Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Tighter Bounds for the Randomized Polynomial-Time Simplex Algorithm for Linear Programming

Daniel Gibor

TL;DR

This paper advances randomized polynomial-time simplex methods for linear programming by tightening shadow-size bounds through perturbation-based geometry and refining quasi-convex/quasi-concave analyses. It introduces a higher-probability variant of the Kelner–Spielman algorithm via logarithmic perturbations and log-rounding, coupled with an artificial-start vertex construction to ensure favorable initialization with high probability. The key contributions are explicit, improved bounds on the shadow size for both k-round and non-k-round polytopes and a practical modification that raises the success probability of the method, all while preserving polynomial-time performance in the input size. These results enhance the theoretical understanding and practical efficiency of randomized simplex approaches and open avenues for further progress toward strongly polynomial-time linear programming algorithms.

Abstract

We present a randomized polynomial-time simplex algorithm with higher probability and tighter bounds for linear programming by applying improved quasi-convex properties, a logarithmic rounding on a given polytope and its logarithmic perturbation. We base our work on the first randomized polynomial-time simplex method by Jonathan A. Kelner and Daniel A. Spielman [KS06]. We obtain stronger bounds for the expected number of edges in the projection of a perturbed polytope onto a two-dimensional shadow plane. In the $k$-round case, we obtain a bound of $16 \sqrt{2} πk (1 + λH_n) \sqrt{d} n / 3 λ$. In the non-$k$-round case, we obtain a bound of $26 πt (1 + λH_n) \sqrt{d} n / λρ$. To achieve this, we provide a slightly lower bound of $3 \sqrt{2} λ/ (16 n \sqrt{d})$ on the expected edge length that appears in the shadow. Another tool we employ is a tighter bound for $1$-quasi-concave minimization and $1$-quasi-convex maximization. In the $k$-round case, we obtain a quasi-convex bound of $(d - 2) ε^2 / 2$. In the non-$k$-round case, we obtain a quasi-convex bound of $3.4 ε^2 / ρ^2$. We propose a modification of the Kelner and Spielman randomized simplex algorithm (STOC'06) [KS06] that achieves a higher success probability. To accomplish this, we apply our tighter bounds with a new expected value of $λ= c \log n$ for independent exponentially distributed random variables and with $\log(k)$-rounding. The desired properties resulting from the construction of an artificial vertex during initialization hold with a higher probability of at least $1 - (d + 2), e^{-\log n}$. The pivot rule of the randomized simplex modification holds with a probability of at least $3/4$.

Tighter Bounds for the Randomized Polynomial-Time Simplex Algorithm for Linear Programming

TL;DR

This paper advances randomized polynomial-time simplex methods for linear programming by tightening shadow-size bounds through perturbation-based geometry and refining quasi-convex/quasi-concave analyses. It introduces a higher-probability variant of the Kelner–Spielman algorithm via logarithmic perturbations and log-rounding, coupled with an artificial-start vertex construction to ensure favorable initialization with high probability. The key contributions are explicit, improved bounds on the shadow size for both k-round and non-k-round polytopes and a practical modification that raises the success probability of the method, all while preserving polynomial-time performance in the input size. These results enhance the theoretical understanding and practical efficiency of randomized simplex approaches and open avenues for further progress toward strongly polynomial-time linear programming algorithms.

Abstract

We present a randomized polynomial-time simplex algorithm with higher probability and tighter bounds for linear programming by applying improved quasi-convex properties, a logarithmic rounding on a given polytope and its logarithmic perturbation. We base our work on the first randomized polynomial-time simplex method by Jonathan A. Kelner and Daniel A. Spielman [KS06]. We obtain stronger bounds for the expected number of edges in the projection of a perturbed polytope onto a two-dimensional shadow plane. In the -round case, we obtain a bound of . In the non--round case, we obtain a bound of . To achieve this, we provide a slightly lower bound of on the expected edge length that appears in the shadow. Another tool we employ is a tighter bound for -quasi-concave minimization and -quasi-convex maximization. In the -round case, we obtain a quasi-convex bound of . In the non--round case, we obtain a quasi-convex bound of . We propose a modification of the Kelner and Spielman randomized simplex algorithm (STOC'06) [KS06] that achieves a higher success probability. To accomplish this, we apply our tighter bounds with a new expected value of for independent exponentially distributed random variables and with -rounding. The desired properties resulting from the construction of an artificial vertex during initialization hold with a higher probability of at least . The pivot rule of the randomized simplex modification holds with a probability of at least .

Paper Structure

This paper contains 23 sections, 13 theorems, 12 equations, 4 figures.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

(Informal version of Theorems thm:four and thm:five). The bound on the number of edges that appear on the boundary of the right-hand perturbed polytope projected onto a two-dimensional plane is $16\sqrt{2}\pi k(1+\lambda H_n)\sqrt{d}n/3 \lambda$ in the k-near-isotropic position and $26\pi t(1+\lambd

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: The geometric view of the shadow of a polytope.
  • Figure 2: A polytope $P$ is in a k-near-isotropic position.
  • Figure 3: Re-scaling if a polytope $P$ is not in a k-near-isotropic position.
  • Figure 4: Some of the variables in our change of coordinates. Picture taken from \ref{['ref:10']}.

Theorems & Definitions (23)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Definition 2.1
  • Theorem 2.2
  • proof
  • Theorem 2.3
  • Theorem 4.1
  • proof
  • Lemma 4.2
  • proof
  • Lemma 4.3
  • ...and 13 more