1 on the benefits of adaptivity in property testing of dense graphs joint work with mira gonen dana...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
On the Benefits of Adaptivity in Property Testing of Dense Graphs
Joint work with Mira Gonen
Dana Ron
Tel-Aviv University
2
Let G = (V,E) be a graph.
If G has property P: accept w.h.p.
If G is “-far” from P: reject w.h.p.
“-far”: “-fraction of the graph” should be modified to obtain P.
A Testing Algorithm for graph property Pcan query the graph G on the neighborhood relations of vertices in G.
Graph Property Testing
3
Models used for Testing Graph Properties
1 2 … d
1 2 … d
1
n
Bounded-Degree Graphs Model [GR]:(graph is represented by n incidence lists of size d) queries: who is i’th neighbor of v? -far: dn edges should be modified. suitable: (almost)-regular sparse graphs (in particular, constant-degree graphs)
Dense Graphs Model [GGR]:(graph is represented by n x n adjacency matrix) queries: is (u,v) E ? -far: n2 edges should be modified. suitable: dense graphs
v
1u
4
Adaptive vs. non-adaptive testers
• A tester is adaptive if its queries depend on answers to previously asked queries.
• In the bounded degree model testers are “adaptive by nature”- [RS].
• Can adaptivity be beneficial in the dense graph model ?
• [AFKS,GT] showed that there is at most a quadratic gap in the query complexity between adaptive and non-adaptive testers in the dense graphs model.
• Is there an actual a gap in the dense graphs model?• We reveal a gap by considering the natural problem of
testing bipartiteness.
5
Testing Bipartiteness in Dense Graphs
• Bipartiteness Algorithm of [GGR]:
– Uniformly and independently select (log(1/)/2) vertices in graph.
– If subgraph induced by selected vertices is bipartite, then accept, otherwise, reject.
Query complexity and running time of algorithm: Õ(1/4) . Slight variant yields Õ(1/3)
• Improved analysis of [AK]: – Sufficient to randomly select only Õ(1/) vertices.
The query complexity and running time : Õ(1/2) • Are Õ(1/2) queries on pairs of vertices necessary?
6
Lower Bounds [BT]
(1/3/2) for adaptive algorithms
(1/2) for non-adaptive algorithms
The lower bounds hold for graphs of small degree, that is, the degree of every vertex is (n
7
Our Results
Main Result: We describe an adaptive bipartiteness tester for
graphs with maximum degree O(n) that performs Õ(1/) queries.
A variant of the algorithm tests the combined property of having degree O(n) and being bipartite.
A Few notes• The (1/2) lower bound of [BT] for non-adaptive
algorithms holds in this low-degree case.• Our tester matches the (1/3/2) lower bound of
[BT] up to polylogarithmic factors in 1/• We also show that Õ(1/) queries suffice when
(almost) all vertices have degree (1/2 n).
8
Main Idea behind Algorithm: Apply techniques from the Bounded-
Degree modelAlgorithm selects, uniformly at random a subset of vertices T, where |T|= (log(1/Let GT denote the subgraph induced by T.
Emulate the bipartiteness tester of [GR] for bounded-degree graphs on GT.
The [GR] algorithm performs O((t)1/2 poly(log(t),1/) neighbor queries when run on graphs with t vertices and with dist par (i.e., is sublinear in size of graph)Will need to show: (1) GT is -far from bipartite for large (distance measured w.r.t. bounded-deg model).(2) Can emulate algorithm efficiently using vertex-pair queries
9
Main Lemma:
If a graph G is -farfrom being bipartite and has maximum degree O(n), then w.h.p over a random choice of Õ(1/) vertices in G, the subgraph G’ induced by the selected vertices is ’-far from being bipartite for
’ = (/log(1/)).
Analysis
G
’far
T1
T2
far
for every partition (T1,T2) of T have ’|T|2 violating edges
10
Analysis
Proving the main result from the main Lemma:
1. Assume main Lemma holds. 2. w.h.p the degree of vertices in GT d=polylog(1/ The number of edges that should be removed from
GT is at least d|T|, where 1/polylog(1/ GT is –far from being bipartite in the bounded
degree model. Applying techniques from the bounded-degree
graphs model we get our main result.
’|T|2 edges need to be removed from GT
|T|= Õ(1/).
’= (/log(1/)).
Run the [GR] algorithm on GT
11
Proof Sketch of the main Lemma
View the sample T as consisting of two subsets S and R, each of size (log(1/)/).
Def: for a partition (S1,S2) of S, an edge (u,v)E is conflicting with (S1,S2) if u and v both have a neighbor in S1 or both have a neighbor in S2 .
S1
S2
uv
12
Proof Sketch of the main Lemma
Property 1: for every partition (S1,S2) of S, the subset R spans at least (/16)|R|2 edges that conflict with (S1,S2).
S1
S2
)/16|(R|2
R
In order to prove the lemma will prove that w.h.p the sample T = S R has several properties.
13
Property 2: the maximum degree in GT is O(|T|)=O(log(1/)).
Claim: let G be a graph that is –far from being bipartite and has max degree O(n). Then w.h.p S and R have Property 1, and GT has Property 2.
Proof Sketch of the main Lemma
SR
GT O(|T|)
R
S1
S2
)/16|(R|2
GT
O(|T|)
By one of Janson’s inequalities
14
Proof sketch of the main Lemma
Assume S,R has Property 1 and GT has Property 2.
Consider any fixed partition (S1R1,S2R2) of T.
Property 1 R spans at least (/16)|R|2 conflicting edges.
#conflicting edges mapped to each violating edge
c’’log(1/) (using Property 2)
there are at least ’’|R|2 violating edges with respect to (S1R1,S2R2), ’’ /(c log (1/))
there are at least ’|T|2 violating edges with respect to (S1R1,S2R2), ’= ’’/4.
Conflicting edges mapping Violating edges
Lemma: w.h.p. GT is ’-far from being bipartite for ’ = (/log(1/)).
15
w.h.p over the choice of sample T, all vertices in GT have degree at most d=O(log(1/)), and it is necessary to remove more than ’|T|2 edges in order to make it bipartite, for ’ = (/(log(1/)))
GT is -far from being bipartite in the bounded degree model, for ’|T|2/d|T| = (1/(log(1/)))
Emulating the Algorithm for Bounded-Degree Graphs
Main Lemma +
Claim
16
Emulating the Algorithm for Bounded-Degree Graphs
In order to run the [GR] algorithm we have to emulate random walks by using vertex-pair queries only:
To perform a random step from a vertex v:
perform all queries (v,u) for u in T, and take a random neighbor.
each neighbor query takes |T| vertex-pair queries.
#neighbor queries in the alg = |T|1/2poly(log |T|,1/ polylog (1/
total cost = polylog (1/
u1
v
u2
u3
ud(v)
T
we started from polylog(1/) vertices in GT, performed polylog (1/)/1/2 random walks for each such vertex, each of length polylog(1/)
17
An Adaptive Testing Algorithm for graphs with degree O(n)
• Uniformly at random select a subset of vertices T, where |T|= (log(1/and let GT denote the subgraph induced by T.
• Uniformly and independently at random select (log(1/ vertices from T. Let the set of vertices selected be denoted by W.
• For each vertex v W, perform polylog(1/ random walks in GT , each of length polylog(1/.
• If an odd-length cycle is detected in the subgraph induced by all random walks then reject, otherwise accept.
Emulate the [GR] algorithm for testing bipartiteness of bounded-degree graphs (with particular setting of parameters)
18
An Adaptive Testing Algorithm for graphs with degree O(n)
Main Theorem:
The algorithm described is a testing algorithm for graphs with maximum degree O(n). Its query complexity and running time are Õ(1//2).
19
Conclusions
Adaptive testers are stronger than non-adaptive testers in the dense graphs model.
Give an adaptive bipartiteness tester for graphs for which all vertices have maximum degree O(n) that performs Õ(1/3/2) queries. The lower bound of [BT] for non-adaptive algorithms holds for graphs for which the degree of every vertex is (n). A variant of the algorithm tests combined property of being bipartite and having degree O(n)
Our tester matches the 3/2) lower bound of [BT] up to polylogarithmic factors in 1/. Proved that Õ(1/3/2) queries suffice when (almost) all vertices have degree /2 n).
21
Conclusions and Open problems
Further Research: Is there an algorithm whose complexity is Õ((1/3/2) for graphs with degree (n) for some <<1/2?
for all graphs? In the (n) case we can prove:
Lemma:Let G be a graph that is -far from being bipartite, and which all vertices have degree (n) for some >.Then w.h.p over the uniform random selection of a vertex subsets S and R, each of size Õ(1/), the subgraph GRS is ’-far from being bipartite for ’=(/log(1/)).
Study other properties with a gap between adaptive and non-adaptive testers.
1/2nn?
22
Proof sketch of the main Lemma
Assume R has property 1 and GT has property 2.
Consider any fixed partition (S1R1,S2R2) of T.
Property 1 R spans at least (/16)|R|2 conflicting edges.
#conflicting edges mapped to each violating edge
c’’log(1/)
there are at least ’’|R|2 violating edges with respect to (S1R1,S2R2), ’’ /(c log(1/))
there are at least ’|T|2 violating edges with respect to (S1R1,S2R2), ’= ’’/4.
for every partition (S1,S2) of S, the
subset R spans at least (/16)|R|2
edges that conflict with (S1,S2).
the maximum degree in GT is at most O(|T|).
Conflicting edges mapping Violating edges
emulate
23
w
Let (u,v) be a conflicting edge.
If it is violating: (u,v) (u,v)
Otherwise: w.l.g. u in R1, v in R2 .
w.l.o.g. u has a neighbor w in S1, v has a neighbor z in S1
)u,v( (u,w)
Worst case: for all u all conflicting edges (u,v) are mapped to the same (u,w).
Max num of conflicting edges that are mapped to each violating edge c’log(1/).
Proof sketch of Main Lemma - cont
Conflicts with (S1,S2) and
spanned by R
u,v belong to different sides
of the partition
(S1R1, S2R2)
By property 2 u has at
most c’log(1/) neighbors
in R
u,v in R1 ,or u,v in
R2
)u,v (is conflicting
R1R2
S1
S2
u
v
conclusions