Upload
vanessa-heath
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Approximation Algorithms for Graph Homomorphism
ProblemsChaitanya Swamy
University of Waterloo
Joint work with Michael Langberg and Yuval
RabaniOpen University Technion
Maximum Graph Homomorphism
Given: graphs G = (VG,EG) and H = (VH,EH)
Value of mapping
find a mapping : VGVH that
maximizes no. of edges of G mapped to edges of H
Goal: Maximize |{(u,v)EG : ((u),(v))EH }|
G H
Maximum Graph Homomorphism
Given: graphs G = (VG,EG) and H = (VH,EH)
Value of mapping
find a mapping : VGVH that
maximizes no. of edges of G mapped to edges of H
Goal: Maximize |{(u,v)EG : ((u),(v))EH }|
G H
Maximum Graph Homomorphism
Given: graphs G = (VG,EG) and H = (VH,EH)
Value of mapping
find a mapping : VGVH that
maximizes no. of edges of G mapped to edges of H
Goal: Maximize |{(u,v)EG : ((u),(v))EH }|
G H
•H = : Max-Cut problem
G
•H = : Max-Cut problem
Problem is NP-hard, APX-hard even for fixed H
•Optimization version of H-coloring: decide if there is a mapping of value |EG| (such a homomorphism)e.g., when H is a k-clique, H-coloring k-coloring problem, maximum graph homomorphism (MGH) Max-k-Cut
H-coloring is NP-complete if H is not bipartite and does not contain a self-loop (Hell & Nesetril)
G
Related WorkMGH problem appears to be new.
•H-coloring: well studied problem; Hell & Nesetril proved that H-coloring is either in P or is NP-complete– restrictive/list H-coloring: various restrictions placed on
, e.g., restrictions on {(u)} for uVG, or -1(i) for iVH
– counting versions of these problems: Dyer & Greenhill proved a dichotomy theorem for counting # of H-colorings
– sampling a random H-coloring
•Minimum cost homomorphism: find that minimizes (cost of assigning labels to nodes) + (weights of images of EG); studied by Cohen et al., Gutin et al., Aggarwal et al.– if edge weights in H form a metric, this is the metric
labeling problem (Kleinberg & Tardos)
Related Work (contd.)• maximum common subgraph: given graphs G, H,
find their largest common subgraph essentially MGH where is required to be one-oneMGH can be reduced to this problem:– blow up each iVH to an independent set of size |VG|
– replace each edge (i,j)EH by complete bipartite graph
G H
Related Work (contd.)• maximum common subgraph: given graphs G, H,
find their largest common subgraph essentially MGH where is required to be one-oneMGH can be reduced to this problem:– blow up each iVH to an independent set of size |VG|
– replace each edge (i,j)EH by complete bipartite graph
G H
Kann: (B+1)-approx. when degrees in G, H are ≤ B.
A Trivial 0.5-approximation
1) Fix an edge (i,j) of H2) Map each uVG to i or j randomly with probability ½.
HG
A Trivial 0.5-approximation
1) Fix an edge (i,j) of H2) Map each uVG to i or j randomly with probability ½.
Each edge of G is mapped to (i,j) with probability ½, expected value of mapping = |EG|/2
get 0.5-approximation algorithm (can derandomize)
HGOPTMGH(G,H)
≥ MaxCut(G)
≥ |EG|/2
More generally, for a subset N VH define its density r(N) = (2|E(N)|) / |N|2
Mapping each uVG randomly to a label in
N maps r(N).|EG| edges of G in expectation
gives an r(N)-approximation algorithm
e.g., if H has a triangle, get a 2/3-approximation
if H has a k-clique, get a (1–1/k)-approximation
In general, factor of 0.5 might be the best possible!
Informal Statement of Result
There is no (0.5+)-approximation algorithm for MGH, unless certain average-case instances of subgraph isomomorphism can be solved in polynomial time.
Gn,p distribution on n-vertex graphs where each
edge is chosen independently with probability p
Our average-case instances are related to Gn,p
Main question: how hard is subgraph isomomorphism on a pair of random graphs GGn,p and HGn,q where q >> p > ln(n)/n?
The RoadmapMain Lemma: If H is triangle-free with k nodes, and
GGn,p where p=c.ln(k)/n with n, c suitably large, then with high probability (over all G’s), OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+)|EG|/2
So, if G is a subgraph of H, OPT(G,H) = |EG|
if G is not a subgraph of H, OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+)|EG|/2 whp.
•A (0.5+)-approximation algorithm can be used to distinguish between these two cases
•Inapproximability result based on the assumption that this is hard when G, H are drawn from a suitable distribution on triangle-free graphs
•Formulate this precisely as a refutation problem
factor 2 gap
The Refutation ProblemLet n,p = distribution on n-node -free graphs obtained bytaking GGn,p, removing edges randomly till no s remainRefutation problem: Find a poly-time algorithm that
given Gn,p and Hn,q, where q >> p = c.ln(n)/n,
(a) returns “yes” if GH, (b) returns “no” with probability ≥ ½
[With very high probability G will not be a subgraph of H.]
A (0.5+)-approx. algorithm A yields a refutation algorithm:
•if GH, then A(G,H) ≥ (0.5+)|EG|
•otherwise, let G be obtained by removing edges from G’Gn,p
OPT(G,H) ≤ OPT(G’,H) ≤ (1+)|EG’|/2 (1+)c.n
ln(n)/4
|EG’| c.n ln(n)/2 and (# of ’s in G’) ≤
c3.ln3(n)n1/2 whp.
|EG| ≥ (1–)c.n ln(n)/2,
A(G,H) ≤ OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+4)|EG|/2
Refutation Problem (contd.)
• Feige initiated the use of average-case complexity to prove hardness results, where average-case hardness translates to hardness of a refutation problem
• Can make refutation problem harder and more robust: require algorithm to say “yes” if G has a subgraph of size |EG|(1-) isomorphic to H
• How hard is the refutation problem? Open. But, local analysis does not work – return “yes” iff all “small” subgraphs of G are subgraphs of H.Also can make G have (ln(n)/lnln(n)) girth.
• We set q >> p, to be “far” from graph isomorphism which is poly-time solvable for random graphs
Main Lemma and ProofLemma: Let ≤ 0.5. If
H is triangle-free with k nodes,
GGn,p where p=c.ln(k)/n with n ≥ n0(), c ≥ c0(), then whp.
(a) OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+)c.n ln(k)/4, (b) |EG| ≥ (1–
)c.n ln(k)/2, so
(c) OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+4)|EG|/2
Proof: (a) Fix a mapping . For a random GGn,p,
Value of = V() = ∑(i,j)EH ∑u,vVG :(u)=i, (v)=j Xuv
E[V()] = p.∑(i,j)EH |-1(i)| |-1(j)|
Turan’s Theorem
An n-node graph that is Kr+1-free has at most
(1-1/r).n2/2 edges.
Corollary: Let H be a n-node graph that is Kr+1-free. Let w:VHZ+ be a wt. function such that ∑i wi = n. Then, ∑(i,j)EH wi.wj ≤ (1-
1/r).n2/2
Proof:
1
1 22H H’
Blow iVH to independent set of size wi to get H’ H’ is also Kr+1-free – use Turan on H’
Main Lemma and ProofLemma: Let ≤ 0.5. If
H is triangle-free with k nodes,
GGn,p where p=c.ln(k)/n with n ≥ n0(), c ≥ c0(), then whp.
(a) OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+)c.n ln(k)/4, (b) |EG| ≥ (1–
)c.n ln(k)/2, so
(c) OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+4)|EG|/2
Proof: (a) Fix a mapping . For a random GGn,p,
Value of = V() = ∑(i,j)EH ∑u,vVG :(u)=i, (v)=j Xuv
E[V()] = p.∑(i,j)EH |-1(i)| |-1(j)|
Main Lemma and ProofLemma: Let ≤ 0.5. If
H is triangle-free with k nodes,
GGn,p where p=c.ln(k)/n with n ≥ n0(), c ≥ c0(), then whp.
(a) OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+)c.n ln(k)/4, (b) |EG| ≥ (1–
)c.n ln(k)/2, so
(c) OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+4)|EG|/2
Proof: (a) Fix a mapping . For a random GGn,p,
Value of = V() = ∑(i,j)EH ∑u,vVG :(u)=i, (v)=j Xuv
E[V()] = p.∑(i,j)EH |-1(i)| |-1(j)| ≤ p.n2/4 (by Turan)V() is sum of independent random variables, so
Pr[V() > (1+)E[V()]] ≤ e–O(n ln(k))
kn total mappings, so by union bound, whp. V() ≤
(1+)c.n ln(k)/4 for all OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+)c.n ln(k)/4 whp.
(b) E[|EG|] = p.n(n–1)/2 c.n ln(k)/2
By Chernoff bounds, |EG| ≥ (1–)c.n ln(k)/2 whp.
(c) Therefore, OPT(G,H) ≤ (1+4)|EG|/2
Refutation problem: Find a poly-time algorithm that given Gn,p and Hn,q,
where q >> p = c.ln(n)/n, (a) returns “yes” if GH, (b) returns “no” with probability ≥ ½
A (0.5+)-approx. algorithm yields an algorithm for the refutation problem
Other Results
• Can get an 0.5+(1/|VH| ln(|VH|))-approximation using SDP – gives improvements for any fixed H
• Prelabeled MGH: a partial labeling ’:UVH is also given and output has to be an extension of ’.Encodes the Multiway-Uncut problem: given G and terminal-set TVG, partition VG into |T| parts with terminal in each part, to maximize (# uncut edges)Here H is |T|-self loops, ’:TVH is a bijection
Get a .8535-approx. using LP rounding.
Open Questions
• Hardness of refutation problem: is subgraph isomorphism solvable in polynomial time when GGn,p and HGn,q?
• Dense instances: G has (n2) edges, H is arbitrary; can one get a PTAS? Can get a quasi-PTAS and a PTAS for Max-k-Cut and in general when H is vertex-transitive
• Directed setting: improve upon trivial 0.25-approx. Encodes Max-Acyclic-Subgraph (nothing better than 0.5 known).
• Prelabeled MGH: improve upon 1/3-approximation.
Thank You.