Minimization of Symmetric Submodular Functions under Hereditary Constraints

Similar documents
1 Submodular functions

Fast algorithms for even/odd minimum cuts and generalizations

9. Submodular function optimization

Computer Science & Engineering 423/823 Design and Analysis of Algorithms

The Steiner k-cut Problem

The Steiner Network Problem

Optimization of Submodular Functions Tutorial - lecture I

On shredders and vertex connectivity augmentation

NAME: Mathematics 205A, Fall 2008, Final Examination. Answer Key

Submodular Functions, Optimization, and Applications to Machine Learning

1 Some loose ends from last time

Hardness of Submodular Cost Allocation: Lattice Matching and a Simplex Coloring Conjecture

9/19/2018. Cartesian Product. Cartesian Product. Partitions

Induced Subgraph Isomorphism on proper interval and bipartite permutation graphs

Approximate Integer Decompositions for Undirected Network Design Problems

APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS RESOLUTION OF SELECTED PROBLEMS 1

The Turán number of sparse spanning graphs

Symmetry and hardness of submodular maximization problems

CS599: Convex and Combinatorial Optimization Fall 2013 Lecture 24: Introduction to Submodular Functions. Instructor: Shaddin Dughmi

CSE541 Class 22. Jeremy Buhler. November 22, Today: how to generalize some well-known approximation results

On the hardness of losing width

Submodular Functions: Extensions, Distributions, and Algorithms A Survey

Minimum cuts and sparsification in hypergraphs

Submodular Functions Properties Algorithms Machine Learning

Strongly chordal and chordal bipartite graphs are sandwich monotone

ACO Comprehensive Exam March 17 and 18, Computability, Complexity and Algorithms

On the hardness of losing width

A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a spanning tree with specified vertices having large degrees

Submodular Secretary Problem and Extensions

Linear-Time Algorithms for Finding Tucker Submatrices and Lekkerkerker-Boland Subgraphs

2.1 Sets. Definition 1 A set is an unordered collection of objects. Important sets: N, Z, Z +, Q, R.

Efficient Approximation for Restricted Biclique Cover Problems

Multi-coloring and Mycielski s construction

Constructive proof of deficiency theorem of (g, f)-factor

Matroid Representation of Clique Complexes

An algorithm to increase the node-connectivity of a digraph by one

Monotone Submodular Maximization over a Matroid

ON THE NP-COMPLETENESS OF SOME GRAPH CLUSTER MEASURES

A submodular-supermodular procedure with applications to discriminative structure learning

An Introduction to Submodular Functions and Optimization. Maurice Queyranne University of British Columbia, and IMA Visitor (Fall 2002)

10.3 Matroids and approximation

Deciding the Bell number for hereditary graph properties. A. Atminas, A. Collins, J. Foniok and V. Lozin

Probe interval graphs and probe unit interval graphs on superclasses of cographs

Small distortion and volume preserving embedding for Planar and Euclidian metrics Satish Rao

Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society

arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 2 Oct 2018

STRUCTURE OF THE SET OF ALL MINIMAL TOTAL DOMINATING FUNCTIONS OF SOME CLASSES OF GRAPHS

Partial cubes: structures, characterizations, and constructions

Greedy Algorithms My T. UF

A Min-Max Theorem for k-submodular Functions and Extreme Points of the Associated Polyhedra. Satoru FUJISHIGE and Shin-ichi TANIGAWA.

Flow Network. The following figure shows an example of a flow network:

A combinatorial algorithm minimizing submodular functions in strongly polynomial time

On Matroid and Polymatroid Connectivity

Approximation algorithm for Max Cut with unit weights

The minimum G c cut problem

An inequality for polymatroid functions and its applications

Graph G = (V, E). V ={vertices}, E={edges}. V={a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,k} E={(a,b),(a,g),( a,h),(a,k),(b,c),(b,k),...,(h,k)}

Trees. A tree is a graph which is. (a) Connected and. (b) has no cycles (acyclic).

Cographs; chordal graphs and tree decompositions

Walker Ray Econ 204 Problem Set 3 Suggested Solutions August 6, 2015

Extremal Cases of the Ahlswede-Cai Inequality. A. J. Radclie and Zs. Szaniszlo. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Department of Mathematics

An Improved Algorithm for Parameterized Edge Dominating Set Problem

Preliminaries. Graphs. E : set of edges (arcs) (Undirected) Graph : (i, j) = (j, i) (edges) V = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, E = {(1, 3), (3, 2), (2, 4)}

Homework 5. Solutions

Out-colourings of Digraphs

Acyclic and Oriented Chromatic Numbers of Graphs

Exact Algorithms for Dominating Induced Matching Based on Graph Partition

Chapter 1. Sets and Mappings

g 2 (x) (1/3)M 1 = (1/3)(2/3)M.

Homogeneous Structures and Ramsey Classes

Vertex-Coloring Edge-Weighting of Bipartite Graphs with Two Edge Weights

The Chromatic Number of Ordered Graphs With Constrained Conflict Graphs

Extremal Graphs Having No Stable Cutsets

Factors in Graphs With Multiple Degree Constraints

arxiv: v2 [cs.ds] 28 Aug 2014

Axioms for Set Theory

Some operations preserving the existence of kernels

Applications of the Lopsided Lovász Local Lemma Regarding Hypergraphs

arxiv: v1 [cs.dm] 20 Feb 2008

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 25 Dec 2017

Generalized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs

Increasing the Span of Stars

Turán numbers of vertex-disjoint cliques in r-partite graphs

Probability Propagation

arxiv: v2 [math.co] 19 Jun 2018

Convex and Semidefinite Programming for Approximation

Rao s degree sequence conjecture

SEMI-STRONG SPLIT DOMINATION IN GRAPHS. Communicated by Mehdi Alaeiyan. 1. Introduction

Independent Transversal Dominating Sets in Graphs: Complexity and Structural Properties

6.046 Recitation 11 Handout

Advanced Combinatorial Optimization Updated April 29, Lecture 20. Lecturer: Michel X. Goemans Scribe: Claudio Telha (Nov 17, 2009)

Economics 204 Fall 2011 Problem Set 2 Suggested Solutions

The Algorithmic Aspects of the Regularity Lemma

Metric Space Topology (Spring 2016) Selected Homework Solutions. HW1 Q1.2. Suppose that d is a metric on a set X. Prove that the inequality d(x, y)

Dynamic Programming on Trees. Example: Independent Set on T = (V, E) rooted at r V.

Contents. Typical techniques. Proving hardness. Constructing efficient algorithms

COMPLEXITY IN COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY

Approximation Algorithms for the k-set Packing Problem

The chromatic number of ordered graphs with constrained conflict graphs

Approximation Algorithms for Maximum. Coverage and Max Cut with Given Sizes of. Parts? A. A. Ageev and M. I. Sviridenko

Transcription:

Minimization of Symmetric Submodular Functions under Hereditary Constraints J.A. Soto (joint work with M. Goemans) DIM, Univ. de Chile April 4th, 2012 1 of 21

Outline Background Minimal Minimizers and Pendant Pairs Algorithms Queyranne s algorithm to find Pendant Pairs

Outline Background Minimal Minimizers and Pendant Pairs Algorithms Queyranne s algorithm to find Pendant Pairs

A set function f : 2 V R with ground set V is... Submodular if: f(a B) + f(a B) f(a) + f(b) + + Symmetric if: f(a) = f(v \ A) = We have access to a value oracle for f. 3 of 21

Typical Example of a Symmetric Submodular Function (SSF) Cut function of a weighted undirected graph: f(s) = w(δ(s)) = e: e S =1 w(e) S 4 of 21

Hereditary families Definition A family I 2 V I = I \ { }. is hereditary if it is closed under inclusion. Examples V = V (G): Graph properties closed under induced subgraphs (I : stable sets, clique, k-colorable, etc.) V = E(G): Graph properties closed under subgraphs (I : matching, forest, etc.) Upper cardinality constraints, knapsack constraints, matroid constraints, etc. We have access to a membership oracle for I. 5 of 21

Problem: Constrained SSF minimization Find a nonempty set in I minimizing f. We exclude the empty set since: 2f(A) = f(a) + f(v \ A) f(v ) + f( ) = 2f( ). 6 of 21

Problem: Constrained SSF minimization Find a nonempty set in I minimizing f. We exclude the empty set since: 2f(A) = f(a) + f(v \ A) f(v ) + f( ) = 2f( ). Example: Special mincuts. Find a minimum cut S V such that S k (or S is a clique, stable, etc.) S 6 of 21

Our results [GS] O(n 3 )-algorithm for minimizing SSF on hereditary families, where n = V. (In fact, we find all the Minimal Minimizers in O(n 3 )-time). Compare to: [Queyranne 98] O(n 3 )-algorithm for minimizing SSF. [Svitkina-Fleischer 08] Minimizing a general submodular function under upper cardinality constraints is NP-hard to approximate within o( n/ log n). 7 of 21

Outline Background Minimal Minimizers and Pendant Pairs Algorithms Queyranne s algorithm to find Pendant Pairs

Tool: SSF are posimodular f(a \ B) + f(b \ A) f(a) + f(b) Proof. f(a) + f(b) = f(a) + f(v \ B) + = + f(a (V \ B)) + f(a (V \ B)) = f(b \ A) + f(a \ B) + = + 8 of 21

Minimal Minimizers are disjoint (I) Minimal Minimizers (MM) S is a MM if: (i) S I, (ii) f(s) = min X I f(x) = OPT, and (iii) Y S, f(s) < f(y ). Lemma The MM of (f, I) are disjoint. 9 of 21

Minimal Minimizers are disjoint (I) Minimal Minimizers (MM) S is a MM if: (i) S I, (ii) f(s) = min X I f(x) = OPT, and (iii) Y S, f(s) < f(y ). Lemma The MM of (f, I) are disjoint. Proof. If A and B are intersecting MM, then A \ B, B \ A I. By posimodularity f(a \ B) + f(b \ A) f(a) + f(b) = 2OPT, then f(a \ B) = f(b \ A) = OPT. 9 of 21

Minimal Minimizers are disjoint (II) Family X of MM has at most O(n) sets. Partition Π of V with at most one bad part. IDEA: Detect groups of elements inside the same part and fuse them together. 10 of 21

Fusions We will iteratively fuse elements together. Original system: (V, f, I). Modified systems: (V, f, I ). For S V, X S is the set of original elements fused into S. f (S) = f(x S ) is a SSF. I = {S : X S I} is hereditary. 11 of 21

Pendant pairs Definition We say (t, u) is a Pendant Pair (PP) for f if {u} has the minimum f-value among those sets separating t and u, i.e. f({u}) = min{f(u): U {t, u} = 1}. [Queyranne 98]: every SSF f admits PP. [Nagamochi Ibaraki 98]: given s V, we can find a PP (t, u) with s {t, u}. s t u 12 of 21

A PP (t, u) and the partition Π If S is a non-singleton MM of (f, I) then we cannot have: t u S 13 of 21

A PP (t, u) and the partition Π If S is a non-singleton MM of (f, I) then we cannot have: If t is in a MM S and u is in the bad part then f({u}) f(s ). We conclude u is a loop (i.e. {u} I). t u S S t u 13 of 21

A PP (t, u) and the partition Π If S is a non-singleton MM of (f, I) then we cannot have: If t is in a MM S and u is in the bad part then f({u}) f(s ). We conclude u is a loop (i.e. {u} I). Theorem (One of the following holds:) 1. u and t are in the same part of Π. 2. {u} is a singleton MM. 3. u is a loop. t u S S t u 13 of 21

Outline Background Minimal Minimizers and Pendant Pairs Algorithms Queyranne s algorithm to find Pendant Pairs

Warming up: Queyranne s algorithm Algorithm to find one MM of a SSF in 2 V \ {V, } While V 2, 1. Find (t, u) pendant pair. 2. Add X {u} as a candidate for minimum. 3. Fuse t and u as one vertex. Return the (first) best of the n 1 candidates. Correctness Cannot create loops! We fuse pairs in the same part of Π until {u} is a singleton MM (first best candidate). 14 of 21

Algorithm to find one MM in constrained version Assume I has exactly one loop s. (If many, fuse them together) Algorithm While V 3, 1. Find (t, u) pendant pair avoiding s. 2. Add X {u} as a candidate for minimum. 3. If {t, u} I, Fuse t and u as one vertex. Else, Fuse s, t and u as one loop vertex (call it s). If V = 2, add the only non-loop as a candidate. Return the (first) best candidate. Notes: u is never a loop! If no loop in I, use any pendant pair in instruction 1. 15 of 21

Algorithm to find the family X of all the MM Find one MM S. Let OPT = f(s), X = {S}. Add all singleton MM to X. Fuse sets in X and loops together in a single element s. While V 3, 1. Find (t, u) pendant pair avoiding s. [{t, u} is INSIDE a part.] 2. If {t, u} I, Fuse s, t and u as one loop vertex as s. 3. Else if f ({t, u}) = OPT, Add X {t,u} to X and Fuse s, t and u together as s. 4. Else Fuse t and u as one vertex. If V = 2, check if the only non-loop is optimum. Return X. 16 of 21

Conclusions. Can find all the MM of (f, I) by using 2n calls to a PP finder procedure. Queyranne s PP procedure finds pendant pairs in O(n 2 ) time/oracle calls. All together: O(n 3 )-algorithm. 17 of 21

Outline Background Minimal Minimizers and Pendant Pairs Algorithms Queyranne s algorithm to find Pendant Pairs

Rizzi s Degree Function Let f be a SSF on V with f( ) = 0. Define the function d(, :) on pairs of disjoint subsets of V as d(a, B) = 1 (f(a) + f(b) f(a B)). 2 E.g., If f( ) = w(δ( )) is the cut function of a weighted graph, then d(a, B) = w(a : B) = is the associated degree function. Note: f(a) = d(a, V \ A). uv:u A,v B w(uv) 18 of 21

Maximum Adjacency (MA) order The sequence (v 1,..., v n ) is a MA order of (V, f) if d(v i, {v 1,..., v i 1 }) d(v j, {v 1,..., v i 1 }). We get a MA order by setting v 1 arbitrarily and selecting the next vertex as the one with MAX. ADJACENCY to the ones already selected. 19 of 21

Maximum Adjacency (MA) order The sequence (v 1,..., v n ) is a MA order of (V, f) if d(v i, {v 1,..., v i 1 }) d(v j, {v 1,..., v i 1 }). We get a MA order by setting v 1 arbitrarily and selecting the next vertex as the one with MAX. ADJACENCY to the ones already selected. Lemma [Queyranne 98, Rizzi 00] The last two elements (v n 1, v n ) of a MA order are a pendant pair. Remark: If V 3, we can always find a pendant pair avoiding one vertex. 19 of 21

20 of 21.

MA order yields PP S Symmetric: d(a, B) = d(b, A). M Monotone: d(a, B) d(a, B C). C Consistent: d(a, C) d(b, C) d(a, B C) d(b, A C). Proof that MA yields PP If n = 2, trivial. If n = 3, the only sets separating v 2 and v 3 are {v 3 }, {v 1, v 3 } and their complements. MA implies d(v 2, v 1 ) d(v 3, v 1 ). C implies d(v 2, {v 1, v 3 }) d(v 3, {v 1, v 2 }), i.e. f(v 3 ) f({v 1, v 3 }). 21 of 21

MA order yields PP S Symmetric: d(a, B) = d(b, A). M Monotone: d(a, B) d(a, B C). C Consistent: d(a, C) d(b, C) d(a, B C) d(b, A C). Proof that MA yields PP If n 4, let S be a set separating v n 1 and v n. Case 1: S does not separate v 1 and v 2. Then: ({v 1, v 2 }, v 3,..., v n 1, v n ) is a MA order. So: f(v n ) f(s). 21 of 21

MA order yields PP S Symmetric: d(a, B) = d(b, A). M Monotone: d(a, B) d(a, B C). C Consistent: d(a, C) d(b, C) d(a, B C) d(b, A C). Proof that MA yields PP If n 4, let S be a set separating v n 1 and v n. Case 2: S does not separate v 2 and v 3. M implies (v 1, {v 2, v 3 },..., v n 1, v n ) is a MA order. ( d(v j, v 1 ) d(v 2, v 1 ) M d({v 2, v 3 }, v 1 ) ) So: f(v n ) f(s). 21 of 21

MA order yields PP S Symmetric: d(a, B) = d(b, A). M Monotone: d(a, B) d(a, B C). C Consistent: d(a, C) d(b, C) d(a, B C) d(b, A C). Proof that MA yields PP If n 4, let S be a set separating v n 1 and v n. Case 3: S does not separate v 1 and v 3. C+M implies (v 2, {v 1, v 3 },..., v n 1, v n ) is a MA order. If not: j, d({v 1, v 3 }, v 2 ) < d(v j, v 2 ) M d(v j, {v 1, v 2 }), by C: d(v 2, {v 1, v 3 }) d(v 3, {v 1, v 2 }), then: d(v 3, {v 1, v 2 }) d(v j, {v 1, v 2 }) > d({v 1, v 3 }, v 2 ) d(v 3, {v 1, v 2 }). 21 of 21