Document Open Access Logo

Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching

Authors S. Cliff Liu, Zhao Song, Hengjie Zhang, Lichen Zhang, Tianyi Zhou

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ICALP.2023.88.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.76 MB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

S. Cliff Liu
  • Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Zhao Song
  • Adobe Research, San Jose, CA, USA
Hengjie Zhang
  • Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Lichen Zhang
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Tianyi Zhou
  • University of California San Diego, CA, USA

Funding

  • Zhang, Lichen: Supported by NSF grant No. CCF-1955217 and NSF grant No. CCF-2022448.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jonathan Kelner for many helpful discussions.

Cite AsGet BibTex

S. Cliff Liu, Zhao Song, Hengjie Zhang, Lichen Zhang, and Tianyi Zhou. Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching. In 50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 261, pp. 88:1-88:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2023.88

Abstract

We study the problem of solving linear program in the streaming model. Given a constraint matrix A ∈ ℝ^{m×n} and vectors b ∈ ℝ^m, c ∈ ℝ^n, we develop a space-efficient interior point method that optimizes solely on the dual program. To this end, we obtain efficient algorithms for various different problems: - For general linear programs, we can solve them in Õ(√n log(1/ε)) passes and Õ(n²) space for an ε-approximate solution. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most efficient LP solver in streaming with no polynomial dependence on m for both space and passes. - For bipartite graphs, we can solve the minimum vertex cover and maximum weight matching problem in Õ(√m) passes and Õ(n) space. In addition to our space-efficient IPM, we also give algorithms for solving SDD systems and isolation lemma in Õ(n) spaces, which are the cornerstones for our graph results.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Streaming, sublinear and near linear time algorithms
  • Theory of computation → Linear programming
Keywords
  • Convex optimization
  • interior point method
  • streaming algorithm

Metrics

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

Related Versions

References

  1. Kook Jin Ahn and Sudipto Guha. Graph sparsification in the semi-streaming model. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 328-338. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  2. Kook Jin Ahn and Sudipto Guha. Linear programming in the semi-streaming model with application to the maximum matching problem. In ICALP, pages 526-538. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. Kook Jin Ahn and Sudipto Guha. Access to data and number of iterations: Dual primal algorithms for maximum matching under resource constraints. ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing (TOPC), 4(4):1-40, 2018. Google Scholar
  4. Josh Alman and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. A refined laser method and faster matrix multiplication. In SODA, 2021. Google Scholar
  5. Sepehr Assadi, MohammadHossein Bateni, Aaron Bernstein, Vahab Mirrokni, and Cliff Stein. Coresets meet EDCS: algorithms for matching and vertex cover on massive graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1616-1635. SIAM, 2019. Google Scholar
  6. Sepehr Assadi, Arun Jambulapati, Yujia Jin, Aaron Sidford, and Kevin Tian. Semi-streaming bipartite matching in fewer passes and optimal space. In SODA. arXiv preprint, 2022. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.03495.
  7. Sepehr Assadi, Nikolai Karpov, and Qin Zhang. Distributed and streaming linear programming in low dimensions. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pages 236-253, 2019. Google Scholar
  8. Sepehr Assadi, Gillat Kol, Raghuvansh R. Saxena, and Huacheng Yu. Multi-pass graph streaming lower bounds for cycle counting, max-cut, matching size, and other problems. In FOCS, 2020. Google Scholar
  9. Sepehr Assadi, S. Cliff Liu, and Robert E. Tarjan. An auction algorithm for bipartite matching in streaming and massively parallel computation models. In The SIAM Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA@SODA'21), 2021. Google Scholar
  10. Sepehr Assadi and Ran Raz. Near-quadratic lower bounds for two-pass graph streaming algorithms. In FOCS, 2020. Google Scholar
  11. Aaron Bernstein. Improved bounds for matching in random-order streams. In ICALP, 2020. Google Scholar
  12. Jan van den Brand. A deterministic linear program solver in current matrix multiplication time. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 259-278. SIAM, 2020. Google Scholar
  13. Jan van den Brand, Yin Tat Lee, Aaron Sidford, and Zhao Song. Solving tall dense linear programs in nearly linear time. In STOC, 2020. Google Scholar
  14. Charles Carlson, Alexandra Kolla, Nikhil Srivastava, and Luca Trevisan. Optimal lower bounds for sketching graph cuts. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 2565-2569. SIAM, 2019. Google Scholar
  15. Timothy M Chan and Eric Y Chen. Multi-pass geometric algorithms. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 37(1):79-102, 2007. Google Scholar
  16. Yi-Jun Chang, Martin Farach-Colton, Tsan-Sheng Hsu, and Meng-Tsung Tsai. Streaming complexity of spanning tree computation. In 37th international symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS), 2020. Google Scholar
  17. Suresh Chari, Pankaj Rohatgi, and Aravind Srinivasan. Randomness-optimal unique element isolation with applications to perfect matching and related problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 24(5):1036-1050, 1995. Google Scholar
  18. Kenneth L Clarkson. Las vegas algorithms for linear and integer programming when the dimension is small. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 42(2):488-499, 1995. Google Scholar
  19. Michael B Cohen, Rasmus Kyng, Gary L Miller, Jakub W Pachocki, Richard Peng, Anup B Rao, and Shen Chen Xu. Solving sdd linear systems in nearly m log^1/2 n time. In Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(STOC), pages 343-352, 2014. Google Scholar
  20. Michael B Cohen, Yin Tat Lee, and Zhao Song. Solving linear programs in the current matrix multiplication time. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2019. Google Scholar
  21. Michael B. Cohen and Richard Peng. Lp row sampling by lewis weights. In Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '15, 2015. Google Scholar
  22. Samuel I Daitch and Daniel A Spielman. Faster approximate lossy generalized flow via interior point algorithms. In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 451-460, 2008. Google Scholar
  23. George B. Dantzig. Maximization of a linear function of variables subject to linear inequalities. In Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, Cowles Commission Monograph No. 13. ., 1951. Google Scholar
  24. Shahar Dobzinski, Noam Nisan, and Sigal Oren. Economic efficiency requires interaction. In Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 233-242, 2014. Google Scholar
  25. Sally Dong, Yin Tat Lee, and Guanghao Ye. A nearly-linear time algorithm for linear programs with small treewidth: A multiscale representation of robust central path. In STOC, 2021. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.05365.
  26. Sebastian Eggert, Lasse Kliemann, Peter Munstermann, and Anand Srivastav. Bipartite matching in the semi-streaming model. Algorithmica, 63(1-2):490-508, 2012. Google Scholar
  27. Alireza Farhadi, Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, Tung Mah, Anup Rao, and Ryan A Rossi. Approximate maximum matching in random streams. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1773-1785. SIAM, 2020. Google Scholar
  28. Maryam Fazel, Yin Tat Lee, Swati Padmanabhan, and Aaron Sidford. Computing lewis weights to high precision. In SODA, 2021. Google Scholar
  29. Joan Feigenbaum, Sampath Kannan, Andrew McGregor, Siddharth Suri, and Jian Zhang. On graph problems in a semi-streaming model. In ICALP, pages 531-543. Springer, 2004. Google Scholar
  30. Joan Feigenbaum, Sampath Kannan, Andrew McGregor, Siddharth Suri, and Jian Zhang. Graph distances in the data-stream model. SIAM Journal on Computing, 38(5):1709-1727, 2009. Google Scholar
  31. Francois Le Gall and Florent Urrutia. Improved rectangular matrix multiplication using powers of the coppersmith-winograd tensor. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms(SODA), pages 1029-1046, 2018. Google Scholar
  32. Ashish Goel, Michael Kapralov, and Sanjeev Khanna. On the communication and streaming complexity of maximum bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 468-485. SIAM, 2012. Google Scholar
  33. Yuzhou Gu and Zhao Song. A faster small treewidth sdp solver. arXiv preprint, 2022. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06033.
  34. Baihe Huang, Shunhua Jiang, Zhao Song, Runzhou Tao, and Ruizhe Zhang. Solving tall dense sdps in the current matrix multiplication time. In FOCS, 2022. Google Scholar
  35. Shunhua Jiang, Zhao Song, Omri Weinstein, and Hengjie Zhang. Faster dynamic matrix inverse for faster lps. In STOC, 2021. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07470.
  36. Michael Kapralov. Better bounds for matchings in the streaming model. In Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 1679-1697. SIAM, 2013. Google Scholar
  37. Michael Kapralov, Sanjeev Khanna, and Madhu Sudan. Approximating matching size from random streams. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms (SODA), pages 734-751. SIAM, 2014. Google Scholar
  38. Michael Kapralov, Yin Tat Lee, Cameron Musco, Christopher Musco, and Aaron Sidford. Single pass spectral sparsification in dynamic streams. SIAM J. Comput., 46(1):456-477, 2017. Google Scholar
  39. Michael Kapralov, Aida Mousavifar, Cameron Musco, Christopher Musco, Navid Nouri, Aaron Sidford, and Jakab Tardos. Fast and space efficient spectral sparsification in dynamic streams. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1814-1833. SIAM, 2020. Google Scholar
  40. Michael Kapralov, Navid Nouri, Aaron Sidford, and Jakab Tardos. Dynamic streaming spectral sparsification in nearly linear time and space. In arXiv preprint, 2019. Google Scholar
  41. Narendra Karmarkar. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. In Proceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(STOC), pages 302-311. ACM, 1984. Google Scholar
  42. Jonathan A Kelner and Alex Levin. Spectral sparsification in the semi-streaming setting. In STACS, 2011. Google Scholar
  43. Jonathan A Kelner, Lorenzo Orecchia, Aaron Sidford, and Zeyuan Allen Zhu. A simple, combinatorial algorithm for solving sdd systems in nearly-linear time. In Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 911-920, 2013. Google Scholar
  44. Leonid G Khachiyan. Polynomial algorithms in linear programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 20(1):53-72, 1980. Google Scholar
  45. Ioannis Koutis, Gary L. Miller, and Richard Peng. Approaching optimality for solving sdd linear systems. In FOCS, pages 235-244, 2010. Google Scholar
  46. Ioannis Koutis, Gary L Miller, and Richard Peng. A nearly-m log n time solver for sdd linear systems. In 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 590-598, 2011. Google Scholar
  47. Rasmus Kyng and Sushant Sachdeva. Approximate gaussian elimination for laplacians-fast, sparse, and simple. In 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 573-582. IEEE, 2016. Google Scholar
  48. François Le Gall. Powers of tensors and fast matrix multiplication. In Proceedings of the 39th international symposium on symbolic and algebraic computation (ISSAC), pages 296-303. ACM, 2014. Google Scholar
  49. Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Path finding i: Solving linear programs with Õ (√rank) linear system solves. arXiv preprint, 2013. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6677.
  50. Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Path finding ii: An Õ (m √n) algorithm for the minimum cost flow problem. arXiv preprint, 2013. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6713.
  51. Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Path finding methods for linear programming: Solving linear programs in O(√rank) iterations and faster algorithms for maximum flow. In 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 424-433. IEEE, 2014. Google Scholar
  52. Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Efficient inverse maintenance and faster algorithms for linear programming. In 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 230-249. IEEE, 2015. Google Scholar
  53. Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Solving linear programs with sqrt (rank) linear system solves. arXiv preprint, 2019. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08033.
  54. Yin Tat Lee, Aaron Sidford, and Sam Chiu-wai Wong. A faster cutting plane method and its implications for combinatorial and convex optimization. In 56th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2015. Google Scholar
  55. Yin Tat Lee, Zhao Song, and Qiuyi Zhang. Solving empirical risk minimization in the current matrix multiplication time. In COLT, 2019. Google Scholar
  56. D. Lewis. Finite dimensional subspaces of l_p. Studia Mathematica, 1978. Google Scholar
  57. S Cliff Liu, Zhao Song, Hengjie Zhang, Lichen Zhang, and Tianyi Zhou. Space-efficient interior point method, with applications to linear programming and maximum weight bipartite matching. arXiv, 2020. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06106.
  58. Yang P Liu, Arun Jambulapati, and Aaron Sidford. Parallel reachability in almost linear work and square root depth. In 2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1664-1686. IEEE, 2019. Google Scholar
  59. Andrew McGregor. Finding graph matchings in data streams. In Approximation, Randomization and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, pages 170-181. Springer, 2005. Google Scholar
  60. Ketan Mulmuley, Umesh V Vazirani, and Vijay V Vazirani. Matching is as easy as matrix inversion. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 345-354, 1987. Google Scholar
  61. Yu Nesterov and Arkadi Nemirovsky. Self-concordant functions and polynomial-time methods in convex programming. Report, Central Economic and Mathematic Institute, USSR Acad. Sci, 1989. Google Scholar
  62. Ami Paz and Gregory Schwartzman. A (2+ε)-approximation for maximum weight matching in the semi-streaming model. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 2153-2161, 2017. Google Scholar
  63. Richard Peng and Daniel A Spielman. An efficient parallel solver for sdd linear systems. In Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 333-342, 2014. Google Scholar
  64. James Renegar. A polynomial-time algorithm, based on newton’s method, for linear programming. Mathematical Programming, 40(1-3):59-93, 1988. Google Scholar
  65. Zhao Song and Zheng Yu. Oblivious sketching-based central path method for solving linear programming. In ICML, 2021. Google Scholar
  66. Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. Nearly-linear time algorithms for graph partitioning, graph sparsification, and solving linear systems. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 81-90. https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0310051, divided into https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3232, https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4134, https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0607105, 2004.
  67. Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. Nearly linear time algorithms for preconditioning and solving symmetric, diagonally dominant linear systems. SIAM J. Matrix Analysis Applications, 35(3):835-885, 2014. Google Scholar
  68. Pravin M Vaidya. An algorithm for linear programming which requires O(((m+ n) n²+ (m+ n)^1.5 n) L)arithmetic operations. In FOCS. IEEE, 1987. Google Scholar
  69. Pravin M Vaidya. Speeding-up linear programming using fast matrix multiplication. In FOCS. IEEE, 1989. Google Scholar
  70. Virginia Vassilevska Williams. Multiplying matrices faster than coppersmith-winograd. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 887-898. ACM, 2012. Google Scholar
  71. Guanghao Ye. Fast Algorithm for Solving Structured Convex Programs. Bachelor’s thesis, University of Washington, 2021. 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
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact