[Paleopsych] Sigma Xi: On the Threshold
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Fri Jan 13 16:53:42 UTC 2006
On the Threshold
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18577?&print=yes
January-February 2003 COMPUTING SCIENCE
[Best to click the URL.]
[31]Brian Hayes
Last night I called technical support for the universe to report a
bug. They kept me on hold for eternity, but finally I lodged my
complaint: Some things in this world take entirely too long to
compute--exponentially so, in the worst cases. "That's not a bug,
that's a feature," was the inevitable reply. "It keeps the universe
from running down too fast. Besides, NP-complete calculations are an
unsupported option, which void your warranty. And where is it written
that anything at all is guaranteed to be efficiently computable? Count
yourself lucky that 1+1 is a polynomial-time calculation."
Perhaps cosmic tech support is right: Quick and easy answers to
computational questions are not something we are entitled to expect in
this world. Still, it's puzzling that some calculations are so much
harder than others. The classic example is multiplication versus
factoring. If you are given two prime numbers, it's easy to multiply
them, yielding a bigger number as the product. But trying to undo this
process--to take the product and recover the two unknown
factors--seems to be much more difficult. We have fast algorithms for
multiplying but not for factoring. Why is that?
Although such questions stump the help desk, there has been some
progress lately in understanding the sources of difficulty in at least
one family of computational tasks, those known as
constraint-satisfaction problems. The new line of inquiry doesn't
quite explain why some of these problems are hard and others are easy,
but it traces the boundary between the two classes in considerable
detail. Furthermore, a better map of the problem-solving landscape has
led to a novel algorithm that pushes back a little further the
frontier of intractability. The algorithm, called survey propagation,
could well have important practical applications.
Where the Hard Problems Are
The new algorithm weaves together threads from at least three
disciplines: mathematics, computer science and physics. The theme that
binds them all together is the presence of sudden transitions from one
kind of behavior to another.
The mathematical thread begins in the 1960s with the study of random
graphs, initiated by Paul Erdos and Alfred Rényi. In this context a
graph is not a chart or plot but a more abstract mathematical
structure--a collection of vertices and edges, generally drawn as a
network of dots (the vertices) and connecting lines (the edges). To
draw a random graph, start by sprinkling n vertices on the page, then
consider all possible pairings of the vertices, choosing randomly with
probability p whether or not to draw an edge connecting each pair.
When p is near 0, edges are rare, and the graph consists of many
small, disconnected pieces, or components. As p increases, the graph
comes to be dominated by a single "giant" component, which includes
most of the vertices. The existence of this giant component is hardly
a surprise, but the manner in which it develops is not obvious. The
component does not evolve gradually as p increases but emerges
suddenly when a certain threshold is crossed. The threshold is defined
by a parameter I'll call , which is the number of edges divided by the
number of vertices. The giant component is born when is about 1/2.
[33]Figure 1. Graph coloring . . .
In computer science, a similar threshold phenomenon came to widespread
attention in the early 1990s. In this case the threshold governs the
likelihood that certain computational problems have a solution. One of
these problems comes straight out of graph theory: It is the
k-coloring problem, which asks you to paint each vertex of a graph
with one of k colors, under the rule that two vertices joined by an
edge may not have the same color. Finding an acceptable coloring gets
harder as increases, because there are more edges imposing constraints
on each vertex. Again, the threshold is sharp: Below a certain ratio,
almost all graphs are k-colorable, and above this threshold almost
none are. Moreover, the threshold affects not only the existence of
solutions but also the difficulty of finding them. The computational
effort needed to decide whether a graph is k-colorable has a dramatic
peak near the critical value of . (An influential paper about this
effect was aptly titled "Where the really hard problems are.")
Physicists also know something about threshold phenomena; they call
them phase transitions. But are the changes of state observed in
random graphs and in constraint-satisfaction problems truly analogous
to physical events such as the freezing of water and the onset of
magnetization in iron? Or is the resemblance a mere coincidence? For a
time there was controversy over this issue, but it's now clear that
the threshold phenomena in graphs and other mathematical structures
are genuine phase transitions. The tools and techniques of statistical
physics are ideally suited to them. In particular, the k-coloring
problem can be mapped directly onto a model of a magnetic system in
solid-state physics. The survey-propagation algorithm draws on ideas
developed originally to describe such physical models.
Where the Hard Problems Aren't
Survey propagation is really a family of algorithms, which could be
applied in many different realms. So far, the method has been tested
on two specific problems. The first of these is Boolean
satisfiability, or SAT, where the aim is to solve a large formula in
symbolic logic, assigning values of true or false to all the variables
in such a way that the entire formula evaluates to true. The second
problem is k-coloring. Because I have written about satisfiability on
an earlier occasion, I shall adopt k-coloring as the main example
here. I focus on three-coloring, where the palette of available colors
has just three entries.
Three-coloring is a hard problem, but not an impossible one. The
question "Is this graph three-colorable?" can always be answered, at
least in principle. Since each vertex can be assigned any of three
colors, and there are n vertices, there must be exactly 3 ^n ways of
coloring the graph. To decide whether a specific graph is
three-colorable, just work through all the combinations one by one. If
you find an assignment that satisfies the constraint--that is, where
no edges yoke together like-colored vertices--then the answer to the
question is yes. If you exhaust all the possibilities without finding
a proper coloring, you can be certain that none exists.
This algorithm is simple and sure. Unfortunately, it's also useless,
because enumerating 3 ^n colorings is beyond the realm of practicality
for any n larger than 15 or 20. Some more-sophisticated procedures can
retain the guarantee of an exact and exhaustive search while reducing
the number of operations to fewer than 1.5 ^n . This is a dramatic
improvement, but it is still an exponential function, and it merely
raises the limit to n=50 or so. For large graphs, with thousands of
vertices, all such brute-force methods are hopeless.
On the other hand, if you could somehow peek at the solution to a
large three-coloring problem, you could check its correctness with
much less labor. All you would have to do is go through the list of
edges, verifying that the vertices at the ends of each edge carry
different colors. The number of edges in a graph cannot be greater
than n ^2, which is a polynomial rather than an exponential function
and which therefore grows much more slowly.
Problems with answers that are hard to find but easy to check are the
characteristic signature of the class called NP (which stands for
"nondeterministic polynomial"). Three-coloring is a charter member of
NP and also belongs to the more-elite group of problems described as
NP-complete; the same is true of satisfiability. Barring a miracle,
there will be no polynomial-time algorithms for NP-complete problems.
Having thus established the credentials of three-coloring as a
certifiably hard problem, it is now time to reveal that most
three-coloring problems on random graphs are actually quite easy.
Given a typical graph, you have a good chance of quickly finding a
three-coloring or proving that none exists. There is no real paradox
in this curious situation. The classification of three-coloring as
NP-complete is based on a worst-case analysis. It could be overturned
only by an algorithm that is guaranteed to produce the correct answer
and to run in polynomial time on every possible graph. No one has
discovered such an algorithm. But there are many algorithms that run
quickly most of the time, if you are willing to tolerate an occasional
failure.
One popular strategy for graph-coloring algorithms is backtracking. It
is similar to the way most people would attack the problem if they
were to try coloring a graph by hand. You start by assigning an
arbitrary color to an arbitrary vertex, then go on to the neighboring
vertices, giving them any colors that do not cause a conflict.
Continuing in this way, you may eventually reach a vertex where no
color is legal; at that point you must back up, undoing some of your
previous choices, and try again.
[35]Figure 2. Transition between solvable and unsolvable phases . . .
Showing that a graph cannot be three-colored calls for another kind of
algorithm. The basic approach is to search for a small cluster of
vertices that--even in isolation from the rest of the graph--cannot be
three-colored. For example, a "clique" made up of four vertices that
are all linked to one another has this property. If you can find just
one such cluster, it settles the question for the entire graph.
Algorithms like these are very different from the brute-force,
exhaustive-search methods. The simple enumeration of all 3 ^n
colorings may be impossibly slow, but at least it's consistent; the
running time is the same on all graphs of the same size. This is not
true for backtracking and other inexact or incomplete algorithms;
their performance varies widely depending on the nature of the graph.
In particular, the algorithms are sensitive to the value of , the
ratio of edges to vertices, which again is the parameter that controls
the transition between colorable and uncolorable phases. Well below
the critical value of , where edges are sparse, there are so many ways
to color the graph successfully that any reasonable strategy is likely
to stumble onto one of them. At the opposite extreme, far above the
threshold, graphs are densely interconnected, and it's easy to find a
subgraph that spoils the chance of a three-coloring. The troublesome
region is between these poles, near the threshold. In that middle
ground there may be just a few proper colorings, or there may be none
at all. Distinguishing between these two situations can require
checking almost every possible assignment.
Where the Solutions Are
The critical value of is about 2.35. In other words, if a random graph
with n vertices has fewer than 2.35n edges, it can almost surely be
three-colored; if it has more than 2.35n edges, a three-coloring is
unlikely. Moreover, the transition between these two regimes is known
to be sharp; it is a true discontinuity, a sudden jump rather than a
smooth gradation. To put this idea more formally, the width of the
transitional region tends to zero as n tends to infinity.
The sharpness of the phase transition could be taken as encouraging
news. If algorithms for deciding colorability bog down only in the
transitional region, and if that region is vanishingly narrow, then
the probability of encountering a hard-to-classify graph is
correspondingly small. But it seems the universe has another bug (or
feature). In the first place, the sharpness of the colorability
transition is assured only for infinitely large graphs; at finite n,
the corners of the transition curve are rounded. And there is another
disrupting factor, which has been recognized only recently. It has to
do not with the structure of the graph itself but with the structure
of the set of all solutions to the coloring problem.
Although the uncolorable phase does not begin until ~ 2.35,
experiments have shown that algorithms begin slowing down somewhat
earlier, at values of around 2.2. The discrepancy may seem
inconsequential, but it is too large to be explained merely by the
blurring of the phase transition at finite n. Something else is going
on.
[37]Figure 3. Computational effort . . .
To understand the cause, it helps to think of all the possible
three-colorings of a graph spread out over a surface. The height of
the surface at any point represents the number of conflicts in the
corresponding coloring. Thus the perfect colorings (those with zero
conflicts) all lie at sea level, while the worst colorings create
high-altitude peaks or plateaus. Of course the topography of this
landscape depends on the particular graph. Consider how the surface
evolves as gradually increases. At low values of there are broad
basins and valleys, representing the many ways to color the graph
perfectly. At high the landscape is alpine, and even the lowest point
is well above sea level, implying a complete absence of perfect
colorings. The transitional value ~ 2.35 marks the moment when the
last extensive areas of land at sea level disappear.
What happens in this "solution space" at ~ 2.2? It turns out this is
the moment when a broad expanse of bottomland begins breaking up into
smaller isolated basins. Below 2.2, nearly all the perfect colorings
form a single giant connected cluster. They are connected in the sense
that you can convert one solution into another by making relatively
few changes, and without introducing too many conflicts in any of the
intermediate stages. Above 2.2, each basin represents an isolated
cluster of solutions. Colorings that lie in separate basins are
substantially different, and converting one into another would require
climbing over a ridge formed by colorings that have large numbers of
conflicts. Algorithms that work by conducting a local search are
unlikely to cross such ridge lines, and so they remain confined for
long periods to whichever basin they first wander into. As increases
above 2.2, the number of perfect colorings within any one basin
dwindles away to zero, and so the algorithms may fail to find a
solution, even though many proper colorings still exist elsewhere on
the solution surface.
This vision of solutions spread out over an undulating landscape is a
familiar conceptual device in many areas of physics. Often the
landscape is interpreted as an energy surface, and physical systems
are assumed to run downhill toward states of minimum energy. This
analogy can be pursued further, setting up a direct correspondence
between the k-coloring of graphs and a model of magnetic materials.
Where the Spins Are
Models of magnetism come in baffling varieties. The basic components
are vectors that represent atomic spins. Usually the spins are
arranged in a regular lattice, as in a crystalline solid, and the
vectors are constrained to point in only a few possible directions. In
a model of a ferromagnet, nearby spins have positive couplings,
meaning that the energy of the system is lower when the spins line up
in parallel. An antiferromagnet has negative couplings, favoring spins
that point in different directions. The problem of three-coloring a
graph can be seen as a model of an antiferromagnet in which each spin
has three possible directions, corresponding to the three colors. It
is antiferromagnetic because the favored state is one where the colors
or the spins differ.
[39]Figure 4. Random walks through the space of graph colorings . . .
Most spin-system models focus on the effects of thermal fluctuations
and the countervailing imperatives to minimize energy and to maximize
entropy. In this respect the graph-coloring model is simpler than
most, because the condition of interest is at zero temperature, where
entropy can be neglected. On the other hand, the model is more
complicated in another way: The spins are embedded in a graph with
random interconnections, more like a glass than the geometrically
regular lattice of a crystal.
Having translated the coloring problem into the language of spin
physics, the aim is to identify the ground state--the spin
configuration of minimum energy. If the ground-state energy is zero,
then at least one perfect coloring exists. If the energy of the spins
cannot be reduced to zero, then the corresponding graph is not
three-colorable. The minimum energy indicates how many unavoidable
conflicts exist in the colored graph.
Of course recasting the problem in a new vocabulary doesn't make the
fundamental difficulty go away. In graph coloring, when you resolve a
conflict by changing the color of one vertex, you may create a new
conflict elsewhere in the graph. Likewise in the spin system, when you
lower the energy of one pair of coupled spins, you may raise it for a
different pair. Physicists refer to this effect as "frustration."
Interactions between adjacent spins can be viewed as a kind of
message-passing, in which each spin tells its neighbors what they
ought to do (or, since the coupling is antiferromagnetic, what they
ought not to do). Translating back into the language of graph
coloring, a green vertex broadcasts a signal to its neighbors saying
"Don't be green." The neighbors send back messages of their
own--"Don't be red," "Don't be blue." The trouble is, every edge is
carrying messages in both directions, some of which may be
contradictory. And feedback loops could prevent the network from ever
settling down into a stable state.
A remedy for this kind of frustration is known in condensed-matter
physics as the cavity method. It prescribes the following sequence of
actions: First, choose a single spin and temporarily remove it from
the system (thereby creating a "cavity"). Now, from among the
neighbors surrounding the cavity, choose one node to regard as an
output and consider the rest to be inputs. Sum up the signals arriving
on all the input edges, and pass along the result to the output. The
effect is to break open loops and enforce one-way communication.
Finally, repeat the entire procedure with another spin, and continue
until the system converges on some steady state.
The cavity method was first applied to constraint-satisfaction
problems by Marc Mézard of the Université de Paris Sud, Giorgio Parisi
of the Università di Roma "La Sapienza" and Riccardo Zecchina of the
Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste.
Initially it was a tool for calculating the average properties of
statistical ensembles of many spin systems. About a year ago, Mézard
and Zecchina realized that it could also be adapted to work with
individual problem instances. But a significant change was needed.
Instead of simple messages such as "Don't be green," the information
transmitted from node to node consists of entire probability
distributions, which give a numerical rating to each possible spin
state or vertex color.
Mézard and Zecchina named the algorithm survey propagation. They got
the "propagation" part from another algorithm that also inspired their
work: a technique called belief propagation, which is used in certain
error-correcting codes. "Survey" is meant in the sense of opinion
poll: The sites surrounding a cavity are surveyed for the advice they
would offer to their neighbors.
Where the Bugs Are
Over the past year the concept of survey propagation has been further
refined and embodied in a series of computer programs by Mézard and
Zecchina and a group of coworkers. Contributors include Alfredo
Braunstein, Silvio Franz, Michele Leone, Andrea Montanari, Roberto
Mulet, Andrea Pagnani, Federico Ricci-Tersenghi and Martin Weigt.
To solve a three-coloring problem on a graph of size n, the algorithm
first finds the vertex that is most highly biased toward one color or
another, and permanently sets the color of that vertex accordingly.
Then the algorithm is invoked recursively on the remaining graph of
n-1 vertices, so that another vertex color is fixed. Obviously this
process has to terminate after no more than n repetitions. In practice
it usually stops sooner, when all the signals propagating through the
network have become messages of indifference, putting no constraints
on neighboring nodes. At this point survey propagation has nothing
more to offer, but the graph that remains has been reduced to a
trivial case for other methods.
As with other algorithms for NP-complete problems, survey propagation
comes with no guarantees, and it does sometimes fail. The process of
deciding which vertex to fix next is not infallible, and when a wrong
choice is made, there may be no later opportunity to recover from it.
(Adding some form of backtracking or randomized restarting might
alleviate this problem.) In its present form the algorithm is also
strictly one-sided: It can usually color a colorable graph, but it
cannot prove a graph to be uncolorable.
Nevertheless, the algorithm has already had some impressive successes,
particularly in the hard-to-solve region near the phase transition.
The version for satisfiability has solved problems with 8 million
variables. The graph-coloring program handles graphs of a million
vertices. Both of these numbers are two orders of magnitude beyond
what is routine practice for other methods.
Graph coloring and satisfiability are not just toy problems for
theorists. They are at the core of various practical tasks in
scheduling, in the engineering of silicon circuits and in optimizing
computer programs. Having an algorithm capable of solving much larger
instances could open up still more applications.
Ironically, although survey propagation works well on enormous
problems, it sometimes stalls on much smaller instances, such as
random graphs with only a few hundred vertices. This is not a pressing
practical concern, since other methods work well in this size range,
but it's annoying, and there's the worry that the same failures might
show up in larger nonrandom graphs. The cause of these small-graph
failures is not yet clear. It may have to do with an abundance of
densely nested loops and other structures in the graphs. Then again,
it may be just another bug in the universe.
Brian Hayes
Acknowledgment
This article had its genesis during a 10-week residence at the Abdus
Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, where I benefitted
from discussions with Riccardo Zecchina, Muli Safra, Roberto Mulet,
Marc Mézard, Stephan Mertens, Alfredo Braunstein, Johannes Berg and
others.
Bibliography
* Achlioptas, Dimitris, and Ehud Friedgut. 1999. A sharp threshold
for k-colorability. Random Structures and Algorithms
14:63-70. [[40]CrossRef]
* Cheeseman, Peter, Bob Kanefsky and William M. Taylor. 1991. Where
the really hard problems are. In Proceedings of the International
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1, pp. 331-337.
* Dubois, O., R. Monasson, B. Selman and R. Zecchina (eds). 2001.
Special issue on phase transitions in combinatorial problems.
Theoretical Computer Science 265(1).
* Erdos, P., and A. Rnyi. 1960. On the evolution of random graphs.
Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences 5:17-61.
* Friedgut, Ehud, and Gil Kalai. 1996. Every monotone graph property
has a sharp threshold. Proceedings of the American Mathematical
Society 124:2993-3002.
* Gent, Ian P., and Toby Walsh (eds). 2002. Satisfiability in the
year 2000. Journal of Automated Reasoning 28(2).
* Hayes, Brian. 1997. Computing science: Can't get no satisfaction.
American Scientist 85:108-112. [[41]CrossRef]
* Johnson, David S., and Michael A. Trick (eds). 1996. Cliques,
Coloring, and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation
Challenge. Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society.
* Martin, Olivier C., Rmi Monasson and Riccardo Zecchina. 2001.
Statistical mechanics methods and phase transitions in
optimization problems. Theoretical Computer Science 265:3-67.
* Mzard, Marc, Giorgio Parisi and Miguel Angel Virasoro (eds). 1987.
Spin Glass Theory and Beyond. Philadelphia: World Scientific.
* Mzard, Marc, and Giorgio Parisi. 2002. The cavity method at zero
temperature. Journal of Statistical Physics (in
press). [[42]CrossRef]
* Mzard, M., G. Parisi and R. Zecchina. 2002. Analytic and
algorithmic solution of random satisfiability problem. Science
297:812-815.
* Mzard, Marc, and Riccardo Zecchina. 2002. Random 3-SAT: From an
analytic solution to a new efficient algorithm. Physical Review E
(in press).
* Mulet, R., A. Pagnani, M. Weigt and R. Zecchina. 2002. Coloring
random graphs. Physical Review Letters (in press). [[43]CrossRef]
* Turner, Jonathan S. 1988. Almost all k-colorable graphs are easy
to color. Journal of Algorithms 9:63-82.
References
31. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AuthorDetail/authorid/490
33.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18577?&print=yes#17741
35.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18577?&print=yes#17742
37.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18577?&print=yes#17743
39.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18577?&print=yes#17746
40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-2418%281999010%2914%3A1%3C63%3A%3AAID-RSA3%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7
41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-96-03732-X
42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00149-9
43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1073287
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list