Faster Spectral Density Estimation and Sparsification in the Nuclear Norm

We consider the problem of estimating the spectral density of the normalized adjacency matrix of an $n$-node undirected graph. We provide a randomized algorithm that, with $O(n\epsilon^{-2})$ queries to a degree and neighbor oracle and in $O(n\epsilon^{-3})$ time, estimates the spectrum up to $\epsilon$ accuracy in the Wasserstein-1 metric. This improves on previous state-of-the-art methods, including an $O(n\epsilon^{-7})$ time algorithm from [Braverman et al., STOC 2022] and, for sufficiently small $\epsilon$, a $2^{O(\epsilon^{-1})}$ time method from [Cohen-Steiner et al., KDD 2018]. To achieve this result, we introduce a new notion of graph sparsification, which we call nuclear sparsification. We provide an $O(n\epsilon^{-2})$-query and $O(n\epsilon^{-2})$-time algorithm for computing $O(n\epsilon^{-2})$-sparse nuclear sparsifiers. We show that this bound is optimal in both its sparsity and query complexity, and we separate our results from the related notion of additive spectral sparsification. Of independent interest, we show that our sparsification method also yields the first deterministic algorithm for spectral density estimation that scales linearly with $n$ (sublinear in the representation size of the graph).

Truncated Variance Reduced Value Iteration

We provide faster randomized algorithms for computing an $\epsilon$-optimal policy in a discounted Markov decision process with $A_{\text{tot}}$-state-action pairs, bounded rewards, and discount factor $\gamma$. We provide an $\tilde{O}(A_{\text{tot}}[(1 - \gamma)^{-3}\epsilon^{-2} + (1 - \gamma)^{-2}])$-time algorithm in the sampling setting, where the probability transition matrix is unknown but accessible through a generative model which can be queried in $\tilde{O}(1)$-time, and an $\tilde{O}(s + (1-\gamma)^{-2})$-time algorithm in the offline setting where the probability transition matrix is known and $s$-sparse. These results improve upon the prior state-of-the-art which either ran in $\tilde{O}(A_{\text{tot}}[(1 - \gamma)^{-3}\epsilon^{-2} + (1 - \gamma)^{-3}])$ time [Sidford, Wang, Wu, Ye 2018] in the sampling setting, $\tilde{O}(s + A_{\text{tot}} (1-\gamma)^{-3})$ time [Sidford, Wang, Wu, Yang, Ye 2018] in the offline setting, or time at least quadratic in the number of states using interior point methods for linear programming. We achieve our results by building upon prior stochastic variance-reduced value iteration methods [Sidford, Wang, Wu, Yang, Ye 2018]. We provide a variant that carefully truncates the progress of its iterates to improve the variance of new variance-reduced sampling procedures that we introduce to implement the steps. Our method is essentially model-free and can be implemented in $\tilde{O}(A_{\text{tot}})$-space when given generative model access. Consequently, our results take a step in closing the sample-complexity gap between model-free and model-based methods.

From Large to Small Datasets: Size Generalization for Clustering Algorithm Selection

In clustering algorithm selection, we are given a massive dataset and must efficiently select which clustering algorithm to use. We study this problem in a semi-supervised setting, with an unknown ground-truth clustering that we can only access through expensive oracle queries. Ideally, the clustering algorithm's output will be structurally close to the ground truth. We approach this problem by introducing a notion of size generalization for clustering algorithm accuracy. We identify conditions under which we can (1) subsample the massive clustering instance, (2) evaluate a set of candidate algorithms on the smaller instance, and (3) guarantee that the algorithm with the best accuracy on the small instance will have the best accuracy on the original big instance. We provide theoretical size generalization guarantees for three classic clustering algorithms: single-linkage, k-means++, and (a smoothed variant of) Gonzalez's k-centers heuristic. We validate our theoretical analysis with empirical results, observing that on real-world clustering instances, we can use a subsample of as little as 5% of the data to identify which algorithm is best on the full dataset.