[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3406325.3451090acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Sparse nonnegative convolution is equivalent to dense nonnegative convolution

Published: 15 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Computing the convolution AB of two length-n vectors A,B is an ubiquitous computational primitive, with applications in a variety of disciplines. Within theoretical computer science, applications range from string problems to Knapsack-type problems, and from 3SUM to All-Pairs Shortest Paths. These applications often come in the form of nonnegative convolution, where the entries of A,B are nonnegative integers. The classical algorithm to compute AB uses the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and runs in time O(n logn).
However, in many cases A and B might satisfy sparsity conditions, and hence one could hope for significant gains compared to the standard FFT algorithm. The ideal goal would be an O(k logk)-time algorithm, where k is the number of non-zero elements in the output, i.e., the size of the support of AB. This problem is referred to as sparse nonnegative convolution, and has received a considerable amount of attention in the literature; the fastest algorithms to date run in time O(k log2 n).
The main result of this paper is the first O(k logk)-time algorithm for sparse nonnegative convolution. Our algorithm is randomized and assumes that the length n and the largest entry of A and B are subexponential in k. Surprisingly, we can phrase our algorithm as a reduction from the sparse case to the dense case of nonnegative convolution, showing that, under some mild assumptions, sparse nonnegative convolution is equivalent to dense nonnegative convolution for constant-error randomized algorithms. Specifically, if D(n) is the time to convolve two nonnegative length-n vectors with success probability 2/3, and S(k) is the time to convolve two nonnegative vectors with output size k with success probability 2/3, then S(k) = O(D(k) + k (loglogk)2).
Our approach uses a variety of new techniques in combination with some old machinery from linear sketching and structured linear algebra, as well as new insights on linear hashing, the most classical hash function.

References

[1]
Gaussian smoothing. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/gsmooth.htm.
[2]
Karl R. Abrahamson. Generalized string matching. SIAM J. Comput., 16(6):1039–1051, 1987.
[3]
Peyman Afshani, Casper B. Freksen, Lior Kamma, and Kasper G. Larsen. Lower bounds for multiplication via network coding. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP '19, pages 10:1–10:12. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2019.
[4]
Amihood Amir, Ayelet Butman, and Ely Porat. On the relationship between histogram indexing and block-mass indexing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372, 2014.
[5]
Amihood Amir, Oren Kapah, and Ely Porat. Deterministic length reduction: Fast convolution in sparse data and applications. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching, CPM '07, pages 183–194. Springer, 2007.
[6]
Amihood Amir, Moshe Lewenstein, and Ely Porat. Faster algorithms for string matching with $k$ mismatches. J. Algorithms, 50(2):257–275, 2004.
[7]
Andrew Arnold and Daniel S. Roche. Output-sensitive algorithms for sumset and sparse polynomial multiplication. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC '15, pages 29–36. ACM, 2015.
[8]
MohammadHossein Bateni, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Saeed Seddighin, and Cliff Stein. Fast algorithms for knapsack via convolution and prediction. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '18, pages 1269–1282. ACM, 2018.
[9]
Michael Ben-Or and Prasoon Tiwari. A deterministic algorithm for sparse multivariate polynomial interpolation. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '88, pages 301–309. ACM, 1988.
[10]
Leo I. Bluestein. A linear filtering approach to the computation of discrete Fourier transform. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 18(4):451–455, 1970.
[11]
Karl Bringmann. A near-linear pseudopolynomial time algorithm for subset sum. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA '17, pages 1073–1084. SIAM, 2017.
[12]
Karl Bringmann and Vasileios Nakos. Top-$k$-convolution and the quest for near-linear output-sensitive subset sum. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '20, pages 982–995. ACM, 2020.
[13]
David E. Cardoze and Leonard J. Schulman. Pattern matching for spatial point sets. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '98, pages 156–165. IEEE Computer Society, 1998.
[14]
Timothy M. Chan and Qizheng He. Reducing 3SUM to convolution-3SUM. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms, SOSA '20, pages 1–7. SIAM, 2020.
[15]
Timothy M. Chan and Moshe Lewenstein. Clustered integer 3SUM via additive combinatorics. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '15, pages 31–40. ACM, 2015.
[16]
Richard Cole and Ramesh Hariharan. Verifying candidate matches in sparse and wildcard matching. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '02, pages 592–601. ACM, 2002.
[17]
A. Dutt and Vladimir Rokhlin. Fast Fourier transforms for nonequispaced data. SIAM J. Comput., 14(6):1368–1393, 1993.
[18]
Michael J. Fischer and Michael S. Paterson. String matching and other products. Complexity of Computation, 7:113–125, 1974.
[19]
Anna C. Gilbert, Sudipto Guha, Piotr Indyk, S. Muthukrishnan, and Martin J. Strauss. Near-optimal sparse Fourier representations via sampling. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '02, pages 152–161. ACM, 2002.
[20]
Anna C. Gilbert, Yi Li, Ely Porat, and Martin J. Strauss. Approximate sparse recovery: Optimizing time and measurements. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '10, pages 475–484. ACM, 2010.
[21]
Anna C. Gilbert, S. Muthukrishnan, and Martin J. Strauss. Improved time bounds for near-optimal space Fourier representations. Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005.
[22]
Anna C. Gilbert, Hung Q. Ngo, Ely Porat, Atri Rudra, and Martin J. Strauss. $L_2/L_2$-foreach sparse recovery with low risk. In Proceedings of the 40th International Colloquium Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP '13, pages 461–472. Springer, 2013.
[23]
Pascal Giorgi, Bruno Grenet, and Armelle Perret du Cray. Essentially optimal sparse polynomial multiplication. In Proceedings of the 45th International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC '20, pages 202–209. ACM, 2020.
[24]
Bernard Gold and Charles M. Rader. Digital processing of signals. Krieger, 1969.
[25]
Haitham Hassanieh, Piotr Indyk, Dina Katabi, and Eric Price. Nearly optimal sparse Fourier transform. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '12, pages 563–578. ACM, 2012.
[26]
Ishay Haviv and Oded Regev. The restricted isometry property of subsampled Fourier matrices. In Geometric aspects of functional analysis, pages 163–179. Springer, 2017.
[27]
Qiao-Long Huang. Sparse polynomial interpolation over fields with large or zero characteristic. In Proceedings of the 44th International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC '19, pages 219–226. ACM, 2019.
[28]
Piotr Indyk. Faster algorithms for string matching problems: matching the convolution bound. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '98, pages 166–173. IEEE Computer Society, 1998.
[29]
Piotr Indyk and Michael Kapralov. Sample-optimal Fourier sampling in any constant dimension. In Proceedings of the 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '14, pages 514–523. IEEE Computer Society, 2014.
[30]
Piotr Indyk, Michael Kapralov, and Eric Price. (Nearly) sample-optimal sparse Fourier transform. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA '14, pages 480–499. SIAM, 2014.
[31]
Piotr Indyk, Eric Price, and David P. Woodruff. On the power of adaptivity in sparse recovery. In Proceedings of the 52nd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '11, pages 285–294. IEEE Computer Society, 2011.
[32]
Klaus Jansen and Lars Rohwedder. On integer programming and convolution. In Proceedings of the 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS '19, pages 43:1–43:17. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019.
[33]
Svante Janson. Tail bounds for sums of geometric and exponential variables. Statistics & Probability Letters, 135:1–6, 2018.
[34]
Michael Kapralov. Sparse Fourier transform in any constant dimension with nearly-optimal sample complexity in sublinear time. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '16, pages 264–277. ACM, 2016.
[35]
Michael Kapralov. Sample efficient estimation and recovery in sparse FFT via isolation on average. In Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '17, pages 651–662. IEEE Computer Society, 2017.
[36]
Michael Kapralov, Ameya Velingker, and Amir Zandieh. Dimension-independent sparse Fourier transform. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA '19, pages 2709–2728. SIAM, 2019.
[37]
Howard J. Karloff. Fast algorithms for approximately counting mismatches. Inf. Process. Lett., 48(2):53–60, 1993.
[38]
Mathias B. T. Knudsen. Linear hashing is awesome. In Proceedings of the 57th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '16, pages 345–352. IEEE Computer Society, 2016.
[39]
Konstantinos Koiliaris and Chao Xu. Faster pseudopolynomial time algorithms for subset sum. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 15(3):40:1–40:20, 2019.
[40]
Tsvi Kopelowitz and Ely Porat. A simple algorithm for approximating the text-to-pattern hamming distance. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms, SOSA '18, pages 10:1–10:5. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2018.
[41]
Lei Li. On the arithmetic operational complexity for solving Vandermonde linear equations. Japan Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 17, 2000.
[42]
Michael Monagan and Roman Pearce. Parallel sparse polynomial multiplication using heaps. In Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC '09, pages 263–270. ACM, 2009.
[43]
Michael Monagan and Roman Pearce. POLY: A new polynomial data structure for Maple 17. In Computer Mathematics, pages 325–348. Springer, 2014.
[44]
Michael Monagan and Roman Pearce. The design of Maple's sum-of-products and POLY data structures for representing mathematical objects. ACM Communications in Computer Algebra, 48(3/4):166–186, 2015.
[45]
Marcin Mucha, Karol Wegrzycki, and Michal Wlodarczyk. A subquadratic approximation scheme for partition. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA '19, pages 70–88. SIAM, 2019.
[46]
Shanmugavelayutham Muthukrishnan. New results and open problems related to non-standard stringology. In Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching, CPM '95, pages 298–317. Springer, 1995.
[47]
Vasileios Nakos. Nearly optimal sparse polynomial multiplication. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 66(11):7231–7236, 2020.
[48]
Vasileios Nakos, Zhao Song, and Zhengyu Wang. (Nearly) sample-optimal sparse Fourier transform in any dimension; RIPless and filterless. In Proceedings of the 60th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '19, pages 1568–1577. IEEE Computer Society, 2019.
[49]
Mihai Patrascu. Towards polynomial lower bounds for dynamic problems. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '10, pages 603–610. ACM, 2010.
[50]
Nicholas Pippenger. On the evaluation of powers and monomials. SIAM J. Comput., 9(2):230–250, 1980.
[51]
Eric Price and Zhao Song. A robust sparse Fourier transform in the continuous setting. In Proceedings of the 56th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS '15, pages 583–600. IEEE Computer Society, 2015.
[52]
Eric Price and David P. Woodruff. Applications of the Shannon-Hartley theorem to data streams and recovery. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, ISIT '12, pages 2446–2450. IEEE, 2012.
[53]
Daniel S. Roche. Adaptive polynomial multiplication. Proceedings of Milestones in Computer Algebra, pages 65–72, 2008.
[54]
Daniel S. Roche. Chunky and equal-spaced polynomial multiplication. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 46(7):791–806, 2011.
[55]
Daniel S. Roche. What can (and can't) we do with sparse polynomials? In Proceedings of the 43rd International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC '18, pages 25–30. ACM, 2018.
[56]
Allan Steel. Multivariate polynomial rings. http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/handbook/text/223#1924, 2018.
[57]
Joris Van Der Hoeven and Grégoire Lecerf. On the complexity of multivariate blockwise polynomial multiplication. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC '12, pages 211–218. ACM, 2012.
[58]
Joris Van Der Hoeven and Grégoire Lecerf. On the bit-complexity of sparse polynomial and series multiplication. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 50:227–254, 2013.
[59]
Jack K. Wolf. Decoding of Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem codes and Prony's method for curve fitting. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13(4):608–608, 1967.
[60]
Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. On the evaluation of powers. SIAM J. Comput., 5(1):100–103, 1976.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)An Improved Pseudopolynomial Time Algorithm for Subset Sum2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00129(2202-2216)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

Index Terms

  1. Sparse nonnegative convolution is equivalent to dense nonnegative convolution

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    STOC 2021: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 2021
    1797 pages
    ISBN:9781450380539
    DOI:10.1145/3406325
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 15 June 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Convolution
    2. FFT
    3. Linear Hashing
    4. Sparsity

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    STOC '21
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

    Upcoming Conference

    STOC '25
    57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2025)
    June 23 - 27, 2025
    Prague , Czech Republic

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)108
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
    Reflects downloads up to 31 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)An Improved Pseudopolynomial Time Algorithm for Subset Sum2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00129(2202-2216)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media