Randomized Algorithms (Spring 2010)/Problem Set 3: Difference between revisions

From TCS Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>WikiSysop
imported>WikiSysop
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Problem 1 (10 points) ==
== Problem 1 (20 points) ==
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture Collatz conjecture] says that if you start with any positive integer <math>x_0</math>, the following deterministic procedure
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture Collatz conjecture] says that if you start with any positive integer <math>x_0</math>, the following deterministic procedure
:<math>
:<math>
Line 12: Line 12:
x_{t+1}=
x_{t+1}=
\begin{cases}
\begin{cases}
(3x_t)/2 & \mbox{with probability }1/2,\\
3x_t/2 & \mbox{with probability }1/2,\\
x_t/2 & \mbox{with probability }1/2.
x_t/2 & \mbox{with probability }1/2.
\end{cases}
\end{cases}
Line 18: Line 18:
Note that in this game, <math>x_t</math> does not have to be an integer.
Note that in this game, <math>x_t</math> does not have to be an integer.
#What is the expected value of <math>x_t</math> as a function of <math>t</math> and <math>x_0</math>?
#What is the expected value of <math>x_t</math> as a function of <math>t</math> and <math>x_0</math>?
#Show that there is a constant <math>c</math> such that ln <math>x_t - ct</math> is a martingale.
#Show that there is a constant <math>c</math> such that <math>\ln x_t - ct</math> is a martingale.
#Assuming that <math>x_0 = 1</math>, use the Azuma's inequality to get a bound on the probability that <math>x_t N</math> for any fixed <math>N > 0</math>.
#Assuming that <math>x_0 = 1</math>, use the Azuma's inequality to get a bound on the probability that <math>x_t \ge N</math> for any fixed <math>N > 0</math>.
 
== Problem 2 (20 points) ==
;(a)
:Consider the theorem of large independent set in [[Randomized Algorithms (Spring 2010)/The probabilistic method|Lecture 8]]. The proof of the theorem describes a probabilistic experiment which generates independent set with large expected cardinality. Now we wish to turn this experiment to a randomized algorithm.  Consider the special case that the graph is regular.
 
:Let <math>G(V,E)</math> be a <math>d</math>-regular graph (every vertex has exact <math>d</math> neighbors) on <math>n</math> vertices. Run the following algorithm on <math>G</math>:
#For each vertex <math>v\in V</math>, <math>v</math> is chosen to a set <math>S</math> independently with probability <math>\frac{1}{d}</math>.
#Assuming that <math>G[S]</math> is the subgraph of <math>G</math> induced by <math>S</math>, for each edge <math>(u,v)\in G[S]</math>, remove one of the vertices <math>\{u,v\}</math> from <math>S</math>.
:Let <math>S^*</math> be the resulting independent set.
 
:Derive an upper bound on the probability that this algorithm finds an independent set smaller than <math>\frac{n(1-\epsilon)}{2d}</math>.
 
;(b)
:Borrow the idea from the theorem of large independent set to prove a similar result for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominating_set dominating set] (a set <math>D</math> of vertices such that every vertex is either in <math>D</math> or adjacent to a vertex in <math>D</math>).  Prove the following theorem:
:Let <math>G(V,E)</math> be a <math>d</math>-regular graph on <math>n</math> vertices. Then <math>G</math> has a dominating set of at most <math>\frac{n(1+\ln(d+1))}{d+1}</math> vertices.
 
('''Hint''': As the probabilistic experiment for generating an independent set, consider sampling a set of vertices and then altering it to a dominating set.)
 
== Problem 3 (10 points) ==
Let <math>G(V,E)</math> be a cycle of length <math>cn</math>, where <math>c</math> is an integer, let <math>V=V_1\cup V_2\cup\cdots\cup V_n</math> be a partition of the <math>cn</math> vertices into <math>n</math> pairwise disjoint subsets, each of cardinality <math>c</math>. Find a proper bound on <math>c</math> that no matter how to partition the <math>V</math> into <math>V_1, V_2,\cdots, V_n</math>, there must be an independent set of <math>G</math> containing precisely one vertex from each <math>V_i</math>.
 
('''Hint''': use the Lovasz local lemma.)

Latest revision as of 14:37, 19 April 2010

Problem 1 (20 points)

The Collatz conjecture says that if you start with any positive integer [math]\displaystyle{ x_0 }[/math], the following deterministic procedure

[math]\displaystyle{ x_{t+1}= \begin{cases} (3x_t+1)/2 & \mbox{if }x_t\mbox{ is odd},\\ x_t/2 & \mbox{if }x_t\mbox{ is even}, \end{cases} }[/math]

will eventually get to 1. Since the Collatz conjecture seems to be hard to prove, consider the following randomized version:

[math]\displaystyle{ x_{t+1}= \begin{cases} 3x_t/2 & \mbox{with probability }1/2,\\ x_t/2 & \mbox{with probability }1/2. \end{cases} }[/math]

Note that in this game, [math]\displaystyle{ x_t }[/math] does not have to be an integer.

  1. What is the expected value of [math]\displaystyle{ x_t }[/math] as a function of [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ x_0 }[/math]?
  2. Show that there is a constant [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math] such that [math]\displaystyle{ \ln x_t - ct }[/math] is a martingale.
  3. Assuming that [math]\displaystyle{ x_0 = 1 }[/math], use the Azuma's inequality to get a bound on the probability that [math]\displaystyle{ x_t \ge N }[/math] for any fixed [math]\displaystyle{ N \gt 0 }[/math].

Problem 2 (20 points)

(a)
Consider the theorem of large independent set in Lecture 8. The proof of the theorem describes a probabilistic experiment which generates independent set with large expected cardinality. Now we wish to turn this experiment to a randomized algorithm. Consider the special case that the graph is regular.
Let [math]\displaystyle{ G(V,E) }[/math] be a [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-regular graph (every vertex has exact [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math] neighbors) on [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math] vertices. Run the following algorithm on [math]\displaystyle{ G }[/math]:
  1. For each vertex [math]\displaystyle{ v\in V }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ v }[/math] is chosen to a set [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] independently with probability [math]\displaystyle{ \frac{1}{d} }[/math].
  2. Assuming that [math]\displaystyle{ G[S] }[/math] is the subgraph of [math]\displaystyle{ G }[/math] induced by [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math], for each edge [math]\displaystyle{ (u,v)\in G[S] }[/math], remove one of the vertices [math]\displaystyle{ \{u,v\} }[/math] from [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math].
Let [math]\displaystyle{ S^* }[/math] be the resulting independent set.
Derive an upper bound on the probability that this algorithm finds an independent set smaller than [math]\displaystyle{ \frac{n(1-\epsilon)}{2d} }[/math].
(b)
Borrow the idea from the theorem of large independent set to prove a similar result for dominating set (a set [math]\displaystyle{ D }[/math] of vertices such that every vertex is either in [math]\displaystyle{ D }[/math] or adjacent to a vertex in [math]\displaystyle{ D }[/math]). Prove the following theorem:
Let [math]\displaystyle{ G(V,E) }[/math] be a [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-regular graph on [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math] vertices. Then [math]\displaystyle{ G }[/math] has a dominating set of at most [math]\displaystyle{ \frac{n(1+\ln(d+1))}{d+1} }[/math] vertices.

(Hint: As the probabilistic experiment for generating an independent set, consider sampling a set of vertices and then altering it to a dominating set.)

Problem 3 (10 points)

Let [math]\displaystyle{ G(V,E) }[/math] be a cycle of length [math]\displaystyle{ cn }[/math], where [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math] is an integer, let [math]\displaystyle{ V=V_1\cup V_2\cup\cdots\cup V_n }[/math] be a partition of the [math]\displaystyle{ cn }[/math] vertices into [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math] pairwise disjoint subsets, each of cardinality [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math]. Find a proper bound on [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math] that no matter how to partition the [math]\displaystyle{ V }[/math] into [math]\displaystyle{ V_1, V_2,\cdots, V_n }[/math], there must be an independent set of [math]\displaystyle{ G }[/math] containing precisely one vertex from each [math]\displaystyle{ V_i }[/math].

(Hint: use the Lovasz local lemma.)