proving non-reconstruction on trees by an iterative algorithm elitza maneva university of barcelona...

36
Elitza Maneva Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Upload: millicent-powers

Post on 30-Dec-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Elitza ManevaElitza ManevaUniversity of BarcelonaUniversity of Barcelona

joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Page 2: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University
Page 3: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

?

Page 4: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

001100

001111

110011

220011

2435243510261026 324324

Optimal Algorithm for Reconstruction: Belief Propagationcomputes the distribution at the root given the boundary

Page 5: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Random variable LR(n) : colors at vertices at level n.

For what degree is limn E[Pr [R at the root | LR(n)]] = 1/q ?

Page 6: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Random variable LR(n) : colors at vertices at level n.

For what degree is limndTV (LR(n), LG(n)) = 0 ?

Total variation distance:

dTV(, )=1/2 L D |(L)-(L)|

Page 7: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Interest in reconstruction (in chronological order)

• Probability: Extremality of the free-boundary Gibbs measure (since 1960s)

• Phylogeny: reconstructing ancestry tree of collection of species

• Physics: Replica symmetry breaking (dynamical transition) in spin-glasses

• Computer Science: Glauber dynamics, MCMC, message-passing algorithms

Page 8: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Space of solutions of random Constraint Satisfaction Problems

n variables

dn constraints are chosen at random

00

Easy Hard Unsat

ddr ds

Page 9: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

limndTV (LR(n), LG(n)) = 0

Tree: Random graph:

Page 10: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

limndTV (LR(n), LG(n)) = 0

limndTV (LR(n), LG(n)) > 0

Tree: Random graph:

Page 11: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

limndTV (LR(n), LG(n)) = 0

limndTV (LR(n), LG(n)) > 0

Tree: Random graph:

Conjecture

Page 12: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Other models

• Potts model: q colors, parameter [0,1]

color of child node = same as parent’s color with prob. every other color with prob.

(1- )/(q-1)

• Asymmetric channels: q colors, qq matrix M Mi, j = Prob [child gets color j | parent is color i]

• Same on Galton-Watson trees (i.e. random degrees)

• 3-SAT:

x1

x2x3 x4 x51 1 0

0

1

Page 13: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

RSB, clustering of solutions and reconstruction highlights

• [Mezard-Parisi-Zechina ‘03] Survey Propagation algorithm and satisfiability threshold calculation for 3-SAT and coloring, based on Replica Symmetry Breaking Ansatz.

• [Mezard-Montanari ‘06] The dynamic replica symmetry breaking threshold is the same as the threshold for reconstruction on the tree.

• [Achlioptas--Coja-Oghlan ‘08] For sufficiently large q, there exists a sequence q 0 s.t. the space of colorings is clustered for random graphs of average degree

(1+q ) q log q < d < (2- q) q log q.

• [Sly ‘08] For sufficiently large q: q (log q + log log q + 1 - ln 2 -o(1)) < dr < q (log q + log log q + 1+o(1))

Page 14: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

RSB, clustering of solutions and reconstruction highlights

• [Mezard-Parisi-Zechina ‘03] Survey Propagation algorithm and satisfiability threshold calculation for 3-SAT and coloring, based on Replica Symmetry Breaking Ansatz.

• [Mezard-Montanari ‘06] The dynamic replica symmetry breaking threshold is the same as the threshold for reconstruction on the tree.

• [Achlioptas--Coja-Oghlan ‘08] For sufficiently large q, there exists a sequence q 0 s.t. the space of colorings is clustered for random graphs of average degree

(1+q ) q log q < d < (2- q) q log q.

• [Sly ‘08] For sufficiently large q: q (log q + log log q + 1 - ln 2 -o(1)) < dr < q (log q + log log q + 1+o(1))

Page 15: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Easy lower bound by coupling

Page 16: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Easy lower bound by coupling

dreconstruction > q-1

Page 17: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Upper bound: boundary forcing the root

dreconstruction soln( ∑ (-1)j( )(q-1-jx)d /(q-1)d = x)q-1 j

q-1 j=0

Page 18: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

The bounds for coloring

• [Zdeborova-Krzakala ‘07] – Heuristic algorithm for computing threshold for general models– Heuristic analysis predicted the asymptotic result of Sly

• [Sly ‘08] [Bhatnagar-Vera-Vigoda ‘08] For q sufficiently large:

Hard step (need large q): After sufficiently many iterations dTV < 2/q.

Easy step: Given that dTV< 2/q, dTV goes to 0.

• [Bhatnagar-Maneva ‘09] – Rigorous algorithm for getting upper bounds on dTV for general

models– Concrete bounds on the threshold for Potts model with small q.

qq 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20

Lower bound 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19

Upper bound 5 9 14 19 24 29 35 41 104

[ZK07] (heur.) 5 8 13 17 22 28 33 38 100

Page 19: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Here we need: Recursion on the distribution over possible distributions at the root when the boundary is chosen at random.

001100

001111

110011

220011

2435243510261026 324324

BP: recursion on the distribution at the root given the boundary

Page 20: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

2435243510261026 324324

f:(Rq)d Rq

f i(1 2,…, d) = t=1 (ji t j)

|||| = i i

1 2,… d1 2,… d

dd

Some notation

Page 21: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Recursion on the tree depth

QGn random q-dim vector

QGn (R) := Prob[R|L], where L~ LG(n)

Pr[QGn+1 = ] = 1/(q-1)d Pr [f(Qc1

n, …, Qcdn) ]

c1,.., cd {1,..,q}\G

Page 22: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Population dynamics

Pr[QGn+1 = ] = 1/(q-1)d Pr [f(Qc1

n, …, Qcdn) ]

• Keep “populations” of N samples each from the distributions of QR

n, QGn, …etc.

• Generating the population of QGn+1:

– Choose d colors c1, …, cd from {1, …, q}\G independently

– Choose 1, …, d randomly respectively from the populations for Qc1

n, …, Qcdn

– Save f(1, …, d )/||f(1, …, d )|| into the population for QG

n+1

c1,..,cd {1,..,q}\G

Page 23: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Recursions on the tree depth

• Conditional recursion: QGn random q-dim vector

QGn (R) := Prob[R|L], where L~ LG(n)

Pr[QGn+1 = ] = 1/(q-1)d Pr [f(Qc1

n, …, Qcdn) ]

• Unconditional recursion: Qn random q-dim vector

Qn(R) := Prob[R|L], L is a random boundary

Pr[Qn+1= ] E[ ||f(Qn(1),…, Qn

(d))|| Ind[ f(Qn (1),…,Qn

(d)) ]

c1,.., cd {1,..,q}\G

Page 24: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Discrete surveys algorithm

Pr[Qn+1= ] E[ ||f(Qn(1),…, Qn

(d))|| Ind[f(Qn(1),…, Qn

(d)) ]

• Keep a “survey” of the distribution of Qn

• Generate the survey of Qn+1 by applying the recursion to the survey of Qn.

0 1

1

RR

GG

distrib. of Qn

0.08

0.11

0.05

0.25

Page 25: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Discrete surveys algorithm

Pr[Qn+1= ] E[ ||f(Qn(1),…, Qn

(d))|| Ind[f(Qn(1),…, Qn

(d)) ]

• Keep a “survey” of the distribution of Q_n

• Generate the survey of Qn+1 by applying the recursion to the survey of Qn.

0 1

1

RR

GG

distrib. of Qn

0 1

1

RR

GG

survey of Qn

0.08

0.11

0.05

0.25

Page 26: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Definition of a discrete survey

• Let P be the space of q-dim probability vectors.

• Let S = (S1, …, Sk) P and convex hull of S is <S>

• Let 1, … k be functions i:<S>[0,1], s.t for every <S>:

1. i i () =1

2. = i i() Si ( define a convex decomposition of ).

• Let P be a random element of P with support in <S>.

• Let C be a random element of S with Pr[C=Si] = E[i(P)].

• Then we say that

C is a survey of P on the skeleton (S, 1, … k)

Page 27: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Properties of discrete surveys

• Transitivity: If C is a survey of P and D is a survey of C then D is a survey of P.

• Mixing: If C1, C2 are surveys respectively of P1 and P2 then the r. v. with distribution the mixture p C1+(1-p) C2 is a survey of the r.v. with distribution p P1+(1-p) P2.

• For any multi-affine function f : PdP, if C1, …, Cd are surveys of P1, …, Pd then the r.v. D defined by

Pr[D=] E[ ||f(C1, …, Cd)|| x Ind [f(C1, …, Cd) ]] is a survey of the r.v. Q defined by

Pr[Q=] E[ ||f(P1, …, Pd)|| x Ind [f(P1, …, Pd) ]]

• For a convex function g on P, if C is a survey of P then E[g(P)] ≤ E[g(C)].

Page 28: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Manual part of the algorithm

• Selection of skeletons of small size k– complexity of the algorithm: O(nkd)– k generally needs to be exponential in q– the skeleton can be refined progressively

• Examples on Potts model:– q=3, d=3, =0 n=14, k=19 was enough– q=3, d=2, =0.79 n<100, k≤208 was enough– q=3, d=3, =0.7 n<100, k≤85 was enough– q=3, d=2 or 3, =0.74 n<100, k≤61 was enough

Page 29: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

A proof that dTV is small implies dTV 0

• There is no general strategy

• For Potts model, due to [Sly ‘09]:

xn:= EL~L (n)[Prob[R|L]-1/q]= q EL [ (Prob[R|L]-1/q)2]

we have xn+1 ≤ d 2 xn + c2(q,d,) xn2 +… +cd(q,d,) xn

d

• Thus we could find >0 and c<1 such that if xn< then xn+1 < c xn

R

Page 30: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Bound of Formentin and Külske ‘09

• α: stationary vector of positive matrix M

• S(p|α) := Σi p(i) log( p(i)/α(i) )

• L(p) := S(p|α) + S(α|p)• Mrev(i,j) := α(j) M(j, i)/α(i)

• c(M):= supp L(pMrev)/L(p)

Theorem: If E[d] c(M) < 1 then no reconstruction.

Page 31: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

Important Questions

• For the Potts model better bounds were obtained by [Formentin-Külske ‘09]. Could they be tight? Can their method be generalized to models with hard constraints?

• The design of the Survey Propagation algorithm also includes a discretization step - could this step be done in a controlled manner too?

• How are reconstruction on trees and clustering of solutions related?

Page 32: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

[Mezard, Montanari `05]

The dynamical transition at d correspond to the phase transition for reconstruction on the tree.

Page 33: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

[Mezard, Montanari `05]

The dynamical transition at d correspond to the phase transition for reconstruction on the tree.

Page 34: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

[Mezard, Montanari `05]

The dynamical transition at d correspond to the phase transition for reconstruction on the tree.

?

Page 35: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

[Allan Sly `08]

For q-coloring:

d ≤ q(log q + log log q + 1 + o(1)) (also [Zdeborova, Krzakala ’07])

d ≥ q(log q + log log q + 1 – ln 2 –o(1))

For constant q it is open. Estimates can be obtained

with population dynamics.

Page 36: Proving Non-Reconstruction on Trees by an Iterative Algorithm Elitza Maneva University of Barcelona joint work with N. Bhatnagar, Hebrew University

• What phenomena on the tree are described by the other transitions?

• Can we make population dynamics official? Find rigorous approximations for it?

(it would imply that 4.267 is an upper bound in the threshold by the results of [Franz, Leone `03] and [Talagrand Panchenko `03])

• About clustering: is “phase” and “cluster” really the same thing?