1 / 39

S-T Connectivity on Digraphs with a Known Stationary Distribution

S-T Connectivity on Digraphs with a Known Stationary Distribution. Kai-Min Chung Harvard University Joint work with: Omer Reingold (Weizmann Inst. of Science) Salil Vadhan (Harvard University). Outline. RL vs. L and s-t connectivity Our main result Derandomization settings

marlis
Download Presentation

S-T Connectivity on Digraphs with a Known Stationary Distribution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. S-T Connectivity on Digraphs with a Known Stationary Distribution Kai-Min Chung Harvard University Joint work with: Omer Reingold (Weizmann Inst. of Science) Salil Vadhan (Harvard University)

  2. Outline • RL vs. L and s-t connectivity • Our main result • Derandomization settings • Algorithm outline • Main step • Conclusion

  3. Space Space Bounded Complexity Classes L : deterministic logspace Lk : deterministic space O(logk n) RL: randomized logspace polynomial time one-sided error NL: non-deterministic logspace RL vs. L Does randomness help space bounded computation? .. .. .. ... read only .. .. Input: Work: R/W M Random coins 0/1 .. .. .. write only Output: One way

  4. Results on derandomizing space • How much space is sufficient? • RL ⊆ NL ⊆ L2 [Sav70] • RL ⊆L3/2 [Nis92,SZ95] • How many bits can we derandomize? • polylog(n) bits [NZ93] • 2√logn bits with restrictions [RR99] • Make complexity assumptions • RL = L by hardness assumptions[KvM99] • Study s-t connectivity problem

  5. G t s S-T Connectivity (STConn) n: # vertices d: out-degree • Input: (G,s,t) • G – (n,d)-digraph • s,t – vertices in G • Output: does s connect to t?

  6. STConnand logspace computation • Arbitrary digraph • NL-complete • Poly-Mixing digraph • RL-complete [RTV06] • Undirected graph - USTConn • SL-complete [LP82] • USTConn ∈ RL [AKLLR79] • USTConn ∈ L [Rei05]

  7. G t s Random walk algorithm for USTConn [AKLLR79] • Random Walk Algorithm: • Do poly(n) steps random walk from s • Accept if ends at t π(t) is non-negligible converge to stat dist π

  8. Poly-Mixing STConn[RTV06] • Input: (G,s,t,1k) • k: mixing time parameter • YES instance: • s and t are connected • Random walk from s converges to a stationary dist πin k steps • π(s), π(t) ≥ 1/k • NO instance: • No path from s to t Complete for (promise) RL

  9. Graph classes and RL vs. L regular reversible stationary distribution • For what graph class can we solve s-t connectivity in deterministic logspace? • [Rei05] USTConn ∈ L • [RTV06] STConn on regular digraph ∈ L • Our result: Known-Stationary STConn ∈ L

  10. δ-Known-Stationary STConn • Input: (G,s,t,1k,p1,…,pn) • pv: estimate of a stationary dist π(v) (input stationary distribution) • YES instance: • s and t are connected • |pv - π(v)| ≤ δ for all v that can reach s • Random walk from s converges to a stationary dist πs in k steps. • π(s), π(t) ≥ 1/k • No instance: no path from s to t p can be arbitrary

  11. δ-Known-Stationary Find-Path • Input: (G,s,t,1k,p1,…,pn) • YES instance: • s and t are connected • |pv - π(v)| ≤ δ for all v that can reach s • Random walk from s converges to a stationary dist πs in k steps. • π(s), π(t) ≥ 1/k • Output: path from s to t Inspired by [RR99]: estimate of state distribution is available

  12. Our result δ-Known-Stationary STConn and δ-Known-Stationary Find-Path Both in deterministic logspace where δ =1/poly(n,d,k)

  13. Outline • RL vs. L and s-t connectivity • Our main result • Derandomization settings • Algorithm outline • Main step • Conclusion

  14. Explicit vs. oblivious derandomization • Explicit setting • Given input graph explicitly • Oblivious setting • CANNOT look at the graph • Only know parameters of graph • n: #vertices • d: (out-)degree • k: mixing time parameter • Construct PRG for Random Walk Algorithm

  15. Results in explicit settings • Explicit setting • RL ⊆L3/2 [SZ95] • USTConn ∈ L [Rei05] • Known-Stationary STConn ∈ L [Our result]

  16. Results in oblivious settings • Oblivious setting • Nisan’s PRG: O(log2 n) seed length [Nis92] • RTV’s PRG: O(log n) seed length, only for regular digraph w/ “consistent labelling” (based on Reingold’s approach) [RTV06] • PRG for regular digraph w/ arbitrary labelling ⇒ RL = L [RTV06] • Other applications [Ind00,KNO05,…]

  17. Key to Reingold’s approach

  18. Outline • RL vs. L and s-t connectivity • Our main result • Derandomization settings • Algorithm outline • Main step • Conclusion

  19. δ-Known-Stationary Find-Path • Input: (G,s,t,1k,p1,…,pn) • YES instance: • s and t are connected • |pv - π(v)| ≤ δ for all v that can reach s • Random walk from s converges to a stationary dist πs in k steps. • π(s), π(t) ≥ 1/k • Output: path from s to t

  20. Overview • Main idea: • Use stationary distribution to convert G to nearlyregular, “consistently labelled” graph so that we can apply RTV’s PRG • Challenges: • Logspace construction • Maintain mixing time

  21. Algorithm Logspace G G’ G’’ ε ε nearly regular Gcon Greg Analysis Step 1: use input stationary distribution to convert G to nearly regularG’

  22. Algorithm Apply PRG Logspace G G’ G’’ ε ε a path from s to t Gcon Greg Analysis Step 2: apply PRG to G’, and project path to G

  23. Actually… Apply PRG Logspace G G’ G’’ ε ε consistently labelled Gcon Greg Analysis Need to obtain “consistent labelling” But this is easy!

  24. Analysis: PRG can find a path on G’ Logspace Error: ε⋅#step G G’ G’’ Apply PRG PRG works! ε ε Gcon Greg Analysis G’ ≈ Greg PRG works for Greg ⇒ PRG works for G’

  25. Maintain mixing time Logspace G G’ G’’ Maintain mixing-time Maintain mixing-time ε ε Gcon Greg Analysis Mixing time: G ≈ G’ ≈ Greg New mixing time measure: visiting length.

  26. Outline • RL vs. L and s-t connectivity • Our main result • Derandomization settings • Algorithm outline • Main step • Conclusion

  27. Stationary dist as network flow • Vertex v has mass π(v) • Edge (v,w) carries π(v)/d flow • Regular ⇔ uniform dist is stationary ⇔ vertices have equal mass & edges carry equal flow 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

  28. Ideal construction • Blow up each v to cloud Cvof size π(v)⋅N • Each v’ ∈Cv has equal mass 1/N G 4/7 1/7 1/7 2/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7

  29. Ideal construction • Blow up each v to cloud Cv of size π(v)⋅N • Each v’ ∈Cv has equal mass 1/N • Each vertex has a copy of outgoing edges 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7

  30. Ideal construction • Blow up each v to cloud Cv of size π(v)⋅N • Each v’ ∈Cv has equal mass 1/N • Each vertex has a copy of outgoing edges • Split each outgoing edge into D edges, distributed evenly to target cloud • Each edge shares equal 1/(dDN) flow Regular! G’ 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7

  31. Ideal construction rounding error rounding error • Blow up each v to cloud Cv of size π(v)⋅N • Each v’ ∈Cv has equal mass 1/N • Each vertex has a copy of outgoing edges • Split each outgoing edge into D edges, distributed evenly to the target cloud • Each edge shares equal 1/(dDN) flow negligible probability G’ 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7

  32. G’ is nearly regular • There are ε-fraction of bad vertices with small degree • For every good vertex • (1- ε)dD ≤ outdeg ≤ dD • (1- ε)dD ≤ indeg ≤ (1+ ε)dD

  33. G’ maintains mixing time • Visiting length k • A mixing time measure • The construction maintains the visiting length • visiting len. of G’ = visiting len. of G

  34. G S v Visiting length • k(S) : visiting length of a vertex set S • For every v reachable from S Pr[ v visits S in k(S) steps ] ≥ ½ Lemma: mix in time poly(k)⋅log(nd) if S is a clique.

  35. G ⇒ G’ maintains visiting length • visiting length k(Cs) in G’ = visiting length k(s) in G • On the cloud level, G’ = G • Pr[ Cv to Cw in G’] = Pr[ v to w in G] ⇒G’ has short mixing time • independent of ε G’ vs. G

  36. Recap Apply PRG Logspace G G’ G’’ ε ε Gcon Greg Analysis Apply PRG to G’ to find a path

  37. Outline • RL vs. L and s-t connectivity • Our main result • Derandomization settings • Algorithm outline • Conclusion

  38. Conclusion • Key to Reingold’s approach • Oblivious: consistent labelling of edges • Explicit: knowledge of stationary dist • Toward RL = L • Focus on unknown stationary dist • Put RL in L1.4?

  39. Thank you! Questions?

More Related