View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lower Bounds for NNS and Metric Expansion
Rina Panigrahy Kunal TalwarUdi Wieder
Microsoft Research SVC
Nearest Neighbor Search
Given points in a metric spacePreprocess into a small data structure
Given a query point Quickly retrieve the closest to
Many Applications
Decision Version. Given search radius r
• Find a point in distance r of query point• Relation to Approximate NNS:– If second neighbor is at distance cr– Then this is also a c-approximate NN
r
cr
Cell Probe Model
Preprocess into data structure with– words– bits per word
Query algorithm gets charged t if it probes words of – All computation is free
Study tradeoff between and In this talk
m
w
mws
Many different lower bounds
Metric space
Approximation
Randomized?
Ref
Exact yes PT[06], BR[02]
no PT[06], Liu[04]
yes AIP[06]
yes PTW[08]
no ACP[08]
n.exp(ϵ3 d)
Lower bounds from Expansion
Show a unified approach for proving cell probe lower bounds for near neighbor and other similar problems.
Show that all lower bounds stem from the same combinatorial property of the metric space
Expansion : |number of points near A|/|A|
(show some new lower bounds)
Graphical Nearest Neighbor
• Convert metric space to Graph• Place an edge if nodes are within
distance r• Return a neighbor of the query. Now
r=1
Graphical Nearest Neighbor
• Assume uniform degree • Use a random data set• Assume W.h.p the n balls are disjoint.
Deterministic Bounds via Expansion
•
Deterministic Bound
• sdddddddddddddddlklkj
Example Application( 𝑠𝑡𝑛 )𝑡
≥Φ (G )
•
n.exp(ϵ2d)
Proof Idea when t=1 Shattering
( 𝑠𝑡𝑛 )𝑡
≥Φ (G )
• F : V → [m] partitions V into m regions
• Split large regions• A random ball is
shattered into many parts: about ф(G)
• ф(G) replication in space
Proof Idea when t=1
• determines which cell in is read
• Select a fraction of cells such
• it is likely that cantains a quarter of the data set points
• So, and
( 𝑠𝑡𝑛 )𝑡
≥Φ (G )
Generalizing for larger t
• Select a fraction of each table such
• Continue as before– Non adaptive
algorithms
• Adaptive alg. depend upon content of selected cells– Subexp. number of
algs– Union bound
Randomized Bounds
• So far we assumed the algorithm is correct on –What if only of are good query point?
Need to relax the definition of vertex expansion
Randomized Bounds
• Robust Expansion
A
N(A)
• N(A) captures all edges from A
• Expansion =|N(A)|/|A|
• Capture only ¾ of the edges from A
Robust Exapnsion• Small set vertex expansion:
• In other words:We can cover all the edges incident on with a set of size
• We can cover of the edges incident on with a set of size
– Robust expansion is at least the edge expansion
Bound for Randomized Data Structure
• Theorem: if is weakly Independent, then a randomized data structure that answers GNS queries with space and queries must satisfy
and
Proof Idea when t=1 Shattering
• Most of a random ball is shattered into many parts: about фr
• фr replication in space
Generalizing for larger t
• Sample 1/фr1/t
fraction from each table.
• A random ball, good part survives in all tables.
• Union bound for adaptive is trickier.
Applications
• We know how to calculate robust expansion of graphs derived from:– when (known) – when (new)– when (natural input dist.)
• Don’t know the robust expansion of:– – when
General Upper Bound
• Say is a Cayley Graph
• Take • Take with r.e. • Use random
translations of to define the access function
• For rand. input success prob. is constant
Conclusions and Open Problems
Unified approach to NNS cell probe lower bounds– often characterized by expansion – Average case with natural distributions
• Higher lower bounds?– Improve dependency on (very hard)– Dynamic NNS, tight bound for special
cases shown in the paper
Approximate Near Neighbor Search
• sdfsdfsffjlaskdjffj
• gdgsgsdfgdfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffkffffsdfgddddddjffjdfgdfg
Graphical Nearest Neighbor
•
Randomized Bounds
• So far we assumed the algorithm is correct on –What if only of are good query point?
Need to relax the definition of vertex expansion and independence
is weakly independent if for random it holds that
Deterministic Bounds via Expansion
•
Proof Idea
• Can we plug the new definitions in the old proof?– Conceptually – yes!– Actually….well no
• Dependencies everywhere – the set of good neighbors of a data point depends upon the rest of the data set
• Solving this is the technical crux of the paper