1 / 20

Generating a d -dimensional linear subspace efficiently

Generating a d -dimensional linear subspace efficiently. Raphael Yuster. SODA’10. Problem statement. Computing the rank of a matrix, and, more generally, generating a row-reduced equivalent matrix is a fundamental computational algebraic problem.

verda
Download Presentation

Generating a d -dimensional linear subspace efficiently

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. Generating a d-dimensional linear subspace efficiently Raphael Yuster SODA’10

  2. Problem statement • Computing the rank of a matrix, and, more generally, generating a row-reduced equivalent matrixis a fundamental computational algebraic problem. • Standard approach: Gaussian elimination. • This takes O(nω) < O(n2.38) time [H-B 74’, I-M-H 82’] . • No faster algorithm is known for computing the rank of general n n matrices. • If matrix is sparse (only m << n2 non-zero entries), can we compute a row reduced matrix faster? • Not known (and probably impossible via G.E.)

  3. Problem statement and main result • If we allow randomness, the rankcan be computed faster. • O(mn)Monte Carlo[Wiedemann 86’]. • O(n3-1/(ω -1))ifm=O(n)Las Vegas [Eberly et al. 07’]. • Recall: If B is a row-reduced matrix of A then: • Bspans Rows(A) . • B has rank(A) rows. • Any d rows of B span a d-dim. subspace of Rows(A) . • Our main result:generating a d-dimensional subspace of Rows(A) requires (in some cases significantly) less time than computing a row-reduced matrix.

  4. Main result • Let A be an n n over an arbitrary field, with m nonzero entries, and let d n: • There is an algorithm that computes a dn matrix with full row rank which is a subspace of Rows(A). • If rank(A) < d the algorithm generates a rank(A) n row-reduced matrix of A. • The running time is: • O(min{ n2-2/ω m1/ωdω-2+1/ω , n2dω-2 } ) . Dense case Sparse case

  5. Implications and comparison • Can be used to answer queries of the form “rank(A) > d ?” • A row-reduced matrix of A, and thus rank(A), computable in time which is a function of the rank (binary search). • O(min{ n2-2/ω m1/ωrank(A)ω-2+1/ω , n2 rank(A)ω-2 } ) • If the matrix is dense, the runtime is O(n2dω-2)<O(n2d0.38). For d = o(n) this is faster than doing G.E. from scratch. • Even more efficiency if matrix is sparse:

  6. Implications and comparison • If m = n2-εthen for dsuff. small we get better than O(n2dω-2) and sometimes even better than O(n2) : • d < (n2/m)0.528 < (n2/m)1/(ω-1)2 sub-quadratic runtime. • d < (n2/m) running time O(n2dω-2 (md/n2)1/ω). o(1)

  7. An application • Given a graph G with n vertices what’s the cardinality M(G) of the maximum matching? • [Lovász79’] proved that computing 2M(G) (randomly) reduces to computing the rank of an n nmatrix over a small finite field. • Thus, his algorithm computes M(G) in O(nω) time. • Our algorithm computes M(G) in O(n2 M(G)ω-2) time, which is faster whenever M(G) = o(n) .

  8. Proof of main result - outline Proof consists of two parts: Reducing the computation of a d-dim. subspace of a sparse matrix to the computation of a d-dim. subspace of a dense, but smaller, rectangular matrix. Computing a d-dim. subspace of a (possibly dense, possibly rectangular) matrix by repeatedly filtering out non-essential rows and replacing other rows with a smaller equivalent set of rows spanning the same subspace.

  9. Proof of main result – part 1 • We need a result of Ibarra, Moran and Hui 82’: • Lemma 1: Let B be an l nmatrix. Then a row-reduced matrix can be computed in O(nlω-1) time. • We prove: • Sparse Lemma: Let A be an n  nmatrix with m non-zeroes. Let d n2/m. For any s with d sn there is a matrix L with at most dn/s rows so that: • If rank(A) < dthen L is row-equivalent to A. • If rank(A) d then Rows(L) is a subspace of dimension at least dof Rows(A). • L is constructed in O(msω-1) time.

  10. Proof of main result – part 1 Proof of Lemma 2: Partition the rows of A into t = n/s rectangular matrices, A1,…,At,each with s rows. Let ci denote the number of non-zero columns of Ai. Compact Ai by discarding zero columns (but remember their locations) thereby obtaining an s ci matrix Bi. Apply Lemma 1 to each Bi to obtain reduced equivalent matrices Ci with ci columns and rank(Bi)=rank(Ai) rows.

  11. Proof of main result – part 1 The time required to construct Ci is O(cisω-1). So, to construct all C1,…,Cttakes O(msω-1). Let Dibe the matrix obtained from Ci by taking the first d rows of Ci. Expand Di by reinserting the zero columns. If rank(Ai) < d then Diis row-equivalent to Ai Otherwise, Di spanning a d-dim. subspace of Rows(Ai).

  12. Proof of main result – part 1 B1 A1 A2 C1 A3 D1

  13. Proof of main result – part 1 Let L be the union of the Di. L has at most dt = dn/s rows. If rank(A) < dthen L is equivalent to A, as each Diis equivalent to Ai. If rank(A) dthen Rows(L) is a subspace of Rows(A) with dimension at least d.

  14. Proof of main result – part 2 Dense Lemma: Let L be an l nmatrix and let d l /2. We construct L* with at most l /2 rows so that: If rank(L) <d then L* is row-equivalent to L. If rank(L)  d then Rows(L*) is a subspace of Rows(L) with dimension at least d. The running time is O(lnd ω-2).

  15. Proof of main result – part 2 • Proof of the main result – the algorithm:We are given an n n matrix A containing m nonzero entries, and a positive integer d. • If d < n2/mapply the sparse lemma with a value s that will be chosen later after optimization. • The result is a matrix L0 with n column andl0dn/s rows satisfying the conditions of the lemma. • If dn2/mwe just set L0=A and l0= n. • In any case now Rows(L0) is a subspace of Rows(A) with dimension at least d(or else L0 is equivalent to A).

  16. Proof of main result – part 2 We check if d l0 /2. If so, we apply the dense lemma to L0 and obtain L1 with l1  l0 /2 rows. We repeatedly apply the dense lemma to Li as long asd li/2 and obtain the next matrix Li +1. We halt when d> li/2. After halting, we perform a final Gaussian elimination on Li and obtain a reduced matrix B, which is the output of our algorithm.

  17. Proof of main result – part 2 Proof of the main result- correctness:At any stage of the algorithm, the rows of the current matrix Li form a subspace of Rows(A), and hence also at the end Rows(B) is a subspace of Rows(A). Thus, if B has (at least) d rows then the final output is (at least) a d-dimensional subspace of Rows(A). If Rank(A) < dthen each of the Li, as well as the final B, is row-equivalent to A.

  18. Proof of main result – part 2 • Proof of the main result- running time: • Consider first the case when dn2/m. In this case l0= n and the application of the dense lemma on Li requiresO(2-in2d ω-2) time. • After O(log n) applications the final G.E. to obtain B takes O(nd ω-1) time by Lemma 1. • The overall runtime is O(n2d ω-2) as required. • Consider next the case when d < n2/m. • The application of the sparse lemma requires O(msω-1) time.

  19. Proof of main result – part 2 As l0dn/s, the dense lemma on Li requires:O(2-is-1n2d ω-1) time. After O(log n) applications the final G.E. to obtain B takes O(nd ω-1) time by Lemma 1. Thus, the overall running time is O(msω-1 +s-1n2d ω-1) Choosing optimal value for s which is s = (d ω-1n2/m)1/ωwe obtain a runtime of O(n2-2/ω m1/ωdω-2+1/ω) as required.

  20. Thanks

More Related