Loading in 5 sec....

Lower Bounds for NNS and Metric ExpansionPowerPoint Presentation

Lower Bounds for NNS and Metric Expansion

- 58 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Lower Bounds for NNS and Metric Expansion

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lower Bounds for NNS and Metric Expansion

RinaPanigrahy

KunalTalwar

UdiWieder

Microsoft Research SVC

TexPoint fonts used in EMF.

Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA

Given points in a metric space

Preprocess into a small data structure

Given a query point

Quickly retrieve the closest to

Many Applications

- Find a point in distance r of query point
- Relation to Approximate NNS:
- If second neighbor is at distance cr
- Then this is also a c-approximate NN

r

cr

Preprocess into data structure with

- words
- bits per word
Query algorithm gets charged t

if it probes words of

- All computation is free
Study tradeoff between and

In this talk

w

m

n.exp(ϵ3 d)

Show a unified approach for proving cell probe lower bounds for near neighbor and other similar problems.

Show that all lower bounds stem from the same combinatorial property of the metric space

Expansion : |number of points near A|/|A|

(show some new lower bounds)

- Convert metric space to Graph
- Place an edge if nodes are within distance r
- Return a neighbor of the query. Now r=1

- Assume uniform degree
- Use a random data set
- Assume W.h.p the n balls are disjoint.

- sdddddddddddddddlklkj

n.exp(ϵ2d)

- F : V → [m] partitions V into m regions
- Split large regions
- A random ball is shattered into many parts: about ф(G)
- ф(G) replication in space

- determines which cell in is read
- Select a fraction of cells such
- it is likely that cantains a quarter of the data set points
- So, and

- Select a fraction of each table such
- Continue as before
- Non adaptive algorithms

- Adaptive alg. depend upon content of selected cells
- Subexp. number of algs
- Union bound

- So far we assumed the algorithm is correct on
- What if only of are good query point?

Need to relax the definition of vertex expansion

- Robust Expansion

- N(A) captures all edges from A
- Expansion =|N(A)|/|A|
- Capture only ¾ of the edges from A

A

N(A)

- Small set vertex expansion:
- In other words:We can cover all the edges incident on with a set of size
- We can cover of the edges incident on with a set of size
- Robust expansion is at least the edge expansion

- Theorem: if is weakly Independent, then a randomized data structure that answers GNS queries with space and queries must satisfy and

- Most of a random ball is shattered into many parts: about фr
- фr replication in space

- Sample 1/фr1/t fraction from each table.
- A random ball, good part survives in all tables.
- Union bound for adaptive is trickier.

- We know how to calculate robust expansion of graphs derived from:
- when (known)
- when (new)
- when (natural input dist.)

- Don’t know the robust expansion of:
- when

- Say is a Cayley Graph
- Take
- Take with r.e.
- Use random translations of to define the access function
- For rand. input success prob. is constant

Unified approach to NNS cell probe lower bounds

- often characterized by expansion
- Average case with natural distributions

- Improve dependency on (very hard)
- Dynamic NNS, tight bound for special cases shown in the paper

- sdfsdfsffjlaskdjffj

- gdgsgsdfgdfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffkffffsdfgddddddjffjdfgdfg

- So far we assumed the algorithm is correct on
- What if only of are good query point?

Need to relax the definition of vertex expansion and independence

is weakly independent if for random it holds that

- Can we plug the new definitions in the old proof?
- Conceptually – yes!
- Actually….well no

- Dependencies everywhere – the set of good neighbors of a data point depends upon the rest of the data set
- Solving this is the technical crux of the paper