The Complexity of Massive Data Set Computations
-
Upload
rebecca-odom -
Category
Documents
-
view
35 -
download
3
description
Transcript of The Complexity of Massive Data Set Computations
1
The Complexity of Massive Data Set Computations
Ziv Bar-Yossef
Computer Science Division
U.C. Berkeley
Ph.D. Dissertation Talk
May 6, 2002
2
What Are Massive Data Sets?Examples• The Web• IP packets• Supermarket transactions• Telephone call graph• Astronomical observations
Characterizing properties• Huge collections of raw data• Data is generated and modified continuously • Distributed over many sites• Slow storage devices• Data is not organized / indexed
3
Nontraditional Computational Challenges
Restricted access to the data• Random access: expensive• “Streaming” access: more feasible• Some data may be unavailable• Fetching data is expensive
Traditionally
Cope with the difficulty of the problem
Massive Date Sets
Cope with the size of the data and the
restricted access to it
Sub-linear running time • Ideally, independent of data size
Sub-linear space• Ideally, logarithmic in data size
4
Basic Framework
Massive data set computations are typically:• Approximate• Randomized• Have a restricted access regime
Input Data
Access Regime
AlgorithmApproximate Output$$
($$ = randomness)
5
Prominent Computational Models for Massive Data Sets
• Sampling Computations– Sub-linear running time & space– Suitable for “insensitive” functions
• Data Stream Computations– Linear running time, sub-linear space– Can compute sensitive functions
• Sketch Computations– Suitable for distributed data
6
Sampling Computations
Sampling Algorithm
Approximation of f(x1,…,xn)
x1
x2
xn
• Query input at random locations• Can choose query distribution and can query adaptively• Complexity measure: query complexity
• Applications– Statistical parameter estimation– Computational and statistical learning [Valiant 84, Vapnik 98]– Property testing [RS96,GGR96]
$$
7
Data Stream Computations[HRR98, AMS96, FKSV99]
x1 x2 x3 xn
Data Stream Algorithm$$ memory
• Input arrives in a one-way stream in arbitrary order• Complexity measures: space and time per data item
Approximation of f(x1,…,xn)
• Applications– Database (Frequency moments [AMS96])
– Networking (Lp distance [AMS96, FKSV99, FS00, Indyk 00])
– Web Information Retrieval (Web crawling, Google query logs [CCF02])
8
Sketch Computations[GM98, BCFM98, FKSV99]
compression compression compression
Sketch Algorithm
Approximation of f(x11,…,xtk)
$$
• Algorithm computes from data “sketches” sent from sites• Complexity measure: sketch lengths• Applications
– Web Information Retrieval (Identifying document similarities [BCFM98])
– Networking (Lp distance [FKSV99])
– Lossy compression, approximate nearest neighbor
x11 … x1k x21 … x2k xt1 … xtk $$
9
Main Objective
• Develop general lower bound techniques
• Obtain lower bounds for specific functions
Explore the limitations of the above computational models
10
General CC lower bounds [BJKS02b]
Information Theory
Communication Complexity
Thesis Blueprint
Statistical Decision Theory
Sampling Computations
Data Stream Computations
Sketch Computations
lower bounds for general functions [BKS01,B02]
One-way and simultaneous CC
lower bounds [BJKS02a]
Reduction from simultaneous
CC
Reduction from one-way CC
11
Sampling Lower Bounds(with R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar, STOC 2001, and Manuscript, 2002)
• Combinatorial lower bound [BKS01]– bounds the expected query complexity of every function– tends to be weak– based on a generalization of Boolean block sensitivity [Nisan 89]
• Statistical lower bounds– bound the query complexity of symmetric functions– via Hellinger distance: worst-case query complexity [BKS01]– via KL distance: expected query complexity [B02]– tend to be tight– work by a reduction from statistical hypothesis testing
• Information theory lower bound [B02]– bounds the worst-case query complexity of symmetric functions– has better dependence on the domain size
12
Main observation:
Since for all x, w.p. 1 - , then:
x,y -disjoint T(x),T(y) are “far” from each other
Main Idea
)()( xCxT
)(xC )(yCapproximation
set of x
-disjoint inputs
)(wC approximation set of y
approximation set of w
1))()(Pr( xCxTapproximation:
13
Main Result
TheoremFor any symmetric f and -disjoint inputs x,y, and for any algorithm that ()-approximates f,• Worst-case # of queries 1/h2(Ux,Uy) log(1/)• Expected # of queries 1/KL(Ux,Uy) log(1/)
• Ux – uniform query distribution on x: (induced by: pick i u.a.r, output xi)
• Hellinger: h2(Ux,Uy) = 1 – a (Ux(a) Uy(a))½
• KL: KL(Ux,Uy) = a Ux(a) log(Ux(a) / Uy(a))
14
Example: Mean
1 0 1 0
½ + ½ - ½ - ½ + X: y:
h2(Ux,Uy) = KL(Ux,Uy) = O(2)
Theorem (originally, [CEG95])
Approximating the mean of n numbers in [0,1] to within additive error requires logqueries.
Other applications: Selection functions, frequency moments, extractors and dispersers
15
1. For symmetric functions, WLOG, all queries are uniform without replacement
2. If # of queries is n½, can further assume queries are uniform with replacement
3. For any -disjoint inputs x,y,
4. Hypothesis testing lower bounds • via Hellinger distance (worst-case)• via KL distance (expected) (cf. [Siegmund 85])
Proof Outline
approximation of f with k
queries
Hypothesis test of Ux against Uy with
error and k samples
16
Statistical Hypothesis Testing
Black Box
P
Q
Hypothesis Test
k i.i.d. samples
• Black box contains either P or Q• Test has to decide: “P” or “Q”• Allowed error probability • Goal: minimize k
17
Sampling Algorithm Hypothesis Test
)(xC
x,y: -disjoint inputs
Black Box
Ux
Uy
Sampling Algorithm
“Uy” - otherwise
“Ux” – if output
))()(( yCxC
k i.i.d. samples
18
Hypothesis test for Ux against Uy with error and
k samples
Lower Bound via Hellinger Distance
21),( ky
kx UUV
22 2 hhV k
yxky
kx UUhUUh )),(1(),(1 22
Lemma (cf. Le Cam, Yang 90)
12Corollary: k 1/h2(Ux,Uy) log(1/)
19
Communication Complexity [Yao 79]
Alice
f: X Y Z
x X y Yf(x,y)
R(f) = randomized CC of f with error
$$ Bob$$
20
Multi-Party Communication
f: X1 … Xt Z
P1
P2
P3
Pt
f(x1,…,xt)
x1
x2
x3
xt
21
t-party set-disjointness
Example: Set-disjointness
ji
iit SSji
SDisj
,0
1||1 Pi gets Si [n],
Theorem [KS87,R90]: R(Disj2) = (n)
Theorem [AMS96]: R(Disjt) = (n/t4)
Best upper bound: R(Disjt) =O(n/t)
22
Restricted Communication Models
P1 P2 Pt
Referee
P1 P2 Pt
f(x1,…,xt)
f(x1,…,xt)
One-Way Communication [PS84, Ablayev 93, KNR95]
Simultaneous Communication [Yao 79]
• Reduces to data stream computations
• Reduces to sketch computations
23
Example: Disjointness Frequency
Moments
Fk(a1,…,am) = j [n] (fj)k
k-th frequency moment
knFDisj k /1Theorem [AMS96]:
Input stream: a1,…,am [n],
For j [n], fj = # of occurrences of j in a1,…,am
Corollary: DS(Fk) = n(1), k > 5
Best upper bounds: DS(Fk) = nO(1), k > 2
DS(Fk) = O(log n), k=0,1,2
24
Information Statistics Approach to Communication Complexity
(with T.S. Jayram, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar, Manuscript 2002)
Applications• General CC lower bounds
– t-party set-disjointness: (n/t2) (improving on [AMS96])– Lp (solving an open problem of [Saks-Sun 02])
– Inner product • One-way CC lower bounds
– t-party set-disjointness: (n/t1+ ) for any > 0• Space lower bounds in the data stream model
– frequency moments: n(1),k > 2 (proving conjecture of [AMS96])
– Lp distance
A novel lower bound technique for randomized CC based on statistics and information theory
25
Statistical View of Communication Complexity
– a -error randomized protocol for f: X Y Z(x,y) – distribution over transcripts
Lemma: For any two input pairs (x,y), (x’,y’) with f(x,y) f(x’,y’),
V((x,y),(x’,y’)) 1 – 2Proof:By reduction from hypothesis testing.
Corollary: h2((x,y),(x’,y’)) 1 – 2½
26CC lower bound
For a protocol that computes f, how much information does (x,y) have to reveal about (x,y)?
= (X,Y) – a distribution over inputs of f
Definition: -information cost icost() = I(X,Y ; (X,Y))
icost(f) = min{icost()}
I(X,Y ; (X,Y)) H((X,Y)) |(X,Y)|
Information cost lower bound
Information Cost[Ablayev 93, Chakrabarti et al. 01, Saks-Sun 02]
27
Direct Sum for Information CostDecomposable functions:
f(x,y) = g(h(x1,y1),…,h(xn,yn)),
h: Xi Yi {0,1}, g: {0,1}n {0,1}
Example: Set Disjointness Disj2(x,y) = (x1 Λ y1) V … V (xn Λyn)
Theorem (direct sum): For appropriately chosen ,’,
icost(f) n · icost’,(h)
Lower bound on icost(h)
Lower bound on icost(f)
28
Information Cost of Single-Bit Functions
In Disj2, ’ = ½ ’1 + ½ ’2, where:
’1 = ½(1,0) + ½(0,0), ’2 = ½(0,1) + ½(0,0)
Lemma 1: For any protocol for AND,
icost’() (h2((0,1),(1,0))
Lemma 2: h2((0,1),(1,0)) = h2((1,1),(0,0))
Corollary 1: icost’,(AND) (1 – 2½)
Corollary 2: icost(Disj2) (n · (1 – 2½))
29
Proof of Lemma 2“Rectangle” property of deterministic protocols:
For any transcript , the set of all (x,y) with (x,y) = is a “combinatorial rectangle”: S T, where S X and T Y
“Rectangle” property of randomized protocols:
For all x X, y Y, there exist functions px: {0,1}*[0,1] and qy: {0,1}*[0,1], such that for any possible transcript ,
Pr((x,y) = ) = px() · qy()
h2((0,1),(1,0)) = 1 - (Pr((0,1) = ) · Pr((1,0) = ))½
= 1 – (p0() · q1() · p1() · q0())½ = h2((0,0),(1,1))
30
Conclusions
• Studied limitations of computing on massive data sets– Sampling computations– Data stream computations– Sketch computations
• Lower bound methodologies are based on– Information theory– Statistical decision theory– Communication complexity
• Lower bound techniques:– Reveal novel aspects of the models– Present a “template” for obtaining specific lower bounds
31
Open Problems
• Sampling– Lower bounds for non-symmetric functions– Property testing lower bounds
• Communication complexity– Study the communication complexity of approximations– Tight lower bound for t-party set disjointness– Under what circumstances are one-way and
simultaneous communication equivalent?
32
Thank You!
33
Yao’s Lemma [Yao 83]
Definition: -distributional CC (D(f))
Complexity of best deterministic protocol that computes f with error on inputs drawn according to
Yao’s Lemma: R(f) maxD(f)
• Convenient technique to prove randomized CC lower bounds
34
Communication Complexity Lower Bounds via Information Theory
(with T.S. Jayram, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar, Complexity 2002)
• A novel information theory paradigm for proving CC lower bounds
• Applications– Characterization results: (w.r.t. product distributions)
• 1-way simultaneous • 2-party 1-way t-party 1-way • VC dimension characterization of t-party 1-way CC
– Optimal lower bounds for simultaneous CC• t-party set-disjointness: (n/t) • Generalized addressing function
35
Information Theory
sender receivernoisy channelm M r R
• M – distribution of transmitted messages
• R – distribution of received messages
• Goal of receiver: reconstruct m from r
• g: error probability of a reconstruction function g
Fano’s Inequality: For all g, H2(g) H(M | R)
MLE Principle: MLE H(M | R)
For a Boolean M
36
Information Theory View of Distributional CC
• x,y distribute according to (X,Y)• “God” transmits f(x,y) to Alice & Bob• Alice & Bob receive the transcript (x,y)
• Fano’s inequality:
For any -error protocol for f,
H2() H(f(X,Y) | (X,Y))
f(x,y) (x,y)“God”
Alice & BobCC protocol
37
Simultaneous CC vs. One-Way CC
Theorem
For every product distribution = X Y, and every Boolean f,
D,2H(),sim(f) D,,AB(f) + D,,BA(f)
Proof
A(x) – message of A on x in a -error A B protocol for f
B(y) – message of B on y in a -error B A protocol for f
Construct a SIM protocol for f:
A Referee: A(x) B Referee: B(y)
Referee outputs MLE(f(X,Y) | A(x), B(y))
38
Simultaneous CC vs. One-Way CCProof (cont.)
By MLE Principle,
Pr(MLE(f(X,Y) | A(X),B(Y)) f(X,Y)) H(f(X,Y) | A(X),B(Y))
By Fano,
H(f(X,Y) | A(X),Y) H2() and H(f(X,Y) | X,B(Y)) H2()
Lemma For independent X,Y,
H(f(X,Y) | A(X),B(Y)) H(f(X,Y) | A(X),Y) + H(f(X,Y) | X,B(Y))
Our protocol errs with probability at most 2H2() □