Succinct linear programs for easy problems

Similar documents
Building Algorithmic Polytopes. David Bremner with D. Avis, H.R. Tiwary, and O. Watanabe December 16, 2014

7. Lecture notes on the ellipsoid algorithm

LINEAR PROGRAMMING III

Algorithms Design & Analysis. Approximation Algorithm

Lecture notes on the ellipsoid algorithm

UC Berkeley CS 170: Efficient Algorithms and Intractable Problems Handout 22 Lecturer: David Wagner April 24, Notes 22 for CS 170

Lecture 22: Counting

Umans Complexity Theory Lectures

Lecture 7: The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy. 1 Nondeterministic Space is Closed under Complement

conp = { L L NP } (1) This problem is essentially the same as SAT because a formula is not satisfiable if and only if its negation is a tautology.

Notes for Lecture 3... x 4

COP 4531 Complexity & Analysis of Data Structures & Algorithms

CHAPTER 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY. E. Amaldi Foundations of Operations Research Politecnico di Milano 1

DRAFT. Algebraic computation models. Chapter 14

Lecture 2: From Classical to Quantum Model of Computation

NP and Computational Intractability

The Ellipsoid Algorithm

Week 8. 1 LP is easy: the Ellipsoid Method

CS154, Lecture 15: Cook-Levin Theorem SAT, 3SAT

Cutting Plane Methods II

Intro to Theory of Computation

3.8 Strong valid inequalities

3. Linear Programming and Polyhedral Combinatorics

A Review of Linear Programming

CMPT307: Complexity Classes: P and N P Week 13-1

APPROXIMATING THE COMPLEXITY MEASURE OF. Levent Tuncel. November 10, C&O Research Report: 98{51. Abstract

Lecture 9 : PPAD and the Complexity of Equilibrium Computation. 1 Complexity Class PPAD. 1.1 What does PPAD mean?

3.7 Cutting plane methods

NP-Complete problems

Small (Explicit) Extended Formulation for Knapsack Cover Inequalities from Monotone Circuits

(x 1 +x 2 )(x 1 x 2 )+(x 2 +x 3 )(x 2 x 3 )+(x 3 +x 1 )(x 3 x 1 ).

3. Linear Programming and Polyhedral Combinatorics

Lecture notes on OPP algorithms [Preliminary Draft]

CS151 Complexity Theory

Polynomiality of Linear Programming

3.7 Strong valid inequalities for structured ILP problems

Information Theory + Polyhedral Combinatorics

MINI-TUTORIAL ON SEMI-ALGEBRAIC PROOF SYSTEMS. Albert Atserias Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Barcelona

IS VALIANT VAZIRANI S ISOLATION PROBABILITY IMPROVABLE? Holger Dell, Valentine Kabanets, Dieter van Melkebeek, and Osamu Watanabe December 31, 2012

NP-Complete Problems. Complexity Class P. .. Cal Poly CSC 349: Design and Analyis of Algorithms Alexander Dekhtyar..

Computational Intractability 2010/4/15. Lecture 2

Randomness and non-uniformity

Introduction Long transparent proofs The real PCP theorem. Real Number PCPs. Klaus Meer. Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany

Geometric Steiner Trees

Complexity Theory VU , SS The Polynomial Hierarchy. Reinhard Pichler

Outline. Complexity Theory EXACT TSP. The Class DP. Definition. Problem EXACT TSP. Complexity of EXACT TSP. Proposition VU 181.

Complete problems for classes in PH, The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy (PH) oracle is like a subroutine, or function in

Is Valiant Vazirani s Isolation Probability Improvable?

Lecture 4. 1 Circuit Complexity. Notes on Complexity Theory: Fall 2005 Last updated: September, Jonathan Katz

Positive semidefinite rank

COMPLEXITY OF SHORT GENERATING FUNCTIONS

A notion of Total Dual Integrality for Convex, Semidefinite and Extended Formulations

Polynomial-Time Reductions

CS 372: Computational Geometry Lecture 4 Lower Bounds for Computational Geometry Problems

Gwyneth Harrison-Shermoen

Automata Theory CS Complexity Theory I: Polynomial Time

6.896 Quantum Complexity Theory November 11, Lecture 20

1 Primals and Duals: Zero Sum Games

A Lower Bound for the Size of Syntactically Multilinear Arithmetic Circuits

Algorithm Design and Analysis

Semidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2001 Lecture 5

BBM402-Lecture 11: The Class NP

Scheduling on Unrelated Parallel Machines. Approximation Algorithms, V. V. Vazirani Book Chapter 17

Lecture 18: PCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation I

Shamir s Theorem. Johannes Mittmann. Technische Universität München (TUM)

3.3 Easy ILP problems and totally unimodular matrices

Lecture 5 Polynomial Identity Testing

6-1 Computational Complexity

Determine the size of an instance of the minimum spanning tree problem.

NP-COMPLETE PROBLEMS. 1. Characterizing NP. Proof

MARKOV CHAINS: STATIONARY DISTRIBUTIONS AND FUNCTIONS ON STATE SPACES. Contents

Lectures 6, 7 and part of 8

1 Computational Problems

8. INTRACTABILITY I. Lecture slides by Kevin Wayne Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. Last updated on 2/6/18 2:16 AM

In complexity theory, algorithms and problems are classified by the growth order of computation time as a function of instance size.

Tightening linearizations of non-linear binary optimization problems

More NP-Complete Problems

Integer Quadratic Programming is in NP

Linear Programming. Linear Programming I. Lecture 1. Linear Programming. Linear Programming

Chapter 2. Reductions and NP. 2.1 Reductions Continued The Satisfiability Problem (SAT) SAT 3SAT. CS 573: Algorithms, Fall 2013 August 29, 2013

P is the class of problems for which there are algorithms that solve the problem in time O(n k ) for some constant k.

Technische Universität München, Zentrum Mathematik Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Geometrie und Diskrete Mathematik. Combinatorial Optimization (MA 4502)

20.1 2SAT. CS125 Lecture 20 Fall 2016

STRENGTHENING CONVEX RELAXATIONS OF 0/1-SETS USING BOOLEAN FORMULAS

Umans Complexity Theory Lectures

Discrete Optimization 2010 Lecture 8 Lagrangian Relaxation / P, N P and co-n P

Notes for Lecture Notes 2

CSE200: Computability and complexity Space Complexity

Lecture 8: Complete Problems for Other Complexity Classes

The Complexity and Proof Complexity of the Comparator Circuit Value Problem

Circuits. Lecture 11 Uniform Circuit Complexity

CSC 5170: Theory of Computational Complexity Lecture 5 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 8 February 2010

Lecture 24: Randomized Complexity, Course Summary

Multi-Linear Formulas for Permanent and Determinant are of Super-Polynomial Size

NP-Complete Reductions 2

Parallelism and Machine Models

Integer programming: an introduction. Alessandro Astolfi

A polynomial relaxation-type algorithm for linear programming

CSC373: Algorithm Design, Analysis and Complexity Fall 2017 DENIS PANKRATOV NOVEMBER 1, 2017

NP-completeness. Chapter 34. Sergey Bereg

Transcription:

Succinct linear programs for easy problems David Bremner U. New Brunswick / visiting TU Berlin 24-11-2014 Joint Work with D. Avis, H.R. Tiwary, and O. Watanabe

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Edmonds' matching polytope EM n Matchings Given graph G = (V, E), M E is a matching if every v V is contained in at most one e M. M is perfect if M = V /2. Edmonds' Matching Polytope EM n = conv{ χ(m) {0, 1} 2) (n M matching in Kn }. Linear description consists of degree bounds, and for every W V, W = 2k + 1, k 1, x e ( W 1)/2 e W

Edmonds' perfect matching polytope EP n Edmonds' perfect matching polytope EP n EP n = EM n {x 1 T x = n/2} Linear description has degree bounds and for every W V, W = 2k + 1, k 1, x ij 1 i W, j / W Face of EM n by denition. Not hard to see equivalance of two odd set constraints for binary values.

Another perfect matching polytope ψ(x) = { 1 x char. vec. of graph with a perfect matching 0 otherwise PM n = conv{(x, ψ(x)) : x {0, 1} (n 2) } Proposition EP n is a face of PM n and can be dened by EP n = {x : (x, w) PM n {1 T x + (1 w)n 2 = n 2 }} The minimal graphs containing perfect matchings are the matchings themselves.

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Extensions and extended formulations Denition Polyhedron Q R d+e is an extension of P R d if P = TQ for some linear transform T Denition An extended formulation (EF) of a polytope P R d is a linear system Ex + Fy = g, y 0 (1) such that P = {x y Ex + Fy = g} In both cases the size is the number of inequalities / facets. All but a small number of equations can be eliminated (in some sense non-constructive).

Slack matrices Suppose P in P out R n P in = conv({v 1,..., v k }) P out = {x R n a i x b i, 1 i m} then S ij (P out, P in ) = b i a i v j S(P) = S(P, P) Of course these matrices are generally huge!

Nonnegative rank Denition The nonnegative rank rank + (S) of a matrix S is the smallest r such that there exist T R f + r, U R r v + and S = TU Theorem (Y91) The following are equivalent S(P) has non-negative rank at most r P has extension size at most r P has an EF of size at most r.

Symmetric Extended Formulations Extended formulation Q(x, y) is symmetric if every permutation π of the coordinates of x extends to a permutation of y that preserves Q. Theorem (Yanakakis91) The matching polytope has no polynomial size symmetric extended formulation.

No extended formulation of EP n is succinct Theorem (Rothvoÿ2013) Any extended formulation of the perfect matching polytope EP n has complexity 2 Ω(n). This takes as a starting point the idea of covering the support of the slack matrix with rectangles of 1s (Y91). Slack matrices are also useful in proving the following, which shows that EP n and PM n also have exponential extension complexity. Lemma (FMPTW2012) Let P, Q and F be polytopes. Then the following hold: if F is an extension of P, then xc(f ) xc(p) if F is a face of Q, then xc(q) xc(f ).

No extended formulation of EP n is succinct Theorem (Rothvoÿ2013) Any extended formulation of the perfect matching polytope EP n has complexity 2 Ω(n). This takes as a starting point the idea of covering the support of the slack matrix with rectangles of 1s (Y91). Slack matrices are also useful in proving the following, which shows that EP n and PM n also have exponential extension complexity. Lemma (FMPTW2012) Let P, Q and F be polytopes. Then the following hold: if F is an extension of P, then xc(f ) xc(p) if F is a face of Q, then xc(q) xc(f ).

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Optimizing over PM n For a given input graph G( x) = (V, E) we dene c = (c ij ) by: c ij = 1 ij E c ij = 1 ij E 1 i < j n Let d be a constant such that 0 < d 1/2. z = max z = c T x + dw (2) (x, w) PM n Proposition For x {0, 1} (n 2), the optimum solution to (2) is unique, and { z 1 T x + d if G( x) has a perfect matching = 1 T x otherwise

Optimizing over PM n For a given input graph G( x) = (V, E) we dene c = (c ij ) by: c ij = 1 ij E c ij = 1 ij E 1 i < j n Let d be a constant such that 0 < d 1/2. z = max z = c T x + dw (2) (x, w) PM n Proposition For x {0, 1} (n 2), the optimum solution to (2) is unique, and { z 1 T x + d if G( x) has a perfect matching = 1 T x otherwise

Polytopes for decision problems Consider a decision problem dened by its characteristic function { 1 x char. vec. of YES instance ψ(x) = 0 otherwise For each input size q we can dene a polytope P(ψ, q) = conv{(x, ψ(x)) : x {0, 1} q } To optimize, we will use c T x + dw, d small constant, c = φ( x) φ(x) i = { 1 if xi = 1 1 if x i = 0

0/1-property Denition Let Q [0, 1] q+t be a polytope. We say that Q has the x-0/1 property if For each x in {0, 1} q there is a unique vertex (x, y) of Q, and (x, y) {0, 1} q+t. (1, 1) (0, 0) (1, 0)

Weak Extended Formulation Denition Dene polytope Q by x [0, 1] q, w [0, 1], s [0, 1] r and Ax + bw + Cs h For any x {0, 1} q, 0 < d 1/2 z = max {φ( x) T x + dw : (x, w, s) Q} (3) Let m = 1 T x. Q is a weak extended formulation (WEF) of P(ψ, q) if Q has the x-0/1 property, and For every YES instance the solution to (3) is unique and z = m + d. For every NO instance z < m + d and for all suciently small d, z = m and is the solution to (3) is unique.

Weak Extended Formulation Denition Dene polytope Q by x [0, 1] q, w [0, 1], s [0, 1] r and Ax + bw + Cs h For any x {0, 1} q, 0 < d 1/2 z = max {φ( x) T x + dw : (x, w, s) Q} (3) Let m = 1 T x. Q is a weak extended formulation (WEF) of P(ψ, q) if Q has the x-0/1 property, and For every YES instance the solution to (3) is unique and z = m + d. For every NO instance z < m + d and for all suciently small d, z = m and is the solution to (3) is unique.

Objective function gaps Let A Z m n, c Z n, b Z m dene an LP. Let B 1 and B 2 be basis matrices x i = B 1 i b Cramer's rule, integrality, x 1 x 2 = c T (x 1 x 2 ) 1 B 1 B 2 max c T x Ax = b, x 0 x 1 Let σ = max i,j abs(a ij ) c x 2 Using the Hadamard bound, B i σ m m m/2,

Objective function gaps Let A Z m n, c Z n, b Z m dene an LP. Let B 1 and B 2 be basis matrices x i = B 1 i b Cramer's rule, integrality, x 1 x 2 = c T (x 1 x 2 ) 1 B 1 B 2 max c T x Ax = b, x 0 x 1 Let σ = max i,j abs(a ij ) c x 2 Using the Hadamard bound, B i σ m m m/2,

Objective function gaps Let A Z m n, c Z n, b Z m dene an LP. Let B 1 and B 2 be basis matrices x i = B 1 i b Cramer's rule, integrality, x 1 x 2 = c T (x 1 x 2 ) 1 B 1 B 2 max c T x Ax = b, x 0 x 1 Let σ = max i,j abs(a ij ) c x 2 Using the Hadamard bound, B i σ m m m/2,

A simple example (1, 1, 1) PM 2 = conv{(0, 0), (1, 1)} Q 2 = conv{(0, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1), (1/4, 1, 1/2)} (1/4, 1, 1/2) d = 1/2 x = 1: c 12 = 1 and z = c T x + dw gets same on P 2 and Q 2 x = 0: z = 0 = m over PM 2 and z = 1/4 < 1/2 = m + d over Q 2 (0, 0, 0) 0 < d < 1/4 x = 0: z = 0 = m over both PM 2 and Q 2

A simple example (1, 1, 1) PM 2 = conv{(0, 0), (1, 1)} Q 2 = conv{(0, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1), (1/4, 1, 1/2)} (1/4, 1, 1/2) d = 1/2 x = 1: c 12 = 1 and z = c T x + dw gets same on P 2 and Q 2 x = 0: z = 0 = m over PM 2 and z = 1/4 < 1/2 = m + d over Q 2 (0, 0, 0) 0 < d < 1/4 x = 0: z = 0 = m over both PM 2 and Q 2

A simple example (1, 1, 1) PM 2 = conv{(0, 0), (1, 1)} Q 2 = conv{(0, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1), (1/4, 1, 1/2)} (1/4, 1, 1/2) d = 1/2 x = 1: c 12 = 1 and z = c T x + dw gets same on P 2 and Q 2 x = 0: z = 0 = m over PM 2 and z = 1/4 < 1/2 = m + d over Q 2 (0, 0, 0) 0 < d < 1/4 x = 0: z = 0 = m over both PM 2 and Q 2

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Circuits Denition A (boolean) circuit with q input bits x = (x 1, x 2,..., x q ) is dened by a sequence of gates x i = x j x k ( {, }) or x i = x j where i > j, k, q.

P/Poly and P Denition P/Poly is the class of decision problems with polynomial sized circuits for each input size. Denition A family C n of circuits is polynomial-time uniform if there exists a deterministic Turing machine M that on input 1 n generates C n in polynomial time. Denition P is the class of decision problems with a polynomial-time uniform family of polynomial size circuits.

P/Poly and P Denition P/Poly is the class of decision problems with polynomial sized circuits for each input size. Denition A family C n of circuits is polynomial-time uniform if there exists a deterministic Turing machine M that on input 1 n generates C n in polynomial time. Denition P is the class of decision problems with a polynomial-time uniform family of polynomial size circuits.

Valiant's Construction I x i = x j x k, x j + x k x i 1 x j + x i 0 (AND) x k + x i 0 x i 0 x i = x j x k x j x k + x i 0 x j x i 0 (OR) x k x i 0 x i 1

Valiant's Construction II Given circuit C of size t, let polytope Q(C) be constructed using systems (AND) and (OR), and by substituting x i = x j by 1 x j. Q(C) has 4t inequalities and q + t variables, and all coecients 0, ±1 Lemma (Valiant1982) Let C be a boolean circuit with q input bits x = (x 1, x 2,..., x q ) and t gate output bits y = (y 1, y 2,..., y t ). Q(C) has the x-0/1 property and for every input x the value computed by C corresponds to the value of y t in the unique extension (x, y) Q of x.

Valiant's Construction II Given circuit C of size t, let polytope Q(C) be constructed using systems (AND) and (OR), and by substituting x i = x j by 1 x j. Q(C) has 4t inequalities and q + t variables, and all coecients 0, ±1 Lemma (Valiant1982) Let C be a boolean circuit with q input bits x = (x 1, x 2,..., x q ) and t gate output bits y = (y 1, y 2,..., y t ). Q(C) has the x-0/1 property and for every input x the value computed by C corresponds to the value of y t in the unique extension (x, y) Q of x.

WEFs from Circuits Lemma Let ψ be a decision problem. Let C n be a (not necessarily uniform) family of circuits for ψ. Q(C n ) is a weak extended formulation for P(ψ, n). Proposition Every decision problem in P/poly admits a weak extended formulation Q of polynomial size. In principle, a matching polytope Perfect Matching is in P, therefore we can construct one circuit C n per input size. From the circuit, we can construct Q(C n ) which is a WEF for PM n ; no poly size extension exists

WEFs from Circuits Lemma Let ψ be a decision problem. Let C n be a (not necessarily uniform) family of circuits for ψ. Q(C n ) is a weak extended formulation for P(ψ, n). Proposition Every decision problem in P/poly admits a weak extended formulation Q of polynomial size. In principle, a matching polytope Perfect Matching is in P, therefore we can construct one circuit C n per input size. From the circuit, we can construct Q(C n ) which is a WEF for PM n ; no poly size extension exists

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Polytopal sandwiches for languages Switch to terminology of language L = {x {0, 1} ψ(x) = 1} L(n) = {x {0, 1} n ψ(x) = 1} For L {0, 1} dene a pair of characteristic functions { 1 if x L ψ(x) = 0 if x / L, { 1 if xi = 1 φ(x) i = 1 if x i = 0 And a pair of polytopes V (L(n)) = conv({(x, ψ(x)) x {0, 1} n }. { H(L(n)) := (x, w) φ(a) x + dw a 1 + d φ(a) x + dw a 1 a L(n) a / L(n) }

Polytopal sandwiches for languages Switch to terminology of language L = {x {0, 1} ψ(x) = 1} L(n) = {x {0, 1} n ψ(x) = 1} For L {0, 1} dene a pair of characteristic functions { 1 if x L ψ(x) = 0 if x / L, { 1 if xi = 1 φ(x) i = 1 if x i = 0 And a pair of polytopes V (L(n)) = conv({(x, ψ(x)) x {0, 1} n }. { H(L(n)) := (x, w) φ(a) x + dw a 1 + d φ(a) x + dw a 1 a L(n) a / L(n) }

Slack matrices for languages M a,b (L(n)) = a 1 n 2a b + 1 b + α(a, b) where d if a L, b / L α(a, b) = d if a / L, b L, 0 otherwise M(L(n)) = S(H(L(n)), V (L(n))) (4)

Concise coordinates Concise coordinates A matrix or vector X has concise coordinates with respect to n (X is cc(n)) if each element has a binary encoding bounded by a polynomial in n. A polytope is cc(n) if its vertex and facet matrices are. Extended formulations with concise coordinates rank n +(M) denotes the minimum rank of a non-negative factorization M = ST such that S and T are both cc(n). xc n (P) denotes the minimum number of inequalities in a cc(n) extended formulation of P.

Concise coordinates Concise coordinates A matrix or vector X has concise coordinates with respect to n (X is cc(n)) if each element has a binary encoding bounded by a polynomial in n. A polytope is cc(n) if its vertex and facet matrices are. Extended formulations with concise coordinates rank n +(M) denotes the minimum rank of a non-negative factorization M = ST such that S and T are both cc(n). xc n (P) denotes the minimum number of inequalities in a cc(n) extended formulation of P.

Optimizing over sandwiches Lemma Let P be a polytope such that V (L(n)) P H(L(n)). Then, deciding whether a vector a {0, 1} n is in L or not can be achieved by optimizing over P along the direction (φ(a), d) for some constant 0 < d 1/2. Main idea Objective values for P are sandwiched between those for V (L(n)) and H(L(n)).

Rank of Sandwiches Lemma Let P in = conv(v ), P out = {x Ax b} be cc(n). rank n +(S) = min{ xc n (P) P is cc(n) and P in P P out } Proof sketch. S := [ ] S(P) S(P, Pout) S(P in, P) S(P in, P out ) rank n +(S(P in, P out )) rank n +(S ) = rank n +(S(P)) = xc n (P) ( ) S(P in, P out ) = TU Q = {(x, y) Ax + Ty = b, y 0} P = {x (x, y) Q} ( ) P in P P out

Rank of Sandwiches Lemma Let P in = conv(v ), P out = {x Ax b} be cc(n). rank n +(S) = min{ xc n (P) P is cc(n) and P in P P out } Proof sketch. S := [ ] S(P) S(P, Pout) S(P in, P) S(P in, P out ) rank n +(S(P in, P out )) rank n +(S ) = rank n +(S(P)) = xc n (P) ( ) S(P in, P out ) = TU Q = {(x, y) Ax + Ty = b, y 0} P = {x (x, y) Q} ( ) P in P P out

Rank of Sandwiches and P/Poly Theorem L P/Poly i rank n +(M(L(n))) is polynomial in n (only if). Small circuits C n implies WEF Q(C n ). Dene P = proj (x,w) (Q(C n )) V (L(n)) P H(L(n)) rank n +(M(L(n))) = rank n +(S(H(L(n)), V (L(n)))) #ineq(q) (if). Small rank n + implies P V (L(n)) P H(L(n)) P has small extension Q, optimize over Q to decide L.

Rank of Sandwiches and P/Poly Theorem L P/Poly i rank n +(M(L(n))) is polynomial in n (only if). Small circuits C n implies WEF Q(C n ). Dene P = proj (x,w) (Q(C n )) V (L(n)) P H(L(n)) rank n +(M(L(n))) = rank n +(S(H(L(n)), V (L(n)))) #ineq(q) (if). Small rank n + implies P V (L(n)) P H(L(n)) P has small extension Q, optimize over Q to decide L.

Outline 1 Matchings and Matching Polytopes 2 Extension Complexity 3 Weak extended formulations 4 From circuits to LPs 5 Connections with non-negative rank 6 Constructing an LP from Pseudocode

Constructing Concrete Polytopes We want to construct actual polytopes for the perfect matching problem and other problems in P. Algorithms are typically expressed as pseudocode and not circuits; directly designing a circuit for Edmonds' algorithm seems nontrivial. We are currently writing a compiler from a simple procedural pseudocode to LPs.

Constructing Concrete Polytopes We want to construct actual polytopes for the perfect matching problem and other problems in P. Algorithms are typically expressed as pseudocode and not circuits; directly designing a circuit for Edmonds' algorithm seems nontrivial. We are currently writing a compiler from a simple procedural pseudocode to LPs.

Key ideas for compiling pseudocode to LPs Based on binary variables, with integrality guarantees propagated by induction, as in the circuit case. A step counter is modelled as a set of boolean variables, which enable and disable the constraints modelling each line of code. To support practical algorithms, arrays and simple integer arithmetic is supported. For more details, and a demo, come to Polymake Days on December 5, here at the TU.

Key ideas for compiling pseudocode to LPs Based on binary variables, with integrality guarantees propagated by induction, as in the circuit case. A step counter is modelled as a set of boolean variables, which enable and disable the constraints modelling each line of code. To support practical algorithms, arrays and simple integer arithmetic is supported. For more details, and a demo, come to Polymake Days on December 5, here at the TU.