On the Unique Games Conjecture

52
On the Unique Games Conjecture Subhash Khot NYU Courant CCC, June 10, 2010

description

On the Unique Games Conjecture. Subhash Khot NYU Courant CCC, June 10, 2010. Approximation Algorithms. A C-approximation algorithm for an NP-complete problem computes (C > 1), for problem instance I , solution A(I) s.t. Minimization problems : - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of On the Unique Games Conjecture

Page 1: On the Unique Games Conjecture

On the Unique Games Conjecture

Subhash Khot NYU Courant

CCC, June 10, 2010

Page 2: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Approximation Algorithms

A C-approximation algorithm for an NP-complete problem computes (C > 1),

for problem instance I , solution A(I) s.t.

Minimization problems :

A(I) C OPT(I)

Maximization problems :

A(I) OPT(I) / C

Page 3: On the Unique Games Conjecture

PCP Theorem

[B’85, GMR’89, BFL’91, LFKN’92, S’92,……] [PY’91] [FGLSS’91, AS’92 ALMSS’92]

Theorem : It is NP-hard to tell whether a MAX-3SAT instance is * Satisfiable (i.e. OPT = 1) or * No assignment satisfies more than 99% clauses (i.e. OPT 0.99).

i.e. MAX-3SAT is 1.01 hard to approximate.

Page 4: On the Unique Games Conjecture

(In)approximability : Towards Tight Hardness

Results • [Hastad’96] Clique n1-

• [Hastad’97] MAX-3SAT 8/7 -

• [Feige’98] Set Cover (1- ) ln n

[Dinur’05] Combinatorial Proof of PCP Theorem !

Page 5: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Open Problems in (In) Approximability

– Vertex Cover (1.36 vs. 2) [DinurSafra’02]

– Coloring 3-colorable graphs (5 vs. n3/14) [KhannaLinialSafra’93, BlumKarger’97]– Sparsest Cut (1+ε vs. (logn)1/2) [AMS’07,

AroraRaoVazirani’04]– Max Cut (17/16 vs 1/0.878… )

[Håstad’97, GoemansWilliamson’94] ………………………..

Page 6: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture [K’02]

Connections to:

• Inapproximability (UGC several problems

inapproximable) • Discrete Fourier Analysis (e.g. KKL, Majority is Stablest)

• Geometry (Isoperimetry, Metric geometry, Integrality gaps)

• Algorithms (Attempts to disprove UGC) • Parallel Repetition (Gap amplification, Foam construction)

Supporting Evidence

Page 7: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Example of Unique Game (2CSP)

OPT = max fraction of equations that can be satisfied by any assignment. x1 - x3 = 2 (mod k)

x5 - x2 = -1 (mod k)

x2 - x1 = k-7 (mod k) …………. ………….

Page 8: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Game 2CSP w/ Permutation

Constraints variable

k labelsHere k=4

constraints

Page 9: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Game2CSP w/ Permutation Constraints

variable

k labelsHere k=4

Permutations or matchings : [k] [k]

Page 10: On the Unique Games Conjecture

OPT(G) = 6/7

Find a labeling that satisfies max # constraints

Unique Game

Page 11: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Considered before ……

[Feige Lovasz’92] Parallel Repetition of UG reduces OPT(G).

How hard is approximating OPT(G) ? Observation : Easy to decide whether OPT(G) = 1.

Page 12: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture

For any , , there is integer k(, ), s.t. it is NP-hard to tell whether a UniqueGame with k = k(, ) labels has

OPT 1- or OPT

i.e. Gap-Unique Game (1- , ) is NP-hard.

Gap Projection Game (1, ) is NP-hard. [ PCP Theorem + Raz’s Parallel Repetition Theorem ].

Page 13: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Supporting Evidence

[UGC] Gap-Unique Game (1-ε, ) is NP-hard.

[Feige Reichman’04] Gap-Unique Game (C, ) is NP-hard.

However C --> 0 as C --> ∞. [KV’05] SDP relaxation for UG has “integrality gap” (1-,

).

[KV’05] UGC based predictions were proven correct. Specifically, metric embedding lower bounds.

[Wishful thinking] “There is structure in CS/math”.

Page 14: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Small Set Expansion Conjecture

[Raghavendra Steurer’ 10] Φ (S ) = Edge expansion of set S.

For every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0, such that, it is NP-hard to tell whether in a graph G(V,E),

- There is a set S, |S| = δ |V|, Φ (S) ≤ ε. - For every set S, |S| ≈ δ |V|, Φ (S) ≥ 1- ε.

[Raghavendra Steurer’ 10]

SSE Conjecture Unique Games Conjecture.

Page 15: On the Unique Games Conjecture

S = Optimal labeling.

|S| = 1/k |G ’|.

Φ(S) = 1- OPT(G).

Unique Game and Small Set Expansion

|G’| = n k.

Unique Game G with n variables, k labels

Page 16: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Linear Equations Over Reals [K Moshkovitz’10]

Homogeneous 3LIN(R): x1 – x3 + 2 x5 = 0. ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ eq: xi + .5 x j - x k = 0. Theorem: It is NP-hard to tell if :

• There is a “non-trivial” solution that satisfies 1-ε fraction of equations.

• Any “non-trivial” solution fails on a constant fraction of equations with error Ω(√ε).

3LIN(R) to 2LIN(R) reduction ? 2LIN(R) ≈ Sparsest Cut

Page 17: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture [K’02]

Connections to:

• Inapproximability (UGC several problems

inapproximable) • Discrete Fourier Analysis (e.g. KKL, Majority is Stablest)

• Geometry (Isoperimetry, Metric geometry, Integrality gaps)

• Algorithms (Attempts to disprove UGC) • Parallel Repetition (Gap amplification, Foam construction)

Page 18: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Generic Reduction from Unique Game

[BGS’95 (Long Code), Hastad’97 (Fourier), UGC ,

……]

Page 19: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Generic Reduction from Unique Game

[BGS’95 (Long Code), Hastad’97 (Fourier), UGC ,

……]

Gadget: -1,1 k

PCP Reduction

k labels

Unique Game Instance MAX-CUT Instance

OPT(UG) > 1-ε sized cut. OPT(UG) < δ No cut with size arccos (1-2) /

Match Goemans-Williamson’sSDP rounding Algorithm

1/0.878… Hardness

Page 20: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Gadget : Dictatorships (Long Codes)

Weighted graph, total edge weight = 1.

Picking random edge : x R -1,1 k

y <-- flip every co-ordinate of x with probability ( 0.8)

Noise-sensitivity graph.

x

-1,1 k

y

- Consider f: -1, 1k -1,1, i.e. Cuts.

- Encode label i Є 1,2,…., k by dictatorship function f(x) = xi.

Page 21: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Gadget: Cut that “commits” to co-ordintae i

Fraction of edges cut = Pr(x,y) [xi yi ]

=

Observation : These are the maximum cuts.

xi = 1 xi = -1

Page 22: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Gadget : Cuts not committing to a co-ordinate

How large can be cuts with no influential co-ordinate ? Random Cut : ½ Majority Cut : > arccos (1-2) / > ½ [KKMO’04, MOO’05] Majority Is Stablest (Under Noise) Any cut with no influential co-ordinate has

size at most arccos (1-2) / .

Influence (i, f) = Prx [ f(x) f(x+ei) ]

Page 23: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Integrality Gap

Given : Maximization Problem + SDP relaxation.

• For every problem instance G,

SDP(G) OPT(G)

• Integrality Gap = Sup G SDP(G) / OPT(G)

Page 24: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[Raghavendra’ 08]

• Duality between Algorithms and Hardness.

• For every CSP, write a natural SDP relaxation.

• Integrality gap = β. Implies β-approximation.

• Theorem: Every instance with gap β’ < β can be used to construct a gadget and prove UGC-based β’- hardness result !

• SDPs are optimal algorithm for CSPs.

Page 25: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture [K’02]

Connections to:

• Inapproximability (UGC several problems

inapproximable) • Discrete Fourier Analysis (e.g. KKL, Majority is Stablest)

• Geometry (Isoperimetry, Metric geometry, Integrality gaps)

• Algorithms (Attempts to disprove UGC) • Parallel Repetition (Gap amplification, Foam construction)

Page 26: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Inapproximability and Fourier Analysis

• f : -1,+1 k -1,+1, balanced.

• Sparsest Cut [KV’05, CKKRS’05]

[KKL’88] f has a co-ordinate with influence Ω(log k /k).

[Bourgain’02] If NSε (f) << √ε, then f depends essentially on exp(1/ε2) co-ordinates.

• MAX-CUT [KKMO’04] Majority Is Stablest

[MOO’05] If f has no influential co-ordinate, then NS ε (f) ≥ NS ε (Majority) - o(1).

Page 27: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Inapproximability and Fourier

• f : -1,+1k -1,+1, balanced.

• Vertex Cover [DinurSafra’02, K Regev’03, K Bansal’09]

[Friedgut’98] If total influence is k, then f depends essentially on exp(k) co-ordintaes.

[MOO’05] It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over If f has no influential co-ordinate, then on almost every subcube of -1, +1k of dimension

k/100, f = 1 and f = -1 with constant probability.

Page 28: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Inapproximability and Fourier • f : -1,+1k -1,+1, balanced.

• MAX-k-CSP [Samorodintsky Trevisan ’06]

If f has no influential co-ordinate, then f has low Gowers’ Uniformity norm.

Open: f: [q] k [q], q ≥ 3, no influential co-ordinate.

• f balanced. Is Plurality Stablest ?

• What is the maximum Fourier mass at the first level ?

Page 29: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture [K’02]

Connections to:

• Inapproximability (UGC several problems

inapproximable) • Discrete Fourier Analysis (e.g. KKL, Majority is Stablest)

• Geometry (Isoperimetry, Metric geometry, Integrality gaps)

• Algorithms (Attempts to disprove UGC) • Parallel Repetition (Gap amplification, Foam construction)

Page 30: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Disproving UGC means ..

For small enough (constant) , given a UG with optimum 1- , algorithm that finds a labeling

satisfying (say) 50% constraints, irrespective of k = #labels.

Page 31: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Algorithmic Results Algorithm that finds a labeling satisfying f(, k, n) fraction of constraints.

[K’02] 1- 1/5 k2 [Trevisan’05] 1- 1/3 log1/3 n [Gupta Talwar’05] 1- log n [CMM’05] 1/k , 1- 1/2 log1/2 k [CMM’06] 1- log1/2 k log1/2 n

[AKKSTV’08 , Kolla’10] UG on “mild” expander graphs. [ABS’10] Exp ( n ) time algorithm. None of these disproves UGC. However …

Page 32: On the Unique Games Conjecture

If the UGC is true, then :

• k >> 21/ε .

• Graph of constraints cannot even be a “mild” expander. UG is easy on random graphs.

• Reduction from 3SAT must blow up the size by n1/ε .

• Conjecture does not hold for sub-constant ε, i.e. below 1/log n.

Page 33: On the Unique Games Conjecture

SDP Relaxation of Unique Games [FL’92]

• OPT(G) = 1- ε SDP(G) ≥ 1- ε .

• For i = 1, …, k, ui , vi ≥ 1- ε , up to permutation of indices.

OrthonormalBases for Rk

u1 , u2 ,

… , uk

v1 , v2 ,

… , vkvariables

k labels

Matchings [k] [k]u

v

Page 34: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[K’02, CMM’05] Rounding Algorithm

u1

uk

u2

vk

v2

v1

r r

Pick the label closest to r. Label(u) = Label(v) = 2.

Pr [ Label(u) = Label(v) ] > 1 - 1/5 k2 [K’02]. Pr [ Label(u) = Label(v) ] > 1- 1/2 log1/2 k [CMM’05].

Labeling satisfies 1- 1/2 log1/2 k fraction of constraints in expected sense.

Random ru v

Page 35: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[Trevisan’05] Algorithm

• [Leighton Rao’88] Delete 1% of edges so that all connected components have diameter O(log n).

• Algorithm to solve UG on low diameter graph.

Graph of variables and constraints

Page 36: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[AKKSTV’08 Algorithm]

Algorithm that works on a UG instance s.t. • 1-ε satisfiable and,• Every balanced cut in the graph cuts at least Ω ( √ε ) fraction of edges.

• SDP-based. • “Mild” expansion Almost all SDP vector tuples are nearly

identical Yields a good labeling.

Page 37: On the Unique Games Conjecture

S = Optimal labeling.

|S| = 1/k |G ’|.

Φ(S) = 1- OPT(G).

Unique Game and Small Set Expansion

Label extended Graph

|G’| = n k.

UG G with n variables, k labels

Page 38: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[Arora Barak Steurer’10 Algorithm][Kolla’10, Naor’10]

• Algo. runs in time exp(nε ) on UG that is 1-ε satisfiable.

• Good solution to UG Small non-expanding set S in G’.

• Small non-expanding set in label-extended graph G’

Either corresponds to a good UG solution (useful) Or is a non-expanding set in G (fake).

• Iteratively remove all fake sets from G, sacrificing at most 1% edges.

Page 39: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[Arora Barak Steurer’10 Algorithm][Kolla’10, Naor’10]

Main Lemma (Algorithmic) : If every set of size n1-ε expands by Ω(ε2), then the number of eigenvalues exceeding 1-ε is nO(ε). • The UG solution is found in the linear span of eigenvectors with eigenvalues ≥ 1-ε. [Kolla’10]

• Run-time exp ( nO(ε) ).

Page 40: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture [K’02]

Connections to:

• Inapproximability (UGC several problems

inapproximable) • Discrete Fourier Analysis (e.g. KKL, Majority is Stablest)

• Geometry (Isoperimetry, Metric geometry, Integrality gaps)

• Algorithms (Attempts to disprove UGC) • Parallel Repetition (Gap amplification, Foam construction)

Page 41: On the Unique Games Conjecture

(Gaussian) Isoperimetry

. [MOO’05] Majority Is Stablest reduces via Invariance Principle, to a geometric question:

P: Rn -1,+1 be a partition of Gaussian space into two sets of equal measure.

NSε (P) = Pr [ P(x) ≠ P(y) ], Cor (x,y) = 1-2ε.

Which P minimizes the noise-sensitivity?

[Borell’85] NSε (P) ≥ NSε ( HALF-SPACE THRU ORIGIN ).

Page 42: On the Unique Games Conjecture

(Gaussian) Isoperimetry

Open: q ≥ 3. More Invariance.

[IM’10] MAX-q-CUT Problem. Plurality is Stablest Conjecture. Partition Rn into q equal parts. (Geometric): Standard Simplex Conjecture.

[K Naor’08] Kernel Clustering Problem.

Maximizing Fourier Mass at First Level.

(Geometric): Propeller Conjecture.

Page 43: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Integrality Gap • [Feige Schechtman’01] [Goemans Williamson’92]

1/0.878.. Integrality gap for MAX-CUT.

• SDP with “triangle inequality constraints” ?

• ω(1) Integrality gap for Sparsest Cut?

• UGC NP-hardness These integrality gaps exist.

Page 44: On the Unique Games Conjecture

[KV’05] Integrality Gap for Unique Games

SDP

Unique Game G with

OPT(G) = o(1) SDP(G) = 1-o(1)

OrthonormalBases for Rk

u1 , u2 ,

… , uk

v1 , v2 ,

… , vkvariables

k labels

Matchings [k] [k]u

v

Page 45: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Integrality Gap for MAX-CUT with

Triangle Inequality

-1,1k

u1 , u2 ,

… , uk

u1 u2 u3 ……… uk-1

uk

PCP Reduction

OPT(G) = o(1)

No large cut

Good MAX-CUT SDP solution

Page 46: On the Unique Games Conjecture

MAX-CUT and Sparsest Cut I.G.• [KV’05] MAX-CUT gap matching Goemans-Williamson even with triangle inequality constraints.

• [KV’05, KrauthgamerRabani’05, DKSV’06]

(loglog n) integrality gap for Sparsest Cut SDP.

An n-point “negative type” metric that needs distortion (loglog n) to embed into L1. Refutation of [Goemans Linial’97, ARV’04] conjectures.

• [KS’09, RS’09] Similar gaps for SDP + Sherali-Adams LP. Negative type metric that is L1

embeddable locally but not globally.

Page 47: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Open Problems

• Integrality gaps for the Lasserre SDP Relaxation?

Lasserre Relaxation could potentially disprove

UGC.

• Sparsest Cut (NEG versus L1 Metrics) :

[ARV’04, AroraLeeNaor’05] O(√log n). [LeeNaor’06, CheegerKleiner’06, CKNaor’09]. Ω(logc n), c = ½?

Page 48: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Unique Games Conjecture [K’02]

Connections to:

• Inapproximability (UGC several problems

inapproximable) • Discrete Fourier Analysis (e.g. KKL, Majority is Stablest)

• Geometry (Isoperimetry, Metric geometry, Integrality gaps)

• Algorithms (Attempts to disprove UGC) • Parallel Repetition (Gap amplification, Foam construction)

Page 49: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Gap Amplification Prove UGC in two steps (?):

• Prove “mild” hardness, i.e. GapUG (1-ε’ , 1-ε’’ ) is hard.

• Amplify gap via parallel repetition to GapUG (1-ε , δ).

Note however that even proving “mild” hardness

is a huge challenge.

Page 50: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Strong Parallel Repetition ?

OPT(G) = 1-ε.

[Raz’98] OPT(Gm) ≤ (1-ε32 )m/log k . 2P1R Games

[Holenstein’07] OPT(Gm) ≤ (1-ε3 )m/log k . 2P1R Games

[Rao’08] OPT(Gm) ≤ (1-ε2)m . Projection Games (UG).

GapUG (1-ε , δ ) is NP-hard iff GapUG (1-ε , 1 - √ε C(ε) ) is NP-hard where C(ε) –> ∞ as ε –> 0. [Raz’08] The rate (1-ε2)m cannot be improved further.

Page 51: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Raz’s Example Optimal Foam

Problem: Tiling Rd using a “shape” of unit volume and minimum surface area.

Great for tiling:

Surface area = 2d

Not good for tiling:

Surface area ≈ √d

[Kindler O’Donnell Rao Wigderson ’08, Alon Klartag’09]

There exists a tiling shape with unit volume and surface area O(√d ) !

Page 52: On the Unique Games Conjecture

Conclusion

• (Dis)Prove Unique Games Conjecture.

• Intermediate between P and NP-complete?

• Prove hardness results bypassing UGC.

• TSP, Steiner Tree, Scheduling Problems ?

• More techniques, connections, results …