Document Open Access Logo

Sublinear Time Estimation of Degree Distribution Moments: The Degeneracy Connection

Authors Talya Eden, Dana Ron, C. Seshadhri



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.7.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.53 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Talya Eden
Dana Ron
C. Seshadhri

Cite AsGet BibTex

Talya Eden, Dana Ron, and C. Seshadhri. Sublinear Time Estimation of Degree Distribution Moments: The Degeneracy Connection. In 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 80, pp. 7:1-7:13, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.7

Abstract

We revisit the classic problem of estimating the degree distribution moments of an undirected graph. Consider an undirected graph G=(V,E) with n (non-isolated) vertices, and define (for s > 0) mu_s = 1\n * sum_{v in V} d^s_v. Our aim is to estimate mu_s within a multiplicative error of (1+epsilon) (for a given approximation parameter epsilon>0) in sublinear time. We consider the sparse graph model that allows access to: uniform random vertices, queries for the degree of any vertex, and queries for a neighbor of any vertex. For the case of s=1 (the average degree), \widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n}) queries suffice for any constant epsilon (Feige, SICOMP 06 and Goldreich-Ron, RSA 08). Gonen-Ron-Shavitt (SIDMA 11) extended this result to all integral s > 0, by designing an algorithms that performs \widetilde{O}(n^{1-1/(s+1)}) queries. (Strictly speaking, their algorithm approximates the number of star-subgraphs of a given size, but a slight modification gives an algorithm for moments.) We design a new, significantly simpler algorithm for this problem. In the worst-case, it exactly matches the bounds of Gonen-Ron-Shavitt, and has a much simpler proof. More importantly, the running time of this algorithm is connected to the degeneracy of G. This is (essentially) the maximum density of an induced subgraph. For the family of graphs with degeneracy at most alpha, it has a query complexity of widetilde{O}\left(\frac{n^{1-1/s}}{\mu^{1/s}_s} \Big(\alpha^{1/s} + \min\{\alpha,\mu^{1/s}_s\}\Big)\right) = \widetilde{O}(n^{1-1/s}\alpha/\mu^{1/s}_s). Thus, for the class of bounded degeneracy graphs (which includes all minor closed families and preferential attachment graphs), we can estimate the average degree in \widetilde{O}(1) queries, and can estimate the variance of the degree distribution in \widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n}) queries. This is a major improvement over the previous worst-case bounds. Our key insight is in designing an estimator for mu_s that has low variance when G does not have large dense subgraphs.
Keywords
  • Sublinear algorithms
  • Degree distribution
  • Graph moments

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. A. S. Aliakbarpour, M.and Biswas, T. Gouleakis, J. Peebles, R. Rubinfeld, and A. Yodpinyanee. Sublinear-time algorithms for counting star subgraphs via edge sampling. Algorithmica, pages 1-30, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00453-017-0287-3.
  2. N. Alon and S. Gutner. Linear time algorithms for finding a dominating set of fixed size in degenerated graphs. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON), pages 394-405, 2008. Google Scholar
  3. N. Alon, Y. Matias, and M. Szegedy. The space complexity of approximating the frequency moments. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 58(1):137-147, 1999. Google Scholar
  4. Arboricity. Wikipedia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboricity.
  5. A.-L. Barabasi and R. Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286:509-512, October 1999. Google Scholar
  6. J. W. Berry, L. A. Fostvedt, D. J. Nordman, C. A. Phillips, C. Seshadhri, and A. G. Wilson. Why do simple algorithms for triangle enumeration work in the real world? Internet Mathematics, 11(6):555-571, 2015. Google Scholar
  7. Z. Bi, C. Faloutsos, and F. Korn. The dgx distribution for mining massive, skewed data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD), pages 17-26. ACM, 2001. Google Scholar
  8. P. Bickel, A. Chen, and E. Levina. The method of moments and degree distributions for network models. Annals of Statistics, 39(5):2280-2301, 2011. Google Scholar
  9. P. Brach, M. Cygan, J. Laccki, and P. Sankowski. Algorithmic complexity of power law networks. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1306-1325, 2016. Google Scholar
  10. A. Broder, R. Kumar, F. Maghoul, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, R. Stata, A. Tomkins, and J. Wiener. Graph structure in the web. Computer Networks, 33:309-320, 2000. Google Scholar
  11. B. Chazelle, R. Rubinfeld, and L. Trevisan. Approximating the minimum spanning tree weight in sublinear time. SIAM Journal on Computing, 34(6):1370-1379, 2005. Google Scholar
  12. N. Chiba and T. Nishizeki. Arboricity and subgraph listing algorithms. SIAM J. Comput., 14:210-223, 1985. Google Scholar
  13. F. Chierichetti, A. Dasgupta, R. Kumar, S. Lattanzi, and T. Sarlos. On sampling nodes in a network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 471-481, 2016. Google Scholar
  14. A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4):661-703, 2009. Google Scholar
  15. A. Czumaj, F. Ergun, L. Fortnow, A. Magen, I. Newman, R. Rubinfeld, and C. Sohler. Approximating the weight of the euclidean minimum spanning tree in sublinear time. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(1):91-109, 2005. Google Scholar
  16. A. Czumaj and C. Sohler. Estimating the weight of metric minimum spanning trees in sublinear time. SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(3):904-922, 2009. Google Scholar
  17. A. Dasgupta, R. Kumar, and T. Sarlos. On estimating the average degree. In Proceedings of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 795-806, 2014. Google Scholar
  18. R. Diestel. Graph Theory. Springer, fourth edition edition, 2010. Google Scholar
  19. T. Eden, A. Levi, D. Ron, and C. Seshadhri. Approximately counting triangles in sublinear time. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 614-633, 2015. Google Scholar
  20. D. Eppstein, M. Loffler, and D. Strash. Listing all maximal cliques in sparse graphs in near-optimal time. In International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC), pages 403-413, 2010. Google Scholar
  21. P. Erdos and T. Gallai. Graphs with prescribed degree of vertices (hungarian). Mat. Lapok, 11:264-274, 1960. Google Scholar
  22. M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. On power-law relationships of the internet topology. In Proceedings of Computer Communication Review (SIGCOMM), pages 251-262. ACM, 1999. Google Scholar
  23. U. Feige. On sums of independent random variables with unbounded variance and estimating the average degree in a graph. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(4):964-984, 2006. Google Scholar
  24. O. Goldreich and D. Ron. Approximating average parameters of graphs. Random Structures and Algorithms, 32(4):473-493, 2008. Google Scholar
  25. M. Gonen, D. Ron, and Y. Shavitt. Counting stars and other small subgraphs in sublinear-time. SIAM Journal on Discrete Math, 25(3):1365-1411, 2011. Google Scholar
  26. Graph degeneracy. Wikipedia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_(graph_theory).
  27. S. L. Hakimi. On the realizability of a set of integers as degrees of the vertices of a graph. SIAM Journal Applied Mathematics, 10:496-506, 1962. Google Scholar
  28. A. Hassidim, J. A. Kelner, H. N. Nguyen, and K. Onak. Local graph partitions for approximation and testing. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 22-31. IEEE, 2009. Google Scholar
  29. V. Havel. A remark on the existence of finite graphs (czech). Casopis Pest. Mat., 80:477-480, 1955. Google Scholar
  30. S. Marko and D. Ron. Approximating the distance to properties in bounded-degree and general sparse graphs. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 5(2), 2009. Google Scholar
  31. D. Matula and L. Beck. Smallest-last ordering and clustering and graph coloring algorithms. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 30(3):417-427, 1983. Google Scholar
  32. J. Nešetřil and P. Ossana de Mendez. Sparsity. Springer, 2010. Google Scholar
  33. H. N. Nguyen and K. Onak. Constant-time approximation algorithms via local improvements. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 327-336. IEEE, 2008. Google Scholar
  34. K. Onak, D. Ron, M. Rosen, and R. Rubinfeld. A near-optimal sublinear-time algorithm for approximating the minimum vertex cover size. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1123-1131. SIAM, 2012. Google Scholar
  35. M. Parnas and D. Ron. Approximating the minimum vertex cover in sublinear time and a connection to distributed algorithms. Theoretical Computer Science, 381(1-3):183-196, 2007. Google Scholar
  36. D. Pennock, G. Flake, S. Lawrence, E. Glover, and C. L. Giles. Winners don't take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the web. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences (PNAS), 99(8):5207-5211, 2002. Google Scholar
  37. A. Sala, L. Cao, C. Wilson, R. Zablit, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao. Measurement-calibrated graph models for social network experiments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 861-870. ACM, 2010. Google Scholar
  38. O. Simpson, C. Seshadhri, and A. McGregor. Catching the head, tail, and everything in between: A streaming algorithm for the degree distribution. In Proceedings on the International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 979-984, 2015. Google Scholar
  39. Y. Yoshida, M. Yamamoto, and H. Ito. An improved constant-time approximation algorithm for maximum-matchings. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 225-234. ACM, 2009. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail