Randomized Algorithms (Spring 2010)/More on Chernoff bounds

Set balancing

Supposed that we have an [math]\displaystyle{ n\times m }[/math] matrix [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] with 0-1 entries. We are looking for a [math]\displaystyle{ b\in\{-1,+1\}^m }[/math] that minimizes [math]\displaystyle{ \|Ab\|_\infty }[/math].

Recall that [math]\displaystyle{ \|\cdot\|_\infty }[/math] is the infinity norm (also called [math]\displaystyle{ L_\infty }[/math] norm) of a vector, and for the vector [math]\displaystyle{ c=Ab }[/math],

[math]\displaystyle{ \|Ab\|_\infty=\max_{i=1,2,\ldots,n}|c_i| }[/math].

We can also describe this problem as an optimization:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} \mbox{minimize } &\quad \|Ab\|_\infty\\ \mbox{subject to: } &\quad b\in\{-1,+1\}^m. \end{align} }[/math]

This problem is called set balancing for a reason.

The problem arises in designing statistical experiments. Suppose that we have [math]\displaystyle{ m }[/math] subjects, each of which may have up to [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math] features. This gives us an [math]\displaystyle{ n\times m }[/math] matrix [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math]: [math]\displaystyle{ \begin{array}{c} \mbox{feature 1:}\\ \mbox{feature 2:}\\ \vdots\\ \mbox{feature n:}\\ \end{array} \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} a_{11} & a_{12} & \cdots & a_{1m}\\ a_{21} & a_{22} & \cdots & a_{2m}\\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\ a_{n1} & a_{n2} & \cdots & a_{nm}\\ \end{array} \right], }[/math] where each column represents a subject and each row represent a feature. An entry [math]\displaystyle{ a_{ij}\in\{0,1\} }[/math] indicates whether subject [math]\displaystyle{ j }[/math] has feature [math]\displaystyle{ i }[/math]. By multiplying a vector [math]\displaystyle{ b\in\{-1,+1\}^m }[/math] [math]\displaystyle{ \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} a_{11} & a_{12} & \cdots & a_{1m}\\ a_{21} & a_{22} & \cdots & a_{2m}\\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\ a_{n1} & a_{n2} & \cdots & a_{nm}\\ \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} b_{1}\\ b_{2}\\ \vdots\\ b_{m}\\ \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{c} c_{1}\\ c_{2}\\ \vdots\\ c_{n}\\ \end{array} \right], }[/math] the subjects are partitioned into two disjoint groups: one for -1 and other other for +1. Each [math]\displaystyle{ c_i }[/math] gives the difference between the numbers of subjects with feature [math]\displaystyle{ i }[/math] in the two groups. By minimizing [math]\displaystyle{ \|Ab\|_\infty=\|c\|_\infty }[/math], we ask for an optimal partition so that each feature is roughly as balanced as possible between the two groups. In a scientific experiment, one of the group serves as a control group (对照组). Ideally, we want the two groups are statistically identical, which is usually impossible to achieve in practice. The requirement of minimizing [math]\displaystyle{ \|Ab\|_\infty }[/math] actually means the statistical difference between the two groups are minimized.

We propose an extremely simple "randomized algorithm" for computing a [math]\displaystyle{ b\in\{-1,+1\}^m }[/math]: for each [math]\displaystyle{ i=1,2,\ldots, m }[/math], let [math]\displaystyle{ b_i }[/math] be independently chosen from [math]\displaystyle{ \{-1,+1\} }[/math], such that

[math]\displaystyle{ b_i= \begin{cases} -1 & \mbox{with probability }\frac{1}{2}\\ +1 &\mbox{with probability }\frac{1}{2} \end{cases}. }[/math]

This procedure can hardly be called as an "algorithm", because its decision is made disregard of the input [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math]. We then show that despite of this obliviousness, the algorithm chooses a good enough [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math], such that for any [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ \|Ab\|_\infty=O(\sqrt{m\ln n}) }[/math] with high probability.

Theorem Let [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] be an [math]\displaystyle{ n\times m }[/math] matrix with 0-1 entries. For a random vector [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math] with [math]\displaystyle{ m }[/math] entries chosen independently and with equal probability from [math]\displaystyle{ \{-1,+1\} }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ \Pr[\|Ab\|_\infty\gt 2\sqrt{2m\ln n}]\le\frac{2}{n} }[/math].

Proof: Consider particularly the [math]\displaystyle{ i }[/math]-th row of [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math]. The entry of [math]\displaystyle{ Ab }[/math] contributed by row [math]\displaystyle{ i }[/math] is [math]\displaystyle{ c_i=\sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij}b_j }[/math].

Let [math]\displaystyle{ k }[/math] be the non-zero entries in the row. If [math]\displaystyle{ k\le2\sqrt{2m\ln n} }[/math], then clearly [math]\displaystyle{ |c_i| }[/math] is no greater than [math]\displaystyle{ 2\sqrt{2m\ln n} }[/math]. On the other hand if [math]\displaystyle{ k\gt 2\sqrt{2m\ln n} }[/math] then the [math]\displaystyle{ k }[/math] nonzero terms in the sum

[math]\displaystyle{ c_i=\sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij}b_j }[/math]

are independent, each with probability 1/2 of being either +1 or -1.

Thus, for these [math]\displaystyle{ k }[/math] nonzero terms, each [math]\displaystyle{ b_i }[/math] is either positive or negative independently with equal probability. There are expectedly [math]\displaystyle{ \mu=\frac{k}{2} }[/math] positive [math]\displaystyle{ b_i }[/math]'s among these [math]\displaystyle{ k }[/math] terms, and [math]\displaystyle{ c_i\lt -2\sqrt{2m\ln n} }[/math] only occurs when there are less than [math]\displaystyle{ \frac{k}{2}-\sqrt{2m\ln n}=\left(1-\delta\right)\mu }[/math] positive [math]\displaystyle{ b_i }[/math]'s, where [math]\displaystyle{ \delta=\frac{2\sqrt{2m\ln n}}{k} }[/math]. Applying Chernoff bound, this event occurs with probability at most

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} \exp\left(-\frac{\mu\delta^2}{2}\right) &= \exp\left(-\frac{k}{2}\cdot\frac{8m\ln n}{2k^2}\right)\\ &= \exp\left(-\frac{2m\ln n}{k}\right)\\ &\le \exp\left(-\frac{2m\ln n}{m}\right)\\ &\le n^{-2}. \end{align} }[/math]

The same argument can be applied to negative [math]\displaystyle{ b_i }[/math]'s, so that the probability that [math]\displaystyle{ c_i\gt 2\sqrt{2m\ln n} }[/math] is at most [math]\displaystyle{ n^{-2} }[/math]. Therefore, by the union bound,

[math]\displaystyle{ \Pr[|c_i|\gt 2\sqrt{2m\ln n}]\le\frac{2}{n^2} }[/math].

Apply the union bound to all [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math] rows.

[math]\displaystyle{ \Pr[\|Ab\|_\infty\gt 2\sqrt{2m\ln n}]\le n\cdot\Pr[|c_i|\gt 2\sqrt{2m\ln n}]\le\frac{2}{n} }[/math].

[math]\displaystyle{ \square }[/math]

So how good is this randomized algorithm? In fact when [math]\displaystyle{ m=n }[/math] there exists a matrix [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] such that [math]\displaystyle{ \|Ab\|_\infty=\Omega(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] for any choice of [math]\displaystyle{ b\in\{-1,+1\}^n }[/math].

Permutation Routing

The problem raises from parallel computing. Consider that we have [math]\displaystyle{ N }[/math] processors, connected by a communication network. The processors communicate with each other by sending and receiving packets through the network. We consider the following packet routing problem:

• Every processor is sending a packet to a unique destination. Therefore for [math]\displaystyle{ [N] }[/math] the set of processors, the destinations are given by a permutation [math]\displaystyle{ \pi }[/math] of [math]\displaystyle{ [N] }[/math], such that for every processor [math]\displaystyle{ i\in[N] }[/math], the processor [math]\displaystyle{ i }[/math] is sending a packet to processor [math]\displaystyle{ \pi(i) }[/math].
• The communication is synchronized, such that for each round, every link (an edge of the graph) can forward at most one packet.

With a complete graph as the network. For any permutation [math]\displaystyle{ \pi }[/math] of [math]\displaystyle{ [N] }[/math], all packets can be routed to their destinations in parallel with one round of communication. However, such an ideal connectivity is usually not available in reality, either because they are too expensive, or because they are physically impossible. We are interested in the case the graph is sparse, such that the number of edges is significantly smaller than the complete graph, yet the distance between any pair of vertices is small, so that the packets can be efficiently routed between pairs of vertices.

Routing on a hypercube

A hypercube (sometimes called a Boolean cube, a Hamming cube, or just cube) is defined over [math]\displaystyle{ N }[/math] nodes, for [math]\displaystyle{ N }[/math] a power of 2. We assume that [math]\displaystyle{ N=2^d }[/math]. A hypercube of [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math] dimensions, or a [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-cube, is an undirected graph with the vertex set [math]\displaystyle{ \{0,1\}^d }[/math], such that for any [math]\displaystyle{ u,v\in\{0,1\}^d }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ v }[/math] are adjacent if and only if [math]\displaystyle{ h(u,v)=1 }[/math], where [math]\displaystyle{ h(u,v) }[/math] is the Hamming distance between [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ v }[/math].

A [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-cube is a [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-degree regular graph over [math]\displaystyle{ N=2^d }[/math] vertices. For any pair [math]\displaystyle{ (u,v) }[/math] of vertices, the distance between [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ v }[/math] is at most [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]. (How do we know this? Since it takes at most [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math] steps to fix any binary string of length [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math] bit-by-bit to any other.) This directly gives us the following very natural routing algorithm.

Bit-Fixing Routing Algorithm:

For each packet: Let [math]\displaystyle{ u, v\in\{0,1\}^d }[/math] be the origin and destination of the packet respectively. For [math]\displaystyle{ i=1 }[/math] to [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math], do: if [math]\displaystyle{ u_i\neq v_i }[/math] then traverse the edge [math]\displaystyle{ (v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1},u_i,\ldots,u_d)\rightarrow (v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1},v_i,u_{i+1}\ldots,u_d) }[/math].

Oblivious routing algorithms

This algorithm is blessed with a desirable property: at each routing step, the choice of link depends only on the the current node and the destination. We call the algorithms with this property oblivious routing algorithms. (Actually, the standard definition of obliviousness allows the choice also depends on the origin. The bit-fixing algorithm is even more oblivious than this standard definition.) Compared to the routing algorithms which are adaptive to the path that the packet traversed, oblivious routing is more simple thus can be implemented by smaller routing table (or simple devices called switches).

Queuing policies

When routing [math]\displaystyle{ N }[/math] packets in parallel, it is possible that more than one packets want to use the same edge at the same time. We assume that a queue is associated to each edge, such that the packets to be delivered through an edge are put into the queue associated with the edge. With some queuing policy (e.g. FIFO, or furthest to do), the queued packets are delivered through the edge by at most one packet per each round.

For the bit-fixing routing algorithm defined above, regardless of the queuing policy, there always exists a bad permutation [math]\displaystyle{ \pi }[/math] which specifies the destinations, such that it takes [math]\displaystyle{ \Omega(\sqrt{N}) }[/math] steps by the bit-fixing algorithm to route all [math]\displaystyle{ N }[/math] packets to their destinations. (You can prove this by yourself.)

This is pretty bad, because we expect that the routing time is comparable to the diameter of the network, which is only [math]\displaystyle{ d=\log N }[/math] for hypercube.

The lower bound actually applies generally for any deterministic oblivious routing algorithms:

Theorem [Kaklamanis, Krizanc, Tsantilas, 1991] In any [math]\displaystyle{ N }[/math]-node communication network with maximum degree [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math], any deterministic oblivious algorithm for routing an arbitrary permutation requires [math]\displaystyle{ \Omega(\sqrt{N}/d) }[/math] parallel communication steps in the worst case.

The proof of the lower bound is rather technical and complicated. However, the intuition is quite clear: for any oblivious rule for routing, there always exists a permutation which causes a very high congestion, such that many packets have to be delivered through the same edge, thus no matter what queuing policy is used, the maximum delay must be very high.

A two-phase randomized routing algorithm

It is somehow surprising that routing the packet first to some completely irrelevant "relay" actually improves the overall performance.

Two-Phase Routing Algorithm:

For each packet: Phase I: Route the packet to a random destination using the bit-fixing algorithm. Phase II: Route the packet from the random location to its final destination using the bit-fixing algorithm.