skip to main content


Title: On the rank of a random binary matrix
We study the rank of a random n × m matrix An, m; k with entries from GF(2), and exactly k unit entries in each column, the other entries being zero. The columns are chosen independently and uniformly at random from the set of all (nk) such columns. We obtain an asymptotically correct estimate for the rank as a function of the number of columns m in terms of c, n, k, and where m = cn/k. The matrix An, m; k forms the vertex-edge incidence matrix of a k-uniform random hypergraph H. The rank of An, m; k can be expressed as follows. Let |C2| be the number of vertices of the 2-core of H, and | E (C2)| the number of edges. Let m* be the value of m for which |C2| = |E(C2)|. Then w.h.p. for m < m* the rank of An, m; k is asymptotic to m, and for m ≥ m* the rank is asymptotic to m – |E(C2)| + |C2|. In addition, assign i.i.d. U[0, 1] weights Xi, i ∊ 1, 2, … m to the columns, and define the weight of a set of columns S as X(S) = ∑j∊S Xj. Define a basis as a set of n – 1 (k even) linearly independent columns. We obtain an asymptotically correct estimate for the minimum weight basis. This generalises the well-known result of Frieze [On the value of a random minimum spanning tree problem, Discrete Applied Mathematics, (1985)] that, for k = 2, the expected length of a minimum weight spanning tree tends to ζ(3) ∼ 1.202.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1700365
NSF-PAR ID:
10106979
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
ISSN:
1071-9040
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. We design fast algorithms for repeatedly sampling from strongly Rayleigh distributions, which include as special cases random spanning tree distributions and determinantal point processes. For a graph $G=(V, E)$, we show how to approximately sample uniformly random spanning trees from $G$ in $\widetilde{O}(\lvert V\rvert)$\footnote{Throughout, $\widetilde{O}(\cdot)$ hides polylogarithmic factors in $n$.} time per sample after an initial $\widetilde{O}(\lvert E\rvert)$ time preprocessing. This is the first nearly-linear runtime in the output size, which is clearly optimal. For a determinantal point process on $k$-sized subsets of a ground set of $n$ elements, defined via an $n\times n$ kernel matrix, we show how to approximately sample in $\widetilde{O}(k^\omega)$ time after an initial $\widetilde{O}(nk^{\omega-1})$ time preprocessing, where $\omega<2.372864$ is the matrix multiplication exponent. The time to compute just the weight of the output set is simply $\simeq k^\omega$, a natural barrier that suggests our runtime might be optimal for determinantal point processes as well. As a corollary, we even improve the state of the art for obtaining a single sample from a determinantal point process, from the prior runtime of $\widetilde{O}(\min\{nk^2, n^\omega\})$ to $\widetilde{O}(nk^{\omega-1})$. In our main technical result, we achieve the optimal limit on domain sparsification for strongly Rayleigh distributions. In domain sparsification, sampling from a distribution $\mu$ on $\binom{[n]}{k}$ is reduced to sampling from related distributions on $\binom{[t]}{k}$ for $t\ll n$. We show that for strongly Rayleigh distributions, the domain size can be reduced to nearly linear in the output size $t=\widetilde{O}(k)$, improving the state of the art from $t= \widetilde{O}(k^2)$ for general strongly Rayleigh distributions and the more specialized $t=\widetilde{O}(k^{1.5})$ for spanning tree distributions. Our reduction involves sampling from $\widetilde{O}(1)$ domain-sparsified distributions, all of which can be produced efficiently assuming approximate overestimates for marginals of $\mu$ are known and stored in a convenient data structure. Having access to marginals is the discrete analog of having access to the mean and covariance of a continuous distribution, or equivalently knowing ``isotropy'' for the distribution, the key behind optimal samplers in the continuous setting based on the famous Kannan-Lov\'asz-Simonovits (KLS) conjecture. We view our result as analogous in spirit to the KLS conjecture and its consequences for sampling, but rather for discrete strongly Rayleigh measures. 
    more » « less
  2. We give two new quantum algorithms for solving semidefinite programs (SDPs) providing quantum speed-ups. We consider SDP instances with m constraint matrices, each of dimension n, rank at most r, and sparsity s. The first algorithm assumes an input model where one is given access to an oracle to the entries of the matrices at unit cost. We show that it has run time O~(s^2 (sqrt{m} epsilon^{-10} + sqrt{n} epsilon^{-12})), with epsilon the error of the solution. This gives an optimal dependence in terms of m, n and quadratic improvement over previous quantum algorithms (when m ~~ n). The second algorithm assumes a fully quantum input model in which the input matrices are given as quantum states. We show that its run time is O~(sqrt{m}+poly(r))*poly(log m,log n,B,epsilon^{-1}), with B an upper bound on the trace-norm of all input matrices. In particular the complexity depends only polylogarithmically in n and polynomially in r. We apply the second SDP solver to learn a good description of a quantum state with respect to a set of measurements: Given m measurements and a supply of copies of an unknown state rho with rank at most r, we show we can find in time sqrt{m}*poly(log m,log n,r,epsilon^{-1}) a description of the state as a quantum circuit preparing a density matrix which has the same expectation values as rho on the m measurements, up to error epsilon. The density matrix obtained is an approximation to the maximum entropy state consistent with the measurement data considered in Jaynes' principle from statistical mechanics. As in previous work, we obtain our algorithm by "quantizing" classical SDP solvers based on the matrix multiplicative weight update method. One of our main technical contributions is a quantum Gibbs state sampler for low-rank Hamiltonians, given quantum states encoding these Hamiltonians, with a poly-logarithmic dependence on its dimension, which is based on ideas developed in quantum principal component analysis. We also develop a "fast" quantum OR lemma with a quadratic improvement in gate complexity over the construction of Harrow et al. [Harrow et al., 2017]. We believe both techniques might be of independent interest. 
    more » « less
  3. The classical Beardwood-Halton-Hammersly theorem (1959) asserts the existence of an asymptotic formula of the form $\beta \sqrt n$ for the minimum length of a Traveling Salesperson Tour throuh $n$ random points in the unit square, and in the decades since it was proved, the existence of such formulas has been shown for other such \emph{Euclidean functionals} on random points in the unit square as well. Despite more than 50 years of attention, however, it remained unknown whether the minimum length TSP through $n$ random points in $[0,1]^2$ was asymptotically distinct from its natural lower bounds, such as the minimum length spanning tree, the minimum length 2-factor, or, as raised by Goemans and Bertsimas, from its linear programming relaxation. We prove that the TSP on random points in Euclidean space is indeed asymptotically distinct from these and other natural lower bounds, and show that this separation implies that branch-and-bound algorithms based on these natural lower bounds must take nearly exponential ($e^{\tilde \Omega(n)}$) time to solve the TSP to optimality, even in average case. This is the first average-case superpolynomial lower bound for these branch-and-bound algorithms (a lower bound as strong as $e^{\tilde \Omega (n)}$ was not even been known in worst-case analysis). 
    more » « less
  4. Abernethy, Jacob ; Agarwal, Agarwal (Ed.)
    Motivated by problems in controlled experiments, we study the discrepancy of random matrices with continuous entries where the number of columns $n$ is much larger than the number of rows $m$. Our first result shows that if $\omega(1) = m = o(n)$, a matrix with i.i.d. standard Gaussian entries has discrepancy $\Theta(\sqrt{n} \, 2^{-n/m})$ with high probability. This provides sharp guarantees for Gaussian discrepancy in a regime that had not been considered before in the existing literature. Our results also apply to a more general family of random matrices with continuous i.i.d. entries, assuming that $m = O(n/\log{n})$. The proof is non-constructive and is an application of the second moment method. Our second result is algorithmic and applies to random matrices whose entries are i.i.d. and have a Lipschitz density. We present a randomized polynomial-time algorithm that achieves discrepancy $e^{-\Omega(\log^2(n)/m)}$ with high probability, provided that $m = O(\sqrt{\log{n}})$. In the one-dimensional case, this matches the best known algorithmic guarantees due to Karmarkar–Karp. For higher dimensions $2 \leq m = O(\sqrt{\log{n}})$, this establishes the first efficient algorithm achieving discrepancy smaller than $O( \sqrt{m} )$. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    In a Merlin–Arthur proof system, the proof verifier (Arthur) accepts valid proofs (from Merlin) with probability 1, and rejects invalid proofs with probability arbitrarily close to 1. The running time of such a system is defined to be the length of Merlin’s proof plus the running time of Arthur. We provide new Merlin–Arthur proof systems for some key problems in fine-grained complexity. In several cases our proof systems have optimal running time. Our main results include:

    Certifying that a list ofnintegers has no 3-SUM solution can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$\tilde{O}(n)$$O~(n). Previously, Carmosino et al. [ITCS 2016] showed that the problem has a nondeterministic algorithm running in$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$O~(n1.5)time (that is, there is a proof system with proofs of length$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$O~(n1.5)and a deterministic verifier running in$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$O~(n1.5)time).

    Counting the number ofk-cliques with total edge weight equal to zero in ann-node graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$${\tilde{O}}(n^{\lceil k/2\rceil })$$O~(nk/2)(where$$k\ge 3$$k3). For oddk, this bound can be further improved for sparse graphs: for example, counting the number of zero-weight triangles in anm-edge graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$${\tilde{O}}(m)$$O~(m). Previous Merlin–Arthur protocols by Williams [CCC’16] and Björklund and Kaski [PODC’16] could only countk-cliques in unweighted graphs, and had worse running times for smallk.

    Computing the All-Pairs Shortest Distances matrix for ann-node graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$\tilde{O}(n^2)$$O~(n2). Note this is optimal, as the matrix can have$$\Omega (n^2)$$Ω(n2)nonzero entries in general. Previously, Carmosino et al. [ITCS 2016] showed that this problem has an$$\tilde{O}(n^{2.94})$$O~(n2.94)nondeterministic time algorithm.

    Certifying that ann-variablek-CNF is unsatisfiable can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$2^{n/2 - n/O(k)}$$2n/2-n/O(k). We also observe an algebrization barrier for the previous$$2^{n/2}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$2n/2·poly(n)-time Merlin–Arthur protocol of R. Williams [CCC’16] for$$\#$$#SAT: in particular, his protocol algebrizes, and we observe there is no algebrizing protocol fork-UNSAT running in$$2^{n/2}/n^{\omega (1)}$$2n/2/nω(1)time. Therefore we have to exploit non-algebrizing properties to obtain our new protocol.

    Certifying a Quantified Boolean Formula is true can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$2^{4n/5}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$24n/5·poly(n). Previously, the only nontrivial result known along these lines was an Arthur–Merlin–Arthur protocol (where Merlin’s proof depends on some of Arthur’s coins) running in$$2^{2n/3}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$22n/3·poly(n)time.

    Due to the centrality of these problems in fine-grained complexity, our results have consequences for many other problems of interest. For example, our work implies that certifying there is no Subset Sum solution tonintegers can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$2^{n/3}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$2n/3·poly(n), improving on the previous best protocol by Nederlof [IPL 2017] which took$$2^{0.49991n}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$20.49991n·poly(n)time.

     
    more » « less