arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 29 Jan 2012

Transcription

1 A parallel approxiation algorith for ixed packing covering seidefinite progras arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 29 Jan 2012 Rahul Jain National U. Singapore January 28, 2012 Abstract Penghui Yao National U. Singapore We present a parallel approxiation algorith for a class of ixed packing covering seidefinite progras which generalize on the class of positive seidefinite progras as considered by Jain Yao [6]. As a corollary we get a faster approxiation algorith for positive seidefinite progras with better dependence of the parallel running tie on the approxiation factor, as copared to that of Jain Yao [6]. Our algorith analysis is on siilar lines as that of Young [10] who considered analogous linear progras. 1 Introduction Fast parallel approxiation algoriths for seidefinite progras have been the focus of study of any recent works (e.g. [1, 2, 7, 5, 4, 3]) have resulted in any interesting applications including the well known QIP = PSPACE [3] result. In any of the previous works, the running tie of the algoriths had polylog dependence on the size of the input progra but in addition also had polynoial dependence of soe width paraeter (which varied for different algoriths). Soeties (for specific instances of input progras) the width paraeter could be as large as the size of the progra aking it an iportant bottleneck. Recently Jain Yao [6] presented a fast parallel approxiation algorith for an iportant subclass of seidefinite progras, called as positive seidefinite progras, their algorith had no dependence on any width paraeter. Their algorith was inspired by an algorith by Luby Nisan [8] for positive linear progras. In this work we consider a ore general ixed packing covering optiization proble. We first consider the following feasibility task Q1. Q1: Given n n positive seidefinite atrices P 1,..., P, P non-negative diagonal atrices C 1,..., C, C ε (0, 1), find an ε-approxiate feasible vector x 0 such that (while coparing atrices we let, represent the Löwner order), x i P i (1+ε)P x i C i C Centre for Quantu Technologies Departent of Coputer Science, National University of Singapore, Block S15, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore Eail: rahul@cop.nus.edu.sg. Centre for Quantu Technologies Departent of Coputer Science, National University of Singapore, Block S15, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore Eail: pyao@nus.edu.sg. 1

2 or show that the following is infeasible x i P i P x i C i C. We present an algorith for Q1 running in parallel tie polylog(n, ) 1 ε 4 log 1 ε. Using this stard binary search, a ultiplicative (1 ε) approxiate solution can be obtained for the following optiization task Q2 in parallel tie polylog(n, ) 1 ε 4 log 1 ε. Q2: Given n n positive seidefinite atrices P 1,..., P, P non-negative diagonal atrices C 1,..., C, C, axiize: subject to: γ x i P i P x i C i γc i [] : x i 0. The following special case of Q2 is referred to as a positive seidefinite progra. Q3: Given n n positive seidefinite atrices P 1,..., P, P non-negative scalars c 1,..., c, axiize: x i c i subject to: x i P i P i [] : x i 0. Our algorith for Q1 its analysis is on siilar lines as the algorith analysis of Young [10] who had considered analogous questions for linear progras. As a corollary we get an algorith for approxiating positive seidefinite progras (Q3) with better dependence of the parallel running tie on ε as copared to that of Jain Yao [6] ( arguably with sipler analysis). Very recently, in an independent work, Peng Tangwongsan [9] also presented a fast parallel algorith for positive seidefinite progras. Their work is also inspired by Young [10]. 2 Algorith analysis We ention without elaborating that using stard arguents the feasibility question Q1 can be easily transfored, in parallel tie polylog(n), to the special case when P C are identity atrices we consider this special case fro now on. Our algorith is presented in Figure 1. Idea of the algorith The algorith starts with an initial value for x such that x ip i 1. It akes increents to the vector x such that with each increent, the increase in x ip i is not ore than 2

3 (1+O(ε)) ties the increase in the iniu eigenvalue of x ic i. We argue that it is always possible to increent x in this anner if the input instance is feasible, hence the algorith outputs infeasible if it cannot find such an increent to x. The algorith stops when the iniu eigenvalue of x ic i has exceeded 1. Due to our condition on the increents, at the end of the algorith we also have x ip i (1+O(ε))1. We obtain hle on the largest sallest eigenvalues of concerned atrices via their soft versions, which are ore easily hled functions of those atrices (see definition in the next section). Input : n n positive seidefinite atrices P 1,..., P, non-negative diagonal atrices C 1,..., C, error paraeter ε (0, 1). Output : Eitherinfeasible, which eans there is no x such that (1 is the identity atrix), x i P i 1 x i C i 1. OR an x R such that 1. Set x j = 1 P j. xi P i (1+9ε)1 2. Set N = 1 ε ( x ip i + 2 ln n+ln ). xi C i While λ in ( x ic i ) < N (λ in represents iniu eigenvalue), do (a) Set local j (x) = Tr(exp( x ip i ) P j ) Tr(exp( x ic i ) C j ) global(x) = Tr exp( x ip i ) Tr(exp( x ic i )). (b) If g is not yet set or in j {local j (x)} > g(1+ ε), set g = global(x). (c) If in j {local j (x)} > global(x), returninfeasible. (d) For all j [], set C j = Π j C j Π j, where Π j is the projection onto the eigenspace of x ic i with eigenvalues at ost N. (e) Choose increent vector α 0 scalar δ > 0 such that (f) Set x = x+α. 4. Return x = x/n. j : α j = x j δ if local j (x) g(1+ ε), else α j = 0, ax{ α i P i, α i C i } = ε. Figure 1: Algorith 3

4 Correctness analysis We begin with the definitions of soft axiu iniu eigenvalues of a positive seidefinite atrix A. They are inspired by analogous definitions ade in Young [10] in the context of vectors. Definition 1. For positive seidefinite atrix A, define Iax(A) def = ln Tr exp(a), Iin(A) def = ln Tr exp( A). Note that Iax(A) A Iin(A) λ in (A), where λ in (A) is the iniu eigenvalue of A. We show the following lea in the appendix, which shows that if a sall increent is ade in the vector x, then changes in Iax( x ja j ) Iin( x j A j ) can be bounded appropriately. Lea 2. Let A 1,..., A be positive seidefinite atrices let x 0, α 0 be vectors in R. If α ia i ε 1, then Iax( Iin( (x j + α j )A j ) Iax( (x j + α j )A j ) Iin( x j A j ) x j A j ) (1+ ε) Tr(exp( x ia i )) (1 ε/2) Tr(exp( x ia i )) Lea 3. At step 3(e) of the algorith, for any j with α j > 0 we have, α j Tr(exp( α j Tr(exp( x i A i )A j ), x i A i )A j ). Tr(exp( x ip i ) P j ) Tr(exp( x ip i )) (1+ ε) Tr(exp( x ic i ) C j ) Tr(exp( x. ic i )) Proof. Consider any execution of step 3(e) of the algorith. Fix j such α j > 0. Note that, local j (x) global(x) = Tr(exp( x ip i ) P j ) Tr(exp( x ic i )) Tr(exp( x ip i )) Tr(exp( x ic i ) C j ). We will show that global(x) g throughout the algorith this will show the desired since that local j (x) (1+ ε)g (1+ε)global(x). At step 3(b) of the algorith, g can be equal to global(x). Since x never decreases during the algorith, at step 3(a), global(x) can only increase. At step 3(d), the odification of C j s only decreases Tr(exp( x ic i )) hence again global(x) can only increase. Lea 4. For each increent of x at step 3(f) of the algorith, Iax( (x j + α j )P j ) Iax( x j P j ) (1+ ε) 3 (Iin( (x j + α j )C j ) Iin( ). 4

5 Proof. Consider, Iax( (x j + α j )P j ) Iax( (1+ ε) Tr(exp( x ip i )) (1+ ε) 2 Tr(exp( x ic i )) ( (1+ε)2 Iin( 1 ε/2 This shows the desired. x j P j ) α j Tr(exp( α j Tr(exp( x i P i )P j ) (fro Lea 2) (x j + α j )C j ) Iin( x i C i )C j ) (fro Lea 3 step 3(e) of the algorith) ) (fro Lea 2). Lea 5. If the input instance P 1,..., P, C 1,..., C is feasible, that is there exists vector y R such that y i P i 1 y i C i 1, then always at step 3(c) of the algorith, in j {local j (x)} global(x). Hence the algorith will return soe x. If the algorith outputsinfeasible, then the input instance is not feasible. Proof. Consider soe execution of step 3(c) of the algorith. Let C 1,..., C be the current values of C 1,..., C. Note that if the input is feasible with vector y, then we will also have Tr(exp( x ip i )( y jp j )) Tr(exp( x ip i )) 1 Tr(exp( x ic i )( y jc j )) Tr(exp( x ic i )). Therefore there exists j [] such that Tr(exp( x ip i )P j ) Tr(exp( x ip i )) Tr(exp( x ic i )C j ) Tr(exp( x ic i )), hence local j (x) global(x). If the algorith outputs infeasible, then at that point in j {local j (x)} > global(x) hence fro the arguent above P 1,..., P, C 1,..., C is infeasible which in turn iplies that P 1,..., P, C 1,..., C is infeasible. Lea 6. If the algorith returns soe x, then xi P i (1+9ε)1 xi C i 1. Proof. Because of the condition of the while loop, it is clear that x i C i 1. For x R, define Φ(x) def = Iax( x j P j ) (1+ ε) 3 Iin(. 5

6 Note that the update of C j s at step 3(d) only increase Iin( x jc j ). Hence using Lea 4, we conclude that Φ(x) is non-decreasing during the algorith. At step 1 of the algorith, Φ(x) Iax( ln(n exp( x j P j ) = ln Tr(exp( x i P i )) x i P i )) ln(n exp( Hence just before the last increent, x i P i Iax( x j P j ) Φ(x)+(1+ ε) 3 Iin( x i P i )) = ln n+1. ln n+ 1+(1+ ε) 3 Iin( ln n+ 1+(1+ ε) 3 λ in ( ln n+ 1+(1+ ε) 3 N (1+8ε)N. In the last increent, because of the condition on step 3(e) of the algorith, x ip i increase by at ost ε. Hence x i P i (1+9ε)1. Running tie analysis Lea 7. Assue that the algorith does not return infeasible for soe input instance. The nuber of ties g is increased at step 3(b) of the algorith is O(N/ε). Proof. At the beginning of the algorith Tr(exp( x ic i )) n since each eigenvalue of exp( x ic i ) is at ost 1. Also Tr exp( x ip i ) 1. Hence g = global(x) = Tr exp( x ip i ) Tr(exp( x ic i )) 1 n 1 exp(n). At the end of the algorith λ in ( x ic i ) N+ε 2N. Hence Tr(exp( x i C i )) exp( x i C i ) = exp( λ in( x i C i )) exp( 2N). Also (using Lea 6) Tr(exp( x i P i )) n exp( x i P i ) n exp((1+9ε)n) exp(11n). Hence g global(x) exp(13n). Whenever g is updated at step 3(b) of the algorith, we have global(x) in{local j (x)} > (1+ε)g j just before the update global(x) = g just after the update. Thus g increases by at least (1+ε) ultiplicative factor. Hence the nuber of ties g increases is O(N/ε). 6

7 Lea 8. Assue that the algorith does not return infeasible for soe input instance. The nuber of iterations of the while loop in the algorith for a fixed value of g is O(N log(n)/ε). Proof. Fro Lea 6 step 3(d) of the algorith we have ax{ x ip i, x ic i } = O(N) throughout the algorith. On the other h we have ax{ δx ip i, δx ic i } = ε at step 3(e). Hence δ = Ω(ε/N) throughout the algorith. Let x j be increased in the last iteration of the while loop for a fixed value of g. Note that x j is initially 1/( Pj ) at the end x j is at ost 10N/ Pj (since, using Lea 6, xj P j x j P j 10N). Hence the algorith akes at ost O(log(N)/δ) = O(N log(n)/ε) increents for each x j. Note that local j (x) only increases throughout the algorith (easily seen for steps 3(d) 3(e) of the algorith). Hence since the last iteration of the while loop (for this fixed g) increases x j, it ust be that each iteration of the while loop increases x j. Hence, the nuber of iterations of the while loop (for this fixed g) is O(N log(n)/ε). We clai (without further justification) that each individual step in the algorith can be perfored in parallel tie polylog(n). Hence cobining the above leas using N = O( ln(n) ε ), we get Corollary 9. The parallel running tie of the algorith is upper bounded by polylog(n) 1 ε 4 log 1 ε. References [1] S. Arora, E. Hazan, S. Kale. Fast algoriths for approxiate seidefinite prograing using the ultiplicative weights update ethod. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Syposiu on Foundations of Coputer Science, pages , [2] S. Arora S. Kale. A cobinatorial, prial-dual approach to seidefinite progras. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Syposiu on Theory of Coputing, pages , [3] R. Jain, Z. Ji, S. Upadhyay, J. Watrous. QIP = PSPACE. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM syposiu on Theory of coputing, STOC 10, pages , New York, NY, USA, ACM. [4] R. Jain, S. Upadhyay, J. Watrous. Two-essage quantu interactive proofs are in PSPACE. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Syposiu on Foundations of Coputer Science, FOCS 09, pages , Washington, DC, USA, IEEE Coputer Society. [5] R. Jain J. Watrous. Parallel approxiation of non-interactive zero-su quantu gaes. In Proceedings of the th Annual IEEE Conference on Coputational Coplexity, CCC 09, pages , Washington, DC, USA, IEEE Coputer Society. [6] R. Jain P. Yao. A parallel approxiation algorith for positive seidefinite prograing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE Syposiu on Foundations of Coputer Science, FOCS 11, Washington, DC, USA, IEEE Coputer Society. [7] S. Kale. Efficient algoriths using the ultiplicative weights update ethod. PhD thesis, Princeton University, [8] M. Luby N. Nisan. A parallel approxiation algorith for positive linear prograing. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM syposiu on Theory of coputing, STOC 93, pages , New York, NY, USA, ACM. [9] R. Peng K. Tangwongsan. Faster Sipler Width-Independent Parallel Algoriths for Positive Seidefinite Prograing. ArXiv e-prints : arxiv: , January

8 [10] N. E. Young. Sequential parallel algoriths for ixed packing covering. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual IEEE Syposiu on Foundations of Coputer Science, FOCS 01, pages , A Deferred proofs Proof of Lea 2: We will use the following Golden-Thopson inequality. Fact 10. For Heritian atrices A, B : Tr(exp(A+B)) Tr exp(a) exp(b). We will also need the following fact. Fact 11. Let A be positive seidefinite with A ε 1. Then, Consider, Iax( exp(a) 1+(1+ε)A exp( A) 1 (1 ε/2)a. (x j + α j )A j ) Iax( x j A j ) ( Tr exp( ) = ln (x i + α i )A i ) Tr exp( x ia i ) ( Tr exp( x i A i ) exp( ln α ) ja j ) Tr exp( x (fro Fact 10) i A i ) ( Tr exp( x i A i )(1+(1+ε)( = ln α ) ja j )) Tr exp( x (fro Fact 11) ia i ) ( = ln 1+ (1+ε) Tr exp( x ia i )( α ) j A j ) Tr exp( x ia i ) (1+ ε) Tr exp( x ia i )( α ja j ) Tr exp( x ia i ) (since ln(1 + a) a for all real a) The desired bound on Iin( (x j+ α j )A j ) Iin( x j A j ) follows by analogous calculations. 8