1 / 42

Approximating k-route cuts in Julia: Chuzhoy, Makarychev, Vijayaraghavan, Zhou

This article discusses approximation algorithms for k-route cuts in Julia, proposed by Chuzhoy, Makarychev, Vijayaraghavan, and Zhou. It includes various variants and special cases, such as EC-kRC and VC-kRC, and presents recent results and algorithms. The focus is on unweighted and general EC-kRC, with an O(k.log1.5.r)-approximation algorithm for the unweighted case.

wandam
Download Presentation

Approximating k-route cuts in Julia: Chuzhoy, Makarychev, Vijayaraghavan, Zhou

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. Approximating k-route cuts Julia Chuzhoy (TTI-C) Yury Makarychev (TTI-C) Aravindan Vijayaraghavan (Princeton) Yuan Zhou (CMU)

  2. Cut minimization • Min st-cut: delete the min #edges to disconnect s, t t Duality: Maxflow(s, t) = Mincut(s, t) s = 2

  3. Multicut • Given r pairs (si, ti), delete min #edges to disconnect all (si, ti) pairs t1 • Upper bound on max multicommodity flow • Identifies bottlenecks in the graph • O(log r) approximation algorithm [GVY95] t3 s3 s2 t2 s1

  4. Min k-route cuts • Unweighted version. Given r pairs (si, ti), delete min #edges to k-disconnect all (si, ti) pairs • i.e. for all i, (si, ti)-edge-connectivity < k • General version. Given a weighted graph and r pairs, delete min wt. of edges to k-disconnect all (si, ti) pairs t1 For example, when k = 2, OPT = 1. t3 s3 s2 t2 s1

  5. Min k-route cuts: variants and specal cases • EC-kRC: edge connectivity version, remove min. wt. of edges so that for each i, (si, ti)-edge-connectivity < k • Unweighted case: all edge weights = 1 • k = 1: Minimum multicut • s-t EC-kRC: single source-sink pair version • VC-kRC: vertex connectivity version, remove min. wt. of edges so that for each i, (si, ti)-vertex-connectivity < k

  6. Motivation : a fault tolerant setting • Multiroute generalization • st-k-route flow: a fractional combination of elementary k-route st-flows [Kis96, KT93, AO02] • Flow is resilient to (k-1) failures multiroute generalization Maxflow/ Mincut st-k-route flow multicommodity flow k-route multicommodity flow multicut k-route cut

  7. Motivation (cont'd) • Multiroute generalization: a fault tolerant setting • As standard multicut, k-route cut also reveals network bottleneck, and in particular measures resilience of the network multicut k-route cut

  8. Approximation algorithms • α-approximation: delete edges of wt. αOPT such that all the pairs are k-disconnected • (β,α)-bicriteria approximation: delete edges of wt. αOPT such that all the pairs are βk-disconnected

  9. Previous work • [Chekuri-Khanna'08] • O(log2n log r)-approximation for k=2 (both EC-2RC and VC-2RC) • [Barman-Chawla'10] • O(log2r)-approximation for k=2 (both EC-2RC and VC-2RC) • NP-Hardness for s-t EC-kRC • [Kolman-Scheideler'11] • O(log3r)-approximation for k=3 (EC-2RC) • No sub-polynomial approx. algorithm known for k > 3

  10. Our results : algorithms for EC-kRC • Unweighted EC-kRC • O(k log1.5 r)-approximation • (1+ε, (1/ε)log1.5 r)-bicriteria approximation • General EC-kRC • O(log1.5 r)-approximation for k = 2 • (2, log2.5 r loglog r)-bicriteria approx. in nO(k) time • (log r, log3 r)-bicriteria approx. in poly(n, k) time

  11. Our results : VC-kRC • Algorithms • O(log1.5 r)-approximation for k = 2 • (2, d k log2.5 r loglog r)-bicriteria approx. in nO(k) time, where each node belongs to at most d source-sink pairs • Harndess for VC-kRC • NP-Hard to approximate VC-kRC within Ω(kε) for some specific ε > 0 • Hardness for st-VC-kRC • Superconstant hardness assuming random k-AND hypothesis of [Feige'02] • Ω(ρ0.5) hardness assuming ρ-inapproximability of Densest k-Subgraph

  12. A comparison : EC-kRC

  13. A comparison : VC-kRC

  14. Why only bicriteria algorithm for large k? • The problem might be hard even for single s-t version • st-VC-kRC: no sub-polynomial approx. if assuming no sub-polynomail approx. for Densest k-Subgraph • st-EC-kRC: no sub-polynomial approx. known (there is a (2, 2)-bicriteria approx. alg.) • Embarrassing situation for st-EC-kRC: even APX-hardness is not known • Recall the problem: • A weighted graph G, • source s, sink t • Goal: remove k edges in G to minimize min s-t cut

  15. The rest of this talk... • O(k log1.5 r)-approximation algorithm for unweighted EC-kRC • O(log1.5 r)-approximation algorithm for general EC-2RC • (2, log2.5 r loglog r)-bicriteria approx. algorithm for general EC-kRC (sketch)

  16. The difficulty for large k (> 2) • Simple recursion (used in [BC10]) for k = 2 • Find a balanced cut (by region growing) • Remove all the cut edges but the most expensive one • recurse into both sides • Key observation. the red edge cannot provide extra connectivity for s1, t1 graph G s1 t1

  17. The difficulty for large k (> 2) • Simple recursion (used in [BC10]) for k = 2 • Find a balanced cut (by region growing) • Remove all the cut edges but the most expensive one • recurse into both sides • Key observation. the red edge cannot provide extra connectivity for s1, t1 • No longer true for k = 3 (or more) graph G s1 t1 a bad example for k = 3

  18. Algorithms for k > 2 • [Kolman-Scheideler'11] O(log3r)-approximation for k=3, by multi-level region growing (based on the same LP used in [BC10]) • Our method • Idea 1. Relate k-route cut to the value of sparest cut • Idea 2. Solve the problem iteratively rather than recursively

  19. O(k log1.5 r)-approximation algorithm for unweighted EC-kRC

  20. Cut sparsity, and unweighted EC-kRC • Let d(v) = #source-sink pairs that v participates in d(S) = • Define uniform sparsity to be • Intuition. Given a cut , is small when • the cut size is small • the cut separates many terminals (or, the cut is balanced in terms of d)

  21. Lemma. Cut sparsity, and unweighted EC-kRC • Let d(v) = #source-sink pairs that v participates in d(S) = • Define uniform sparsity to be • Theorem.[ARV04]O(log0.5 r)-approx. for Φ(G).

  22. Lemma. Algorithm for unweighted EC-kRC • Step 0. Assume source-sink pairs are not k-disconnected • Step 1. Use the algorithm in [ARV04] to find an approximate sparse cut • Step 2. Delete all the edges across the cut • Step 3. Recurse into the subinstances defined by each side of the cut • Fact. #cut edges deleted in Step 2 is at most

  23. A standard charging argument • Fact. #cut edges deleted in Step 2 is at most • Charge this cost to the smaller part among • At one step, each terminal is charged by • Each terminal can be in "small parts" • In total, each terminal is charged by • Since there are r terminals, total cost:

  24. Lemma. Proof of • Consider H = G \ OPT • For every (si, ti) pair, mincutH(si, ti) = |edges(Si, Ti)| < k (a witness cut) • Claim. The witness cuts are laminar Si si ti Ti

  25. Proof of Claim: witness cuts are laminar • Gomory-Hu Tree. (exists for every graph) A weighted tree that consists of edges representing all pairs minimum s-t cuts in the graph. mincutH(s, t) = mincutT(s, t) • All s-t mincuts in the tree are laminar ==> All mincuts in H are laminar ==> All witness cuts are laminar H: Gomory-Hu tree T

  26. Lemma. Proof of • Consider H = G \ OPT • For every (si, ti) pair, mincutH(si, ti) = |edges(Si, Ti)| < k (a witness cut) • Claim. The witness cuts are laminar • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts (the smaller parts) S2 S1 S3

  27. Lemma. Proof of • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts in H=G\OPT 1. d(S1) + d(S2) + ... + d(Sm) >= r 2. therefore S2 S1 S3

  28. Lemma. Proof of • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts in H=G\OPT 1. d(S1) + d(S2) + ... + d(Sm) >= r 2. S2 S1 (since each edge is shared by at most 2 maximal cuts) S3

  29. Lemma. Proof of • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts in H=G\OPT 1. d(S1) + d(S2) + ... + d(Sm) >= r 2. 3. by expansion In all: S2 S1 S3

  30. O(log1.5 r)-approx. algorithm for EC-2RC

  31. Another definition of sparsity the most expensive edge • 2-route uniform sparsity • Corollary of[ARV04]. 2-route uniform sparisty can be efficiently approximated within O(log0.5 r) factor • Proof. Guess the red edge, remove it, and run ARV. S S

  32. Lemma. Another definition of sparsity the most expensive edge • 2-route uniform sparsity • Corollary of[ARV04]. 2-route uniform sparisty can be efficiently approximated within O(log0.5 r) factor S S

  33. Algorithm for EC-2RC • Step 1. Find an approximate 2-route sparse cut • Step 2. Delete all but the most expensive edge across the cut • Step 3. Recurse into the subinstances defined by each side of the cut • Claim. The algorithm outputs a valid 2-route cut. • Proof. By the key observation we made before.

  34. Lemma. Algorithm for EC-2RC • Step 1. Find an approximate 2-route sparse cut • Step 2. Delete all but the most expensive edge across the cut • Step 3. Recurse into the subinstances defined by each side of the cut • Fact. wt of edges deleted in Step 2 is at most • Corollary. wt of edges removed in total

  35. Lemma. Proof of • Consider H = G \ OPT • For every (si, ti) pair, mincutH(si, ti) = |edges(Si, Ti)| < 2 (a witness cut) • Claim. The witness cuts are laminar • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts (the smaller parts) S2 S1 S3

  36. Lemma. Proof of • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts in H=G\OPT 1. d(S1) + d(S2) + ... + d(Sm) >= r 2. S2 S1 , therefore, S3

  37. Lemma. Proof of • Let S1, S2, ..., Sm be the maximal witness cuts in H=G\OPT 1. d(S1) + d(S2) + ... + d(Sm) >= r 2. In all, thus, there exists i:

  38. (2, log2.5 r loglog r)-bicriteria approx. for general EC-kRC (sketch)

  39. Lemma. (2, log2.5 r loglog r)-bicriteria approx. for general EC-kRC (sketch) • k-route non-uniform sparsity where • Corollary. (of [ALN05]) O(log0.5 r loglog r) approx. in nO(k) time : total wt of all the edges across the cut but the most expensive (k-1) ones : #source-sink pairs across the cut

  40. Lemma. (2, log2.5 r loglog r)-bicriteria approx. for general EC-kRC (sketch) (cont'd) • The iterative algorithm. (Applying Idea 2) • Step 1. Use the algorithm in [ALN05] to find an approximate sparse cut • Step 2. Delete all the edges across the cut but the (2k-2) most expensive ones • Step 3. Remove all the source-sink pairs that are (2k-1)-disconnected • Step 4. Repeat Step 1~3 until no source-sink pair remains • Theorem. Wt. of removed edges <= log2.5 r loglog r OPT

  41. Open questions • Algorithm side. • Better true approximation algorithm for general EC-kRC (and VC-kRC) • Hardness side. • Is EC-kRC (for large k) strictly harder than multicut? • Understand the simplest case: st-EC-kRC.

  42. Thank you!

More Related