ω( bits of space. Saha and Getoor [27] initiated the study of set cover in the sei-streaing odel [14] where the sets are arriving in a strea and the algoriths are required to use Õ(n space, and obtained an O(log n-approxiation via an O(log n-pass algorith that uses O(n log n space. A siilar perforance was also achieved by [8] in the context of disk friendly algoriths. As designed, the algorith of [8] achieves (1 + β ln n-approxiation by aking O(log β n passes over the strea using O(n log n space. The single-pass sei-streaing setting for set cover was initially and throughly studied by Eek and Rosén [12]. They provided an O( n-approxiation using Õ(n space (which also extends to the weighted set cover proble and a lower bound that states that no seistreaing algorith (i.e., an algorith using only Õ(n space that O(n 1/2 ǫ -estiates set cover exists. Recently, Chakrabarti and Wirth [7] generalized the space bounds in [12] to ultipass algoriths, providing an alost coplete understanding of the pass/approxiation tradeoff for sei-streaing algoriths. In particular, they developed a deterinistic p- pass (p + 1 n 1/(p+1 -approxiation algorith in Õ(n space and prove that any p-pass n 1/(p+1 /(c (p+1 2 -estiation algorith requires Ω(n c /p 3 space for soe constant c > 1 ( in their hard instances is Θ(n cp. This, in particular, iplies that any single-pass o( n- estiation algorith requires Ω( space. Deaine et al. [10] studied the trade-off between the nuber of passes, the approxiation ratio, and the space requireent of general streaing algoriths (i.e., not necessarily seistreaing for the set cover proble and developed an algorith that for any δ = Ω(1/ log n, akes O(4 1/δ passes over the strea and achieves an O(4 1/δ ρ-approxiation using Õ(n δ space; here ρ is the approxiation factor of the off-line algorith for solving the set cover proble. The authors further showed that any constant-pass deterinistic O(1-estiation algorith for the set cover requires Ω(n space. Very recently, Indyk et al. [17] (see also [15] ade a significant iproveent on the trade-off achieved by [10]: they presented an algorith that for any δ > 0, akes O(1/δ passes over the strea and achieves an O(ρ/δ- approxiation using Õ(n δ space. The authors also established two lower bounds: for ulti-pass algoriths, any algorith that coputes an optial set cover solution while aking only( 1 2δ 1 passes ust use Ω(n δ space. More relevant to our paper, they also showed that any single-pass streaing algorith (possibly randoized that can distinguish between the instances with set cover size of 2 and 3 w.h.p., ust use Ω(n bits. Organization. We introduce in Section 2 soe preliinaries needed for the rest of the paper. In Section 3, we present our Ω(n/α space lower bound for coputing an α-approxiate set cover in a single-pass. In Section 4, we present a single-pass streaing algorith for estiating the optial value of a covering integer progra and prove an Õ(n/α 2 upper bound on the space coplexity of α-estiating the (weighted set cover proble. In Section 5, we present our Ω(n/α 2 space lower bound for α-estiating set cover in a single-pass. 4

6 Finally, Section 6 contains our Ω(n/α space lower bound for deterinistic α-estiation algoriths. 2 Preliinaries Notation. We use bold face letters to represent rando variables. For any rando variable X, supp(x denotes its support set. We define X := log supp(x. For any k- diensional tuple X = (X 1,..., X k and any i [k], we define X <i := (X 1,..., X i 1, and X i := (X 1,..., X i 1, X i+1,..., X k. The notation X R U indicates that X is chosen uniforly at rando fro a set U. Finally, we use upper case letters (e.g. M to represent atrices and lower case letter (e.g. v to represent vectors. Concentration Bounds. We use an extension of the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound for negatively correlated rando variables. Rando variables X 1,..., X n are negatively correlated if for every set S [n], Pr( i S X i = 1 i S Pr(X i = 1. It was first proved in [25] that the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound continues to hold for the case of rando variables that satisfy this generalized version of negative correlation (see also [16]. 2.1 Tools fro Inforation Theory We briefly review soe basic concepts fro inforation theory needed for establishing our lower bounds. For a broader introduction to the field, we refer the reader to the excellent text by Cover and Thoas [9]. In the following, we denote the Shannon Entropy of a rando variable A by H(A and the utual inforation of two rando variables A and B by I(A; B = H(A H(A B = H(B H(B A. If the distribution D of the rando variables is not clear fro the context, we use H D (A (resp. I D (A; B. We use H 2 to denote the binary entropy function where for +(1 δ log 1 1 δ. any real nuber 0 < δ < 1, H 2 (δ = δ log 1 δ We use the following basic properties of entropy and utual inforation (proofs can be found in [9], Chapter 2. Clai 2.1. Let A, B, and C be three rando variables H(A A. H(A = A iff A is uniforly distributed over its support. 2. I(A; B 0. The equality holds iff A and B are independent. 3. Conditioning on a rando variable reduces entropy: H(A B, C H(A B. The equality holds iff A and C are independent conditioned on B. 4. Subadditivity of entropy: H(A, B C H(A C+ H(B C. 5. The chain rule for utual inforation: I(A, B; C = I(A; C+ I(B; C A. 6. For any event E independent of A and B, H(A B, E = H(A B. 7. For any event E independent of A, B and C, I(A; B C, E = I(A; B C. The following clai (Fano s inequality states that if a rando variable A can be used to estiate the value of another rando variable B, then A should consue ost of the entropy of B. Clai 2.2 (Fano s inequality. For any binary rando variable B and any (possibly randoized function f that predicts B based on A, if Pr(f(A = B = δ, then H(B A H 2 (δ. 5

7 We also use the following siple clai, which states that conditioning on independent rando variables can only increase the utual inforation. Clai 2.3. For any rando variables A, B, C, and D, if A and D are independent conditioned on C, then I(A; B C I(A; B C, D. Proof. Since A and D are independent conditioned on C, by Clai 2.1-(3, H(A C = H(A C, D and H(A C, B H(A C, B, D. We have, I(A; B C = H(A C H(A C, B = H(A C, D H(A C, B H(A C, D H(A C, B, D = I(A; B C, D 2.2 Counication Coplexity and Inforation Coplexity Counication coplexity and inforation coplexity play an iportant role in our lower bound proofs. We now provide necessary definitions for copleteness. Counication coplexity. Our lowers bounds for single-pass streaing algoriths are established through counication coplexity lower bounds. Here, we briefly provide soe context necessary for our purpose; for a ore detailed treatent of counication coplexity, we refer the reader to the excellent text by Kushilevitz and Nisan [21]. We focus on the two-player one-way counication odel. Let P be a relation with doain X Y Z. Alice receives an input X X and Bob receives Y Y, where (X, Y are chosen fro a joint distribution D over X Y. In addition to private randoness, the players also have an access to a shared public tape of rando bits R. Alice sends a single essage M(X, R and Bob needs to output an answer Z := Z(M(X, R, Y, R such that (X, Y, Z P. We use Π to denote a protocol used by the players. Unless specified otherwise, we always assue that the protocol Π can be randoized (using both public and private randoness, even against a prior distribution D of inputs. For any 0 < δ < 1, we say Π is a δ-error protocol for P over a distribution D, if the probability that for an input (X, Y, Bob outputs soe Z where (X, Y, Z / P is at ost δ (the probability is taken over the randoness of both the distribution and the protocol. Definition 3. The counication cost of a protocol Π for a proble P on an input distribution D, denoted by Π, is the worst-case size of the essage sent fro Alice to Bob in the protocol Π, when the inputs are chosen fro the distribution D. The counication coplexity CC δ D (P of a proble P with respect to a distribution D is the iniu counication cost of a δ-error protocol Π over D. Inforation coplexity. There are several possible definitions of inforation coplexity of a counication proble that have been considered depending on the application (see, e.g., [2 4, 6]. Our definition is tuned specifically for one-way protocols, siilar in the spirit of [3] (see also [18]. Definition 4. Consider an input distribution D and a protocol Π (for soe proble P. Let X be the rando variable for the input of Alice drawn fro D, and let Π := Π(X be the rando variable denoting the essage sent fro Alice to Bob concatenated with the public randoness R used by Π. The inforation cost ICost D (Π of a one-way protocol Π with respect to D is I D (Π; X. The inforation coplexity IC δ D (P of P with respect to a distributiondis the iniu ICost D(Π taken over all one-way δ-error protocols Π for P over D. 6

8 Note that any public coin protocol is a distribution over private coins protocols, run by first using public randoness to saple a rando string R = R and then running the corresponding private coin protocol Π R. We also use Π R to denote the rando variable of the essage sent fro Alice to Bob, assuing that the public randoness is R = R. We have the following well-known clai. Clai 2.4. For any distribution D and any protocol ] Π, let R denote the public randoness used in Π; then, ICost D (Π = E R R [I D (Π R ; X R = R. Proof. Let Π = (M, R, where M denotes the essage sent by Alice and R is the public randoness. We have, ICost D (Π = I(Π; X = I(M, R; X = I(R; X+ I(M; X R (the chain rule for utual inforation, Clai 2.1-(5 [ ] = E I D (Π R ; X R = R R R (M = Π R whenever R = R and I(R; X = 0 by Clai 2.1-(2 The following well-known proposition (see, e.g., [6] relates counication coplexity and inforation coplexity. Proposition 2.5. For every 0 < δ < 1 and every distribution D: CC δ D (P ICδ D (P. Proof. Let Π be a protocol with the iniu counication coplexity for P on D and R denotes the public randoness of Π; using Clai 2.4, we can write, [ IC δ D (P = E R R [ Π R E R R ] I D (Π R ; X R = R ] Π = CC δ D (P [ ] E H D (Π R R = R R R 3 An Ω(n/α-Space Lower bound for α-approxiate Set Cover In this section, we prove that the siple α-approxiation algorith described in Section 1.2 is in fact optial in ters of the space requireent. Forally, n Theore 1. For any α = o( log n and = poly(n, any randoized single-pass streaing algorith that α-approxiates the set cover proble with probability at least 2/3 requires Ω(n/α bits of space. Fix a (sufficiently large value for n, = poly(n (also = Ω(α log n, and α = o( log n ; throughout this section, SetCover apx refers to the proble of α-approxiating the set cover proble for instances with +1 sets 4 defined over the universe [n] in the one-way counication odel, whereby the sets are partitioned between Alice and Bob. 4 To siplify the exposition, we use +1 instead of as the nuber of sets. n 7

9 Overview. We design a hard input distribution D apx for SetCover apx, whereby Alice is provided with a collection of sets S 1,..., S, each of size (roughly n/α and Bob is given a single set T of size (roughly n 2α. The input to the players are correlated such that there exists a set S i in Alice s collection (i is unknown to Alice, such that S i T covers all eleents in [n] except for a single special eleent. This in particular ensures that the optial set cover size in this distribution is at ost 3 w.h.p. On the other hand, we hide this special eleent aong the 2α eleents in T in a way that if Bob does not have (essentially full inforation about Alice s collection, he cannot even identify a set of α eleents fro T that contain this special eleent (w.p strictly ore than half. This iplies that in order for Bob to be sure that he returns a valid set cover, he should additionally cover a ajority of T with sets other than S i. We design the distribution in a way that the sets in Alice s collection are far fro each other and hence Bob is forced to use a distinct set for (roughly each eleent in T that he needs to cover with sets other than S i. This iplies that Bob needs to output a set cover of size α (i.e., an (α/3-approxiation to ensure that every eleent in [n] is covered. 3.1 A Hard Input Distribution for SetCover apx Consider the following distribution. Distribution D apx. A hard input distribution for SetCover apx. Notation. LetF be the collection of all subsets of[n] with cardinality n 10α, andl := 2α log. Alice. The input of Alice is a collection of sets S = (S 1,..., S, where for any i [], S i is a set chosen independently and uniforly at rando fro F. Bob. Pick an i [] (called the special index uniforly at rando; the input to Bob is a set T = [n]\e, where E is chosen uniforly at rando fro all subsets of [n] with E = l and E\S i = 1. a a Since α = o( n/ log n and = poly(n, the size of E is strictly saller than the size of S i. The clais below suarize soe useful properties of the distribution D apx. Clai 3.1. For any instance (S, T D apx, with probability 1 o(1, opt(s, T 3. Proof. Let e denote the eleent in E\S i. S i contains 1 rando subsets of [n] of size n/10α, drawn independent of the choice of e. Therefore, each set in S i covers e with probability 1/10α. The probability that none of these 1 sets covers e is at ost (1 1/10α 1 (1 1/10α Ω(α log n exp( Ω(α log n/10α = o(1 Hence, with probability 1 o(1, there is at least one set S S i that covers e. Now, it is straightforward to verify that (S i, T, S for a valid set cover. Lea 3.2. With probability 1 o(1, no collection of 3α sets fro S i covers ore than l/2 eleents of E. Proof. Recall that the sets in S i and the set E are chosen independent of each other. For each set S S i and for each eleent e E, we define an indicator binary rando variable X e, where X e = 1 iff e S. Let X := e X e, which is the nuber of eleents in E covered by S. We have, E[X] = E[X e ] = E e 10α = log 5 8

10 Moreover, the variables X e are negatively correlated since for any set S E, Pr ( e S X e = 1 = ( n S n 10α S ( n n 10α Hence, by the extended Chernoff bound (see Section 2, ( Pr X log = o( 1 3 = ( n ( n 10α 10α 1... ( n 10α S + 1 (n (n 1...(n S +1 ( 1 S = 10α Pr(X e = 1 e S Therefore, using union bound over all 1 sets in S i, with probability 1 o(1, no set in S i covers ore than log /3 eleents in E, which iplies that any collection of 3α sets can only cover up to 3α log /3 = l/2 eleents in E. 3.2 The Lower Bound for the Distribution D apx In order to prove our lower bound for SetCover apx on D apx, we define an interediate counication proble which we call the Trap proble. Proble 1 (Trap proble. Alice is given a set S [n] and Bob is given a set E [n] such that E\S = {e }; Bob needs to output a set L E with L E /2 such that e L. In the following, we use Trap to refer to the trap proble with S = n/10α and E = l = 2α log (notice the siilarity to the paraeters in D apx. We define the following distribution D Trap for Trap. Alice is given a set S R F (recall that F is the collection of all subsets of [n] of size n/10α and Bob is given a set E chosen uniforly at rando fro all sets that satisfy E\S = 1 and E = 2α log. We first use a direct su style arguent to prove that under the distributions D apx and D Trap, inforation coplexity of solving SetCover apx is essentially equivalent to solving copies of Trap. Forally, Lea 3.3. For any constant δ < 1/2, IC δ D apx (SetCover apx IC δ+o(1 D Trap (Trap. Proof. Let Π SC be a δ-error protocol for SetCover apx ; we design a δ -error protocol Π Trap for solving Trap over D Trap with paraeter δ = δ+o(1 such that the inforation cost of Π Trap on D Trap is at ost 1 ICost D apx (Π SC. The protocol Π Trap is as follows. Protocol Π Trap. The protocol for solving Trap using a protocol Π SC for SetCover apx. Input: An instance (S, E D Trap. Output: A set L with L E /2, such that e L. 1. Using public randoness, the players saple an index i [] uniforly at rando. 2. Alice creates a tuple S = (S 1,..., S by assigning S i = S and sapling each reaining set uniforly at rando fro F using private randoness. Bob creates a set T := E. 3. The players run the protocol Π SC over the input (S, T. 4. Bob coputes the set L of all eleents in E = T whose certificate (i.e., the set used to cover the is not S i, and outputs L. 9

11 We first argue the correctness of Π Trap and then bound its inforation cost. To argue the correctness, notice that the distribution of instances of SetCover apx constructed in the reduction is exactly D apx. Consequently, it follows fro Clai 3.1 that, with probability 1 o(1, any α-approxiate set cover can have at ost 3α sets. Let Ŝ be the set cover coputed by Bob inus the sets S i and T. As e E = T and oreover is not in S i, it follows that e should be covered by soe set in Ŝ. This eans that the set L that is output by Bob contains e. Moreover, by Lea 3.2, the nuber of eleents in E covered by the sets in Ŝ is at ost l/2 w.p. 1 o(1. Hence, L l/2 = E /2. This iplies that: ( ( Pr Π Trap errs Pr Π SC errs + o(1 δ+o(1 D Trap D apx We now bound the inforation cost of Π Trap. Let I be the rando variable for the choice of i [] in the protocol Π Trap (which is unifor in []. Using Clai 2.4, we have, [ ( ICost DTrap (Π Trap = E I DTrap i I = 1 Π i Trap ; S I = i ] = 1 I Dapx (Π SC ; S i I = i = 1 I DTrap (Π SC ; S i I = i I Dapx ( Π SC ; S i where the last two equalities hold since (i the joint distribution of Π SC and S i conditioned on I = i under D Trap is equivalent to the one under D apx, and (ii the rando variables Π SC and S i are independent of the event I = i (by the definition of D apx and hence we can drop the conditioning on this event (by Clai 2.1-(7. We can further derive, ICost DTrap (Π Trap = 1 ( I Dapx Π SC ; S i 1 I Dapx ( Π SC ; S i S <i The inequality holds since S i and S <i are independent and conditioning on independent variables can only increase the utual inforation (i.e., Clai 2.3. Finally, ICost DTrap (Π Trap 1 ( I Dapx Π SC ; S i S <i = 1 I D apx (Π SC ;S = 1 ICost D apx (Π SC where the first equality is by the chain rule for utual inforation (see Clai 2.1-(5. Having established Lea 3.3, our task now is to lower bound the inforation coplexity of Trap over the distribution D Trap. We prove this lower bound using a novel reduction fro the well-known Index proble, denoted by Index n k. In Indexn k over the distribution D Index, Alice is given a set A [n] of size k chosen uniforly at rando and Bob is given an eleent a such that w.p. 1/2 a R A and w.p. 1/2 a R [n]\ A; Bob needs to deterine whether a A (the YES case or not (the NO case. We reark that siilar distributions for Index n k have been previously studied in the literature (see, e.g., [26], Section 3.3. For the sake of copleteness, we provide a self-contained proof of the following lea in Appendix A. Lea 3.4. For any k < n/2, and any constant δ < 1/2, IC δ D Index (Index n k = Ω(k. Using Lea 3.4, we prove the following lea, which is the key part of the proof. Lea 3.5. For any constant δ < 1/2, IC δ D Trap (Trap = Ω(n/α. 10

12 Proof. Let k = n/10α; we design a δ -error protocol Π Index for Index n k protocol Π Trap (over D Trap as a subroutine, for soe constant δ < 1/2. using any δ-error Protocol Π Index. The protocol for reducing Index n k to Trap. Input: An instance (A, a D Index. Output: YES if a A and NO otherwise. 1. Alice picks a set B A with B = l 1 uniforly at rando using private randoness. 2. To invoke the protocol Π Trap, Alice creates a set S := A and sends the essage Π Trap (S, along with the set B to Bob. 3. If a B, Bob outputs YES and terinates the protocol. 4. Otherwise, Bob constructs a set E = B {a} and coputes L := Π Trap (S, E using the essage received fro Alice. 5. If a L, Bob outputs NO, and otherwise outputs YES. We should note right away that the distribution of instances for Trap defined in the previous reduction does not atch D Trap. Therefore, we need a ore careful arguent to establish the correctness of the reduction. We prove this lea in two clais; the first clai establishes the correctness of the reduction and the second one proves an upper bound on the inforation cost of Π Index based on the inforation cost of Π Trap. Clai 3.6. Π Index is a δ -error protocol for Index n k over D Index for the paraeter k = n/10α and a constant δ < 1/2. Proof. Let R denote the private coins used by Alice to construct the set B. Also, definedindex Y (resp. DIndex N as the distribution of YES instances (resp. NO instances of D Index. We have, ( Pr Π Index errs = 1 ( D Index,R 2 Pr Π Index errs + 1 ( DIndex Y,R 2 Pr Π Index errs DIndex N,R Note that we do not consider the randoness of the protocol Π Trap (used in construction of Π Index as it is independent of the randoness of the distribution D Index and the private coins R. We now bound each ter in Equation (1 separately. We first start with the easier case which is the second ter. The distribution of instances (S, E for Trap created in the reduction by the choice of (A, a D N Index and the randoness of R, is the sae as the distribution D Trap. Moreover, in this case, the output of Π Index would be wrong iff a E\S (corresponding to the eleent e in Trap does not belong to the set L output by Π Trap. Hence, ( ( Pr Π Index errs = Pr Π Trap errs δ (2 DIndex N,R D Trap We now bound the first ter in Equation (1. Note that when (A, a DIndex Y, there is a sall chance that Π Index is lucky" and a belongs to the set B (see Line (3 of the protocol. Let this event be E. Conditioned on E, Bob outputs the correct answer with probability 1; however note that probability of E happening is only o(1. Now suppose E does not happen. In this case, the distribution of instances (S, E created by the choice of (A, a DIndex Y (and randoness of R does not atch the distribution D Trap. However, we have the following (1 11

13 iportant property: Given that (S, E is the instance of Trap created by choosing (A, a fro DIndex Y and sapling l 1 rando eleents of A (using R, the eleent a is unifor over the set E. In other words, knowing (S, E does not reveal any inforation about the eleent a. Note that since (S, E is not chosen according to the distribution D Trap (actually it is not even a legal input for Trap, it is possible that Π Trap terinates, outputs a non-valid set, or outputs a set L E. Unless L E (and satisfies the cardinality constraint, Bob is always able to deterine that Π Trap is not functioning correctly and hence outputs YES (and errs with probability at ost δ < 1/2. However, if L E, Bob would not know whether the input to Π Trap is legal or not. In the following, we explicitly analyze this case. In this case, L is a subset of E chosen by the (inner randoness of Π Trap for a fixed S and E and oreover L E /2 (by definition of Trap. The probability that Π Index errs in this case is exactly equal to the probability that a L. However, as stated before, for a fixed (S, E, the choice of L is independent of the choice of a and oreover, a is unifor over E; hence a L happens with probability at ost 1/2. Forally, (here, R Trap denotes the inner randoness of Π Trap ( Pr (Π Index errs E = Pr a L = Π Trap (S, E E DIndex Y,R DIndex Y,R ] = E E Pr a L S = S, E = E, R Trap = R Trap,E [ ( (S,E (S,E E R Trap R Trap DIndex Y,R = E (S,E (S,E E (L = Π Trap (S, E is a fixed set conditioned on (S, E, R Trap [ L ] E R Trap R Trap E (a is unifor on E conditioned on (S, E, R Trap and E Hence, we have, Pr D Y Index,R (Π Index errs E 1 2, since by definition, for any output set L, L E /2. As stated earlier, whenever E happens, Π Index akes no error; hence, Pr (Π Index errs = Pr (E Pr (Π Index errs E 1 o(1 DIndex Y,R DIndex Y,R DIndex Y,R 2 (3 Finally, by plugging the bounds in Equations (2,3 in Equation (1 and assuing δ is bounded away fro 1/2, we have, Pr (Π Index errs 1 D Index,R 2 1 o( δ = 1 o(1 + δ ǫ for soe constant ǫ bounded away fro 0. We now bound the inforation cost of Π Index under D Index. Clai 3.7. ICost DIndex (Π Index ICost DTrap (Π Trap + O(l log n. Proof. We have, ICost DIndex (Π Index = I DIndex (Π Index (A; A = I DIndex (Π Trap (S, B; A ( = I DIndex (Π Trap (S; A + I DIndex B; A Π Trap (S (the chain rule for utual inforation, Clai 2.1-(5 ( I DIndex (Π Trap (S; A + H DIndex B Π Trap (S 12

14 I DIndex (Π Trap (S; A + O(l log n ( B = O(l log n and Clai 2.1-(1 = I DIndex (Π Trap (S; S + O(l log n (A = S as defined in Π Index = I DTrap (Π Trap (S; S + O(l log n (the joint distribution of (Π Trap (S, S is identical under D Index and D Trap = ICost DTrap (Π Trap +O(l log n The lower bound now follows fro Clais 3.6 and 3.7, and Lea 3.4 for the paraeters k = S = n 10α and δ < 1/2, and using the fact that α = o( n/ log n, l = 2α log, and = poly(n, and hence Ω(n/α = ω(l log n. To conclude, by Lea 3.3 and Lea 3.5, for any set of paraeters δ < 1/2, α = o( and = poly(n, ( IC δ D apx (SetCover apx Ω(n/α = Ω(n/α n log n, Since the inforation coplexity is a lower bound on the counication coplexity (Proposition 2.5, we have, Theore 2. For any constant δ < 1/2, α = o( n log n, and = poly(n, CC δ D apx (SetCover apx = Ω(n/α Finally, since one-way counication coplexity is also a lower bound on the space coplexity of single-pass streaing algoriths, we obtain Theore 1 as a corollary of Theore 2. 4 An Õ(n/α 2 -Space Upper Bound for α-estiation In this section, we show that if we are only interested in estiating the size of a iniu set cover (instead of finding the actual sets, we can bypass the Ω(n/α lower bound established in Section 3. In fact, we prove this upper bound for the ore general proble of estiating the optial solution of a covering integer progra (henceforth, covering ILP in the streaing setting. A covering ILP can be forally defined as follows. in c x s.t. Ax b where A is a atrix with diension n, b is a vector of diension n, c is a vector of diension, and x is an -diensional vector of non-negative integer variables. Moreover, all coefficients in A, b, and c are also non-negative integers. We denote this linear progra by ILP Cover (A, b, c. We use a ax, b ax, and c ax, to denote the largest entry of, respectively, the atrix A, the vector b, and the vector c. Finally, we define the optial value of the I := ILP Cover (A, b, c as c x where x is the optial solution to I, and denote it by opt := opt(i. We consider the following streaing setting for covering ILPs. The input to a streaing algorith for an instance I := ILP Cover (A, b, c is the n-diensional vector b, and a strea of the coluns of A presented one by one, where the i-th colun of A, A i, is presented along with the i-th entry of c, denoted by c i (we will refer to c i as the weight of the i-th colun. It is easy to see that this streaing setting for covering ILPs captures, as special cases, the set cover proble, the weighted set cover proble, and the set ulti-cover proble. We prove the following theore for α-estiating the optial value of a covering ILPs in the streaing setting. 13

15 Theore 3. There is a randoized algorith that given a paraeter α 1, for any instance I := ILP Cover (A, b, c with poly(n-bounded entries, akes a single pass over a strea of coluns of A (presented in an arbitrary order, and outputs an α-estiation to opt(i w.h.p. using space Õ ( (n/α 2 b ax + +nb ax bits. In particular, for the weighted set cover proble with poly(n bounded weights and α n, the space coplexity of this algorith is Õ(n/α 2 + n. 5 To prove Theore 3, we design a general approach based on sapling constraints of a covering ILP instance. The goal is to show that if we saple (roughly 1/α fraction of the constraints fro an instance I := ILP Cover (A, b, c, then the optiu value of the resulting covering ILP, denoted by I R, is a good estiator of opt(i. Note that in general, this ay not be the case; siply consider a weighted set cover instance that contains an eleent e which is only covered by a singleton set of weight W (for W and all the reaining sets are of weight 1 only. Clearly, opt(i R opt(i as long as e is not sapled in I R, which happens w.p. 1 1/α. To circuvent this issue, we define a notion of cost for covering ILPs which, inforally, is the iniu value of the objective function if the goal is to only satisfy a single constraint (in the above exaple, the cost of that weighted set cover instance is W. This allows us to bound the loss incurred in the process of estiation by sapling based on the cost of the covering ILP. Constraint sapling alone can only reduce the space requireent by a factor of α, which is not enough to eet the bounds given in Theore 3. Hence, we cobine it with a pruning step to sparsify the coluns in A before perforing the sapling. We should point out that as coluns are weighted, the pruning step needs to be sensitive to the weights. In the rest of this section, we first introduce our constraint sapling lea (Lea 4.1 and prove its correctness, and then provide our algorith for Theore Covering ILPs and Constraint Sapling Lea In this section, we provide a general result for estiating the optial value of a Covering ILP using a sapling based approach. For a vector v, we will use v i to denote the i-th diension of v. For a atrix A, we will use A i to denote the i-th colun of A, and use a j,i to denote the entry of A at the i-th colun and the j-th row (to atch the notation with the set cover proble, we use a j,i instead of the standard notation a i,j. For each constraint j [n] (i.e., the j-th constraint of a covering ILP instance I := ILP Cover (A, b, c, we define the cost of the constraint j, denoted by Cost(j, as, Cost(j := in x c x s.t a j,i x i b j which is the iniu solution value of the objective function for satisfying the constraint j. Furtherore, the cost of I, denoted by Cost(I, is defined to be Clearly, Cost(I is a lower bound on opt(i. Cost(I := ax j [n] Cost(j Constraint Sapling. Given any instance of covering ILP I := ILP Cover (A, b, c, let I R be a covering ILP instance ILP Cover (A, b, c obtained by setting b j := b j with probability p, and bj := 0 with probability 1 p, for each diension j [n] of b independently. Note that setting 5 Note that Ω(n space is necessary to even deterine whether or not a given instance is feasible. 14

16 bj := 0 in I R is equivalent to reoving the j-th constraint fro I, since all entries in I are non-negative. Therefore, intuitively, I R is a covering ILP obtained by sapling (and keeping the constraints of I with a sapling rate of p. We establish the following lea which asserts that opt(i R is a good estiator of opt(i (under certain conditions. As opt(i R opt(i trivially holds (reoving constraints can only decrease the optial value, it suffices to give a lower bound on opt(i R. Lea 4.1 (Constraint Sapling Lea. Fix an α 32 ln n; for any covering ILP I with n constraints, suppose I R is obtained fro I by sapling each constraint with probability p := 4 ln n α ; then ( Pr opt(i R +Cost(I opt(i 3 8α 4 Proof. Suppose by contradiction that the lea stateent is false and throughout the proof let I be any instance where w.p. at least 1/4, opt(i R +Cost(I < opt(i 8α (we denote this event by E 1 (I R, or shortly E 1. We will show that in this case, I has a feasible solution with a value saller than opt(i. To continue, define E 2 (I R (or E 2 in short as the event that opt(i R < opt(i 8α. Note that whenever E 1 happens, then E 2 also happens, hence E 2 happens w.p. at least 1/4. For the sake of analysis, suppose we repeat, for 32α ties, the procedure of sapling each constraint of I independently with probability p, and obtain 32α covering ILP instances S := { IR 1 },...,I 32α R. Since E2 happens with probability at least 1/4 on each instance I R, the expected nuber of ties that E 2 happens for instances in S is at least 8α > 12 ln n. Hence, by the Chernoff bound, with probability at least 1 1/n, E 2 happens on at least 4α of instances in S. Let T S be a set of 4α sapled instances for which E 2 happens. In the following, we show that if I has the property that Pr(E 1 (I R 1/4, then w.p. at least 1 1/n, every constraint in I appears in at least one of the instances in T. Since each of these 4α instances adits a solution of value at ost opt(i 8α (by the definition of E 2, the ax of their solutions, i.e., the vector obtained by setting the i-th entry to be the largest value of x i aong all these solutions, gives a feasible solution to I with value at ost 4α opt(i 8α = opt(i 2 ; a contradiction. We use j I R to denote the event that the constraint j of I is sapled in I R, and we need to show that w.h.p. for all j, there exists an instance I R T where j I R. We establish the following clai. ( Clai 4.2. For any j [n], Pr j I R E 2 (I R ln n 2α. Before proving Clai 4.2, we show how this clai would iply the lea. By Clai 4.2, for each of the 4α instances I R T, and for any j [n], the probability that the constraint j is sapled in I R is at least ln n 2α. Then, the probability that j is sapled in none of the 4α instances of T is at ost: ( 1 ln n 4α 1 exp( 2 ln n = 2α n 2 Hence, by union bound, w.p. at least 1 1/n, every constraint appears in at least one of the instances in T, and this will coplete the proof. It reains to prove Clai 4.2. Proof of Clai 4.2. Fix any j [n]; by Bayes rule, ( Pr (E 2 (I R j I R Pr(j I R Pr j I R E 2 (I R = ( Pr E 2 (I R 15

17 ( Since Pr E 2 (I R 1 and Pr(j I R = p = 4 ln n α, we have, ( Pr j I R E 2 (I R Pr (E 2 (I R j I R 4 ln n α and it suffices to establish a lower bound of 1/8 for Pr (E 2 (I R j I R. Consider the following probabilistic process (for a fixed j [n]: we first reove the constraint j fro I (w.p. 1 and then saple each of the reaining constraints of I w.p. p. Let I R be an instance created by this process. We prove Pr(E 2(I R j I R 1/8 in two steps by first showing that the probability that E 1 happens to I R (i.e., Pr(E 1(I R is at least 1/8, and then use a coupling arguent to prove that Pr(E 2 (I R j I R Pr(E 1 (I R. We first show that Pr(E 1 (I R (which by definition is the probability that opt(i R + Cost(I opt(i 16α is at least 1/8. To see this, note that the probability that E 1 happens to I R is equal to the probability that E 1 happens to I R conditioned on j not being sapled (i.e., Pr(E 1 (I R j / I R. Now, if we expand Pr(E 1 (I R, ( Pr E 1 (I R = Pr(j I R Pr (E 1 (I R j I R + Pr(j / I R Pr (E 1 (I R j / I R ( Pr(j I R +Pr (E 1 (I R j / I R = p+pr E 1 (I R As Pr(E 1 (I R 1/4 and p = 4 ln n α 1/8 (since α 32 ln n, we have, ( 1/4 1/8+Pr E 1 (I R and therefore, Pr(E 1 (I R 1/8. It reains to show that Pr(E 2 (I R j I R Pr(E 1 (I R. To see this, note that conditioned on j I R, the distribution of sapling all constraints other than j is exactly the sae as the distribution of I R. Therefore, for any instance I R drawn fro this distribution, there is a unique instance I R sapled fro the original constraint sapling distribution conditioned on j I R. For any such (I R,I R pair, we have opt(i R opt(i R +Cost(j ( opt(i R +Cost(I since satisfying the constraint j I R requires increasing the value of the objective function in I R by at ost Cost(j. Therefore if opt(i opt R +Cost(I 8α (i.e., E 1 happens to I R, then opt(i R opt 8α (i.e., E 2 happens to I R conditioned on j I R. Hence, ( Pr (E 2 (I R j I R Pr E 1 (I R 1/8 Plugging in this bound in Equation (4, we obtain that Pr(j I R E 2 ln n 2α. 4.2 An α-estiation of Covering ILPs in the Streaing Setting We now prove Theore 3. Throughout this section, for siplicity of exposition, we assue that α 32 ln n (otherwise the space bound in Theore 3 is enough to store the whole input and solve the proble optially, the value of c ax is provided to the algorith, and x is a vector of binary variables, i.e., x {0, 1} (hence covering ILP instances are always referring to covering ILP instances with binary variables; in Section 4.3, we describe how to eliinate the later two assuptions. Algorith overview. For any covering ILP instance I := ILP Cover (A, b, c, our algorith estiates opt := opt(i in two parts running in parallel. In the first part, the goal is siply to (4 16

18 copute Cost(I (see Clai 4.3. For the second part, we design a tester algorith (henceforth, Tester that given any guess k of the value of opt, if k opt, Tester accepts k w.p. 1 and for any k where Cost(I k opt 32α, w.h.p. Tester rejects k. Let K := {2 γ } γ [ log(cax ]; for each k K (in parallel, we run Tester(k. At the end of the strea, the algorith knows Cost(I (using the output of the part one, and hence it can identify aong all guesses that are at least Cost(I, the sallest guess accepted by Tester (denoted by k. On one hand, k opt since for any guess k opt, k Cost(I also (since opt Cost(I and Tester accepts k. On the other hand, k opt 32α w.h.p. since (i if Cost(I opt 32α, k Cost(I opt opt opt 32α and (ii if Cost(I < 32α, the guess 32α will be rejected w.h.p. by Tester. Consequently, 32α k is an O(α-estiation of opt(i. We first show that one can copute the Cost of a covering ILP presented in a strea using a siple dynaic prograing algorith. Clai 4.3. For anyi := ILP Cover (A, b, c presented by a strea of coluns, Cost(I can be coputed in space O(nb ax log c ax bits. Proof. We aintain arrays Cost j [y] + for any j [n] and y [b ax ]: Cost j [y] is the iniu cost for achieving a coverage of y for the j-th constraint. Define Cost j [y] = 0 for y 0. Upon arrival of A i, c i, copute Cost j [y] = in(cost j [y], Cost j [y a j,i ]+c i, for every y fro b j down to 1. We then have Cost(I = ax j Cost j [b j ]. To continue, we need the following notation. For any vector v with diension d and any set S [d], v(s denotes the projection of v onto the diensions indexed by S. For any two vectors u and v, let in(u, v denote a vector w where at the i-th diension: w i = in(u i, v i, i.e., the coordinate-wise iniu. We now provide the aforeentioned Tester algorith. Tester(k: An algorith for testing a guess k of the optial value of a covering ILP. Input: An instance I := ILP Cover (A, b, c presented as a strea A 1, c 1,..., A, c, a paraeter α 32 ln n, and a guess k K. Output: ACCEPT if k opt and REJECT if Cost(I k opt 32α. The answer could be either ACCEPT or REJECT if opt 32α < k < opt. 1. Preprocessing: (i Maintain an n-diensional vector b res b, an -diensional vector c 0, and an n diensional atrix à 0 n. (ii Let V be a subset of [n] obtained by sapling each eleent in [n] independently with probability p := 4 ln n/α. 2. Streaing: when a pair A i, c i arrives: (i If c i > k, directly continue to the next input pair of the strea. Otherwise: (ii Prune step: Let u i := in(b res, A i (the coordinate-wise iniu. If u i 1 n b ax α, update b res b res u i (we say A i, c i is pruned by Tester in this case. Otherwise, assign à i u i (V, and c i c i. 3. At the end of the strea, solve the following covering ILP (denoted by I tester : in c x s.t. Ãx b res (V If opt(i tester is at ost k, ACCEPT; otherwise REJECT. 17