skip to main content
10.1145/3313276.3316299acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Mean-field approximation, convex hierarchies, and the optimality of correlation rounding: a unified perspective

Published:23 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The free energy is a key quantity of interest in Ising models, but unfortunately, computing it in general is computationally intractable. Two popular (variational) approximation schemes for estimating the free energy of general Ising models (in particular, even in regimes where correlation decay does not hold) are: (i) the mean-field approximation with roots in statistical physics, which estimates the free energy from below, and (ii) hierarchies of convex relaxations with roots in theoretical computer science, which estimate the free energy from above. We show, surprisingly, that the tight regime for both methods to compute the free energy to leading order is identical.

More precisely, we show that the mean-field approximation to the free energy is within O((n||J||F)2/3) of the true free energy, where ||J||F denotes the Frobenius norm of the interaction matrix of the Ising model. This simultaneously subsumes both the breakthrough work of Basak and Mukherjee, who showed the tight result that the mean-field approximation is within o(n) whenever ||J||F = o(√n), as well as the work of Jain, Koehler, and Mossel, who gave the previously best known non-asymptotic bound of O((n||J||F)2/3log1/3(n||J||F)). We give a simple, algorithmic proof of this result using a convex relaxation proposed by Risteski based on the Sherali-Adams hierarchy, automatically giving sub-exponential time approximation schemes for the free energy in this entire regime. Our algorithmic result is tight under Gap-ETH.

We furthermore combine our techniques with spin glass theory to prove (in a strong sense) the optimality of correlation rounding, refuting a recent conjecture of Allen, O’Donnell, and Zhou. Finally, we give the tight generalization of all of these results to k-MRFs, capturing as a special case previous work on approximating MAX-k-CSP.

References

  1. Nir Ailon and Noga Alon. 2007. Hardness of fully dense problems. Information and Computation 205, 8 (2007), 1117–1129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Michael Aizenman, Joel L Lebowitz, and David Ruelle. 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Some rigorous results on the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glass model. Communications in mathematical physics 112, 1 (1987), 3–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sarah R Allen and Ryan O’Donnell. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Conditioning and covariance on caterpillars. In Information Theory Workshop (ITW), 2015 IEEE. IEEE, 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. James Anderson and Carsten Peterson. 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A Mean Field Theory Learning Algorithm for Neural Networks. Complex Systems 1 (1987), 995–1019. Issue 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Boaz Barak, Prasad Raghavendra, and David Steurer. 2011. Rounding semidefinite programming hierarchies via global correlation. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on. IEEE, 472–481. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Anirban Basak and Sumit Mukherjee. 2017. Universality of the mean-field for the Potts model. Probability Theory and Related Fields 168, 3-4 (2017), 557–600.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Christian Borgs, Jennifer T Chayes, László Lovász, Vera T Sós, and Katalin Vesztergombi. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Convergent sequences of dense graphs II. Multiway cuts and statistical physics. Annals of Mathematics 176, 1 (2012), 151–219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Amin Coja-Oghlan and Will Perkins. 2017. Bethe states of random factor graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.03827 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernandez de la Vega and Marek Karpinski. 2006. Approximation Complexity of Nondense Instances of MAX-CUT. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. TR06-101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Wenceslas Fernandez de la Vega and Claire Kenyon-Mathieu. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Linear programming relaxations of maxcut. In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 53–61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Amir Dembo and Andrea Montanari. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ising models on locally tree-like graphs. Ann. Appl. Probab. 20, 2 (2010), 565–592. 09-AAP627Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ronen Eldan. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaussian-width gradient complexity, reverse log-Sobolev inequalities and nonlinear large deviations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.04346 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ronen Eldan and Renan Gross. 2018. Decomposition of mean-field Gibbs distributions into product measures. Electronic Journal of Probability 23 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Richard S Ellis and Charles M Newman. 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. The statistics of Curie-Weiss models. Journal of Statistical Physics 19, 2 (1978), 149–161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dimitris Fotakis, Michael Lampis, and Vangelis Th Paschos. 2016. Sub-exponential Approximation Schemes for CSPs: From Dense to Almost Sparse. In 33rd Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Alan Frieze and Ravi Kannan. 1999. Quick approximation to matrices and applications. Combinatorica 19, 2 (1999), 175–220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Martin Grötschel, László Lovász, and Alexander Schrijver. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Geometric algorithms and combinatorial optimization. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Venkatesan Guruswami and Ali Kemal Sinop. 2011. Lasserre hierarchy, higher eigenvalues, and approximation schemes for graph partitioning and quadratic integer programming with PSD objectives. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on. IEEE, 482–491. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Dmitry Ioffe and Yvan Velenik. 2000. A note on the decay of correlations under δ -pinning. Probability theory and related fields 116, 3 (2000), 379–389.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Vishesh Jain, Frederic Koehler, and Elchanan Mossel. 2018. The Mean-Field Approximation: Information Inequalities, Algorithms, and Complexity. In Conference on Learning Theory (COLT).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Vishesh Jain, Frederic Koehler, and Elchanan Mossel. 2018. The Vertex Sample Complexity of Free Energy is Polynomial. In Conference on Learning Theory (COLT).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Vishesh Jain, Frederic Koehler, and Andrej Risteski. 2018. Mean-field approximation, convex hierarchies, and the optimality of correlation rounding: a unified perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07226 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Michael I Jordan, Zoubin Ghahramani, Tommi S Jaakkola, and Lawrence K Saul. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. Machine learning 37, 2 (1999), 183–233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S Kirkpatrick and D Sherrington. 1975. Solvable model of a spin-glass. Phys. Rev. Lett 35, 26 (1975), 1792–1796.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Pasin Manurangsi and Prasad Raghavendra. 2017. A Birthday Repetition Theorem and Complexity of Approximating Dense CSPs. In Proceedings of ICALP, Vol. 80. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. Mean-Field Approximation, Convex Hierarchies, and. .. STOC ’19, June 23–26, 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Claire Mathieu and Warren Schudy. 2008. Yet Another Algorithm for Dense Max Cut: Go Greedy. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA ’08). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 176–182. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1347082. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. 1347102Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Marc Mézard, Giorgio Parisi, and Miguel Virasoro. 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Spin glass theory and beyond: An Introduction to the Replica Method and Its Applications. Vol. 9. World Scientific Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Dmitry Panchenko. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Giorgio Parisi. 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Statistical field theory. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Prasad Raghavendra and Ning Tan. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Andrej Risteski. 2016. How to calculate partition functions using convex programming hierarchies: provable bounds for variational methods. In COLT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Allan Sly and Nike Sun. 2012. The computational hardness of counting in twospin models on d-regular graphs. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2012 IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on. IEEE, 361–369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Michel Talagrand. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Michel Talagrand. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Mean Field Models for Spin Glasses. Volume II: Advanced Replica-Symmetry and Low Temperature. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics {Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics}, Vol. 55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011b). ISBN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin J. Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan. 2008. Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 1(1-2) (2008), 1–305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Eugene P Wigner. 1958. On the distribution of the roots of certain symmetric matrices. Annals of Mathematics (1958), 325–327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Mean-field approximation, convex hierarchies, and the optimality of correlation rounding: a unified perspective

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        STOC 2019: Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing
        June 2019
        1258 pages
        ISBN:9781450367059
        DOI:10.1145/3313276

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 23 June 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

        Upcoming Conference

        STOC '24
        56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
        June 24 - 28, 2024
        Vancouver , BC , Canada

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader