This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Expansion of random 0/10/1 polytopes

Brett Leroux, Luis Rademacher
Abstract

A conjecture of Mihail and Vazirani [5] states that the edge expansion of the graph of every 0/10/1 polytope is at least one. Any lower bound on the edge expansion gives an upper bound for the mixing time of a random walk on the graph of the polytope. Such random walks are important because they can be used to generate an element from a set of combinatorial objects uniformly at random. A weaker form of the conjecture of Mihail and Vazirani says that the edge expansion of the graph of a 0/10/1 polytope in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is greater than 1 over some polynomial function of dd. This weaker version of the conjecture would suffice for all applications. Our main result is that the edge expansion of the graph of a random 0/10/1 polytope in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is at least 112d\frac{1}{12d} with high probability.

1 Introduction

A 0/10/1 polytope (in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d}) is the convex hull of some subset of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}. In other words, 0/10/1 polytopes are polytopes such that every coordinate of every vertex is either 0 or 1. One reason these polytopes have been studied is their connection to various combinatorial optimization problems. This connection arises due to the fact that many combinatorial structures can be described by a set of 0/10/1 vectors. For example, if MM is a matroid whose ground-set has size dd, then every basis of MM corresponds to a 0/10/1 vector in {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}. One can then define the matroid base polytope of MM as the convex hull of the 0/10/1 vectors corresponding to bases of MM. With this construction, questions about the combinatorial structure of MM can be restated as questions about the geometric structure of the matroid base polytope of MM. See [3, 4] for an early example of the use of this idea.

The applications of 0/10/1 polytopes that are most relevant to this paper depend only on the graph of the polytope. For a polytope PP, the graph G(P)G(P) of PP is the graph whose vertices are vertices of PP and whose edges are edges of PP. It turns out that by performing a random walk on the graph of a 0/10/1 polytope, one can solve a number of important combinatorial optimization problems. The prime example of this is the problem of sampling from a set of combinatorial objects uniformly at random. In our setting, the set of combinatorial objects naturally corresponds to the set of vertices of some 0/10/1 polytope. Thus, the problem of generating such a random sample is reduced to the problem of generating a random vertex of a 0/10/1 polytope. This can be done efficiently as long as the random walk on the graph of the polytope mixes rapidly, i.e., approaches the stationary distribution in poly(d)\operatorname{poly}(d) steps. This rapid mixing can be guaranteed to occur if one can obtain a 1/poly(d)1/\operatorname{poly}(d) lower bound on a quantity associated to the graph called the edge expansion. This is well known, see for example [11, 13]. We explain in more detail the relationship between edge expansion and rapid mixing below. First, we define edge expansion.

For a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E), and a subset SVS\subset V, we use δ(S)\delta(S) to denote the set of edges that connect a vertex in SS to a vertex in VSV\setminus S. With this, we can the define the edge expansion of a graph as follows

Definition 1.

The edge expansion of a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) is

min{|δ(S)||S|:SV,1|S||V|2}.\min\bigg{\{}\frac{|\delta(S)|}{|S|}\mathrel{:}S\subset V,1\leq|S|\leq\frac{|V|}{2}\bigg{\}}.

Similarly, the edge expansion of a polytope PP is defined to be the edge expansion of the graph G(P)G(P) of PP.

The proof that a good lower bound on edge expansion implies rapid mixing is roughly as follows. A lower bound on the edge expansion implies, by the Cheeger inequality for general graphs as stated in [2], a lower bound on the spectral gap of the Laplacian of the graph. It is then a standard fact that a lower bound on the spectral gap implies rapid mixing, see for example [16].

The main motivation for this paper is the conjecture of Mihail and Vazirani which states that all 0/10/1 polytopes have edge expansion at least 1. See [5, Section 7] and [13]. For applications, it would suffice to establish the following weaker form of Mihail and Vazirani’s conjecture which has been mentioned in a number of previous works including [7, 10, 13].

Conjecture 2.

The edge expansion of the graph of a 0/10/1 polytope in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is greater than 1f(d)\frac{1}{f(d)} for some polynomial function ff.

As mentioned above, a proof of this conjecture would have important applications to the analysis of randomized algorithms for combinatorial problems. For details concerning such applications, see [5, 6, 10, 13].

A number of previous works have made some progress on the above conjecture, by establishing it for various special classes of 0/10/1 polytopes. We overview such previous work in Section 3. As another special case, it was asked in [11] and [6] whether random 0/10/1 polytopes have good expansion properties. Our main result gives an affirmative answer to this question. We consider three different (but similar) models of random 0/10/1 polytopes which we call the balls-into-bins model, the binomial model and the uniform model. See the next section for definitions of these models. We prove that the edge expansion of a random 0/10/1 polytope distributed according to any of these three models is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability. In this theorem and everywhere else in the paper the phrase “with high probability” means “with probability lower bounded by a function of dd alone that converges to 1 as dd goes to \infty.”

Theorem 3.

Assume that PdP\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is a random 0/10/1 polytope that is distributed according to either the balls-into-bins model, the binomial model, or the uniform model as defined in Section 2. Then the edge expansion of PP is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability.

See Section 5 for the proof of this theorem.

A rough idea of the proof is as follows: Say we have a random 0/10/1 polytope PP in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} with nn vertices. It is possible to choose an integer kk which depends on n,dn,d such that if we consider the orthogonal projection of PP to the first kk coordinates, then the projected vertices of PP cover the vertices of the kk-cube CkC^{k} in the projected space and also the projected vertices of PP are well distributed among the vertices of CkC^{k} in the sense that not too many vertices of PP are projected to the same vertex of CkC^{k}. We then use the fact that CkC^{k} has good edge expansion to show that PP also must have good edge expansion. Apart from being interesting in their own right, these results provide some evidence that the above weaker form of the conjecture (2) of Mihail and Vazirani may be true.

2 Models of randomness

In this section we introduce the models of random 0/10/1 polytopes that we consider.

The most familiar example of a 0/10/1 polytope in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is, of course, the regular dd-dimensional cube. We use the notation Cd:=[0,1]dC^{d}:=[0,1]^{d} for the regular dd-dimensional cube in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d}. The vertex set of the cube CdC^{d} is {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d} and so every 0/10/1 polytope can be seen as the convex hull of some subset of vertices of CdC^{d} for some dd. Therefore, to generate a random 0/10/1 polytope, one can first pick some random subset S{0,1}dS\subset\{0,1\}^{d} and then form the polytope by taking the convex hull of SS. For a set S{0,1}dS\subset\{0,1\}^{d}, we use convS\operatorname{conv}S to denote the convex hull of SS, i.e., the 0/10/1 polytope with vertex set SS.

We restrict our attention to the following three models of random 0/10/1 polytopes.

  1. 1.

    The balls-into-bins model: For any nn\in\mathbb{N}, choose S1,,SnS_{1},\dotsc,S_{n} independently and uniformly from {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}. Repetition is allowed. Define the set Snd:={S1,,Sn}S_{n}^{d}:=\{S_{1},\dotsc,S_{n}\} and the polytope Pnd:=convSndP_{n}^{d}:=\operatorname{conv}S_{n}^{d}.

  2. 2.

    The binomial model: For any p(0,1)p\in(0,1), let SpdS_{p}^{d} be the subset of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d} where each v{0,1}dv\in\{0,1\}^{d} is in SpdS_{p}^{d} with probability pp. Define the polytope Ppd:=convSpdP_{p}^{d}:=\operatorname{conv}S_{p}^{d}.

  3. 3.

    The uniform model: For any 1n2d1\leq n\leq 2^{d}, let UndU_{n}^{d} be chosen uniformly at random from the set of all nn-element subsets of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}. Define the polytope Qnd:=convUndQ_{n}^{d}:=\operatorname{conv}U_{n}^{d}.

3 Previous work on expansion of 0/10/1 polytopes

Some important families of 0/10/1 polytopes are known to have edge expansion at least 1. We give an overview of what is known below. We also explain what is known about a closely related expansion property called vertex expansion (defined in Section 3.2).

3.1 Edge expansion

In a recent breakthrough, the authors of [1] showed that the matroid base polytope of any matroid has edge expansion at least one ([1, Theorem 1.5]). That is, they established the original conjecture of Mihail and Vazirani (that all 0/10/1 polytopes have edge expansion at least one) for 0/10/1 polytopes which are the matroid base polytope of some matroid.

Prior to this breakthrough, the conjecture had only been established for some more limited families of 0/10/1 polytopes: Kaibel showed in [10] that the conjecture holds for 0/10/1 polytopes of dimension at most five, simple 0/10/1 polytopes, hypersimplices, stable set polytopes, and perfect matching polytopes. In earlier papers, the conjecture had been established for matching polytopes, order ideal polytopes, and independent set polytopes in [14], and for balanced matroid base polytopes in [5].

Despite this progress, the conjecture of Mihail and Vazirani is still a long way from being fully solved. Indeed, most 0/10/1 polytopes do not fall into any of the categories mentioned above. Some examples of 0/10/1 polytopes for which the conjecture still open are knapsack polytopes, equality constrained 0/10/1 polytopes [12], and symmetric traveling salesman polytopes. For these polytopes, the weaker form of the conjecture, (2), is also still open.

3.2 Vertex expansion

There is another notion of expansion called vertex expansion. The vertex expansion is relevant to our considerations because the vertex expansion of a graph is a lower bound on the edge expansion of the graph. For a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E), and a subset SVS\subset V, we use N(S)N(S) to denote the set of all vVSv\in V\setminus S such that there is an edge connecting vv to some sSs\in S. With this, we can define vertex expansion as follows

Definition 4.

The vertex expansion of a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) is

min{|N(S)||S|:SV,1|S||V|2}.\min\bigg{\{}\frac{|N(S)|}{|S|}\mathrel{:}S\subset V,1\leq|S|\leq\frac{|V|}{2}\bigg{\}}.

The vertex expansion of a polytope is the vertex expansion of the graph of the polytope.

Because the vertex expansion gives a lower bound on the edge expansion, in the context of 2, it is natural to ask whether one can establish a 1/poly(d)1/\operatorname{poly}(d) lower bound on the vertex expansion of 0/10/1 polytopes. Unfortunately, this is known to be impossible: Gillmann showed in his thesis [6] that there exists a sequence {Pd}d\{P_{d}\}_{d\in\mathbb{N}} of 0/10/1 polytopes PdP_{d} in d\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} such that the vertex expansion of PdP_{d} is at most 2.32192d2^{-.32192d} for dd sufficiently large.111A similar construction was mentioned in [13], but it seems that the details were never published.

In the construction of the polytopes PdP_{d}, some of the vertices are chosen deterministically and some are chosen randomly. In contrast to Gillman’s result, we can show that if the vertices are chosen completely randomly, then the polytope will have 1/poly(d)1/\operatorname{poly}(d) vertex expansion with high probability. In particular, we can prove that the vertex expansion of a random 0/10/1 polytope distributed according to any of the three models described in Section 2 is Ω(1/d3/2)\Omega(1/d^{3/2}) with high probability:

Theorem 5.

Assume that PdP\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is a random 0/10/1 polytope that is distributed according to either the balls-into-bins model, the binomial model, or the uniform model as defined in Section 2. Then the vertex expansion of PP is Ω(1/d3/2)\Omega(1/d^{3/2}) with high probability.

The proof of the above theorem is nearly the same as the proof of the corresponding result for edge expansion (i.e. Theorem 3) and is thus omitted. Whereas in the proof of Theorem 3 we use the fact that the edge expansion of the dd-dimensional cube CdC^{d} is 1, in the proof of Theorem 5 one uses the well known fact that the vertex expansion of the dd-dimensional cube CdC^{d} is Ω(1/d)\Omega(1/\sqrt{d}). This fact is sometimes called Harper’s theorem, see [8].

4 Background on polytopes

Previous works which established good edge expansion for special classes of 0/10/1 polytopes used mainly combinatorial proof techniques. Our approach, in contrast, is purely geometric. Thus, we need some basic facts about the geometry of convex polytopes.

As is standard, by a polytope we always mean a convex polytope and we sometimes omit the word convex. We refer the reader to [17] for a comprehensive introduction to the theory of convex polytopes and to [18] for a survey on 0/10/1 polytopes in particular.

Let PdP\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} be a polytope. A face FF of PP is any set that can be written as F={xP:cx=c0}F=\{x\in P\mathrel{:}c\cdot x=c_{0}\} where cxc0c\cdot x\leq c_{0} is some linear inequality that is satisfied by all xPx\in P. A proper face of PP is any face of PP which is not equal to either PP or \emptyset. For a polytope PP, we use the notation V(P)V(P) for the set of vertices of PP, i.e., the set of 0-dimensional faces of PP and E(P)E(P) for the set of edges, i.e. the set of 11-dimensional faces of PP.

Aside from these definitions, the only fact about polytopes we need is the following basic result that is often used without proof. We give a proof for the sake of completeness.

Proposition 6.

If PdP\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} is a dd-polytope (i.e. PP is full-dimensional, so that affP=d\operatorname{aff}P=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d}), then for any vertex vv of PP, the set of edges incident to vv are not contained in any hyperplane.

Proof.

By [17, Proposition 2.4], the vertex figure of a dd-polytope at any vertex vv is a (d1)(d-1)-polytope. Since the vertices of the vertex figure are precisely the intersections of the edges incident to vv with the hyperplane containing the vertex figure, this means that the set of edges incident to vv cannot be contained in a hyperplane. ∎

5 Proofs

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 3. The idea of the proof is as follows. We first establish what we call the \sayprojection lemma (Lemma 7) which says that for a 0/10/1 polytope PdP\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, if there exists an orthogonal projection of PP to some kk coordinates with certain nice properties, then PP has good edge expansion. The nice properties that the projection π\pi needs to satisfy are that the image of PP by π\pi is equal to the kk-dimensional hypercube CkC^{k} and that not too many vertices of PP are projected to the same vertex of CkC^{k}. If such a projection exists, we can show that PP has good edge expansion by using the fact that the edge expansion of CkC^{k} is one. The way this argument works is that given any partition STS\cup T of the vertices of PP, we consider π(S)\pi(S) and π(T)\pi(T) (which are subsets of the vertices of CkC^{k}) and use that the edge expansion of CkC^{k} is one to show that there are many edges of a certain type in CkC^{k}. Then, using properties of the projection, we show that all edges of this type lift through π1\pi^{-1} (i.e. we consider the preimage of each edge by π\pi) to edges of PP that connect a vertex in SS to a vertex in TT.

After we establish the above \sayprojection lemma, we show using basic probability that for our models of random 0/10/1 polytopes, the projection to any kk coordinates has the above nice properties with high probability. Here, kk is some positive integer that is chosen based on the parameters of the random 0/10/1 polytope in question.

5.1 The projection lemma

Lemma 7.

Let PdP\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d} be a 0/10/1 polytope and suppose that there exist kk coordinates such that the orthogonal projection πk\pi_{k} to those kk coordinates satisfies

  1. 1.

    πkP=Ck\pi_{k}P=C^{k}. Equivalently, with CkC^{k} denoting the kk-cube in πkd=k\pi_{k}\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d}=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{k}, every vertex of CkC^{k} appears at least once in πkV(P)\pi_{k}V(P).

  2. 2.

    For every vertex vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), the cardinality of πk1(v)V(P)\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)\cap V(P) is at most cc.

Then the edge expansion of the graph of PP is at least 12c\frac{1}{2c}.

Proof.

Let SV(P)S\subset V(P) with |S||V(P)|/2|S|\leq|V(P)|/2 and let T:=V(P)ST:=V(P)\setminus S. Set s=|S|s=|S|. We need to show that there are at least s/2cs/2c edges in PP which connect a vertex in SS to a vertex in TT.

Observe that at least one of {xV(Ck):πk1(x)S}\{x\in V(C^{k}):\pi_{k}^{-1}(x)\subset S\} or {xV(Ck):πk1(x)T}\{x\in V(C^{k}):\pi_{k}^{-1}(x)\subset T\} has cardinality at most 2k12^{k-1}. Assume that {xV(Ck):πk1(x)S}\{x\in V(C^{k}):\pi_{k}^{-1}(x)\subset S\} has cardinality at most 2k12^{k-1}. The proof for the other case is nearly the same. The projection of SS, i.e. πk(S)\pi_{k}(S), is a subset of vertices of CkC^{k} and by assumption 2, |πk(S)|s/c|\pi_{k}(S)|\geq s/c. There are two cases to consider.

Case 1: The cardinality of M:=πk(S)πk(T)M:=\pi_{k}(S)\cap\pi_{k}(T) is at least s/2cs/2c.

Case 2: The cardinality of MM is less than s/2cs/2c.

For Case 1, for each xMx\in M, πk1(x)\pi_{k}^{-1}(x) is a face of PP which contains points from SS and points from TT. Since graphs of polytopes are connected, there exists an edge in this face going from a point in SS to a point in TT. Since |M|s/2c|M|\geq s/2c, we have found s/2cs/2c edges in PP from SS to TT. Each of these edges is unique because the image of each edge by πk\pi_{k} is a unique vertex in MM.

For Case 2, let U=πk(S)MU=\pi_{k}(S)\setminus M. Since |πk(S)|s/c|\pi_{k}(S)|\geq s/c and |M|s/2c|M|\leq s/2c, we have that |U|s/2c|U|\geq s/2c. By assumption 1, we know that πk(ST)\pi_{k}(S\cup T) contains every vertex of CkC^{k}. Finally, recall that we are assuming that {xV(Ck):πk1(x)S}\{x\in V(C^{k}):\pi_{k}^{-1}(x)\subset S\} has cardinality at most 2k12^{k-1}. This means that |U|2k1|U|\leq 2^{k-1}. Now using the fact that the edge expansion of CkC^{k} is 1, we know that there are at least |U|s/2c|U|\geq s/2c edges of CkC^{k} going from a vertex in UU to a vertex in V(Ck)UV(C^{k})\setminus U. Let EE be the set of those edges. We will show that each such edge lifts (through πk1\pi_{k}^{-1}) to an edge of PP that has one point in SS and one point in TT as its endpoints. That is, for each edge eEe\in E, we consider the preimage πk1(e)\pi_{k}^{-1}(e) and we will show that there exists some edge of PP that is contained in πk1(e)\pi_{k}^{-1}(e) and which has one point in SS and one point in TT as its endpoints.

For each edge eEe\in E we have e=conv(u,m)e=\operatorname{conv}(u,m) with uUu\in U and mV(Ck)Um\in V(C^{k})\setminus U. The pre-image πk1(e)\pi_{k}^{-1}(e) is a face (call it FF) of PP which has two proper faces πk1(u),πk1(m)\pi_{k}^{-1}(u),\pi_{k}^{-1}(m).222For those unfamiliar with polytope theory, here is an explanation of why these preimages are faces and/or proper faces: We know that FF is a face of PP because if HH is a hyperplane supporting ee as a face of CkC^{k}, then πk1(H)\pi_{k}^{-1}(H) is a hyperplane that supports FF as a face of PP. A similar argument shows that πk1(u),πk1(m)\pi_{k}^{-1}(u),\pi_{k}^{-1}(m) are both faces of FF and they are proper because they do not contain all the vertices of FF. Since uUu\in U, the face πk1(u)\pi_{k}^{-1}(u) contains only points from SS. Furthermore, by the way UU was constructed, for every mV(Ck)Um\in V(C^{k})\setminus U, we know that πk1(m)\pi_{k}^{-1}(m) contains at least one point from TT. Let tt be a point in Tπk1(m)T\cap\pi_{k}^{-1}(m). We claim that there is an edge in the face FF which goes from tt to a point sπk1(u)s\in\pi_{k}^{-1}(u). Indeed, if this were not the case, all of the edges in FF incident to tt would be contained in the face πk1(m)\pi_{k}^{-1}(m). Now if we consider FF as a full dimensional polytope in affF\operatorname{aff}F, because πk1(m)\pi_{k}^{-1}(m) is a proper face of FF, it is contained in a hyperplane in affF\operatorname{aff}F. This implies that the vertex tt has the property that all edges incident to tt are contained in a hyperplane in affF\operatorname{aff}F which is not possible by Proposition 6. We have shown that for every edge eEe\in E, there is an edge ee^{\prime} in PP which goes from a point in SS to a point in TT and also that πk(e)=e\pi_{k}(e^{\prime})=e. Since all of the edges eEe\in E are unique, the fact that πk(e)=e\pi_{k}(e^{\prime})=e for all eEe\in E implies that all of the edges ee^{\prime} that we construct are unique. Since |E|s/2c|E|\geq s/2c we have shown that there are at least this many edges in PP going from SS to TT and we are done. ∎

5.2 The three models of random polytopes

In this section we complete the proof of Theorem 3. For the sake of readability, we state Theorem 3 separately for each of the three models of random polytopes we consider. We first prove the theorem for the balls-into-bins model PndP_{n}^{d} (Theorem 8). The proof first considers certain \saydegenerate cases, i.e., when nn is either very large or very small. In these cases, it is trivial to show the conclusion of the theorem. For all other cases, we consider the projection of PndP_{n}^{d} to the first kk-coordinates (for certain kk depending on nn and dd) and show that, with high probability, this projection has properties which allow us to obtain the conclusion of the theorem as a direct consequence of Lemma 7. The proof for the binomial model PpdP_{p}^{d} (Theorem 9) is very similar to the one for the balls-into-bins model. Finally, for the uniform model QndQ_{n}^{d}, instead of redoing the proof a third time, we use a basic result from the theory of random sets to obtain the proof for the uniform model as a direct consequence of the proof for the binomial model (Theorem 10).

Theorem 8 (The balls-into-bins model).

Let SndS_{n}^{d} be a set of nn points chosen independently and uniformly from {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}. Then the edge expansion of the polytope Pnd:=convSndP_{n}^{d}:=\operatorname{conv}S_{n}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability.

Proof.

First, if ndn\leq d then it is clear that PndP_{n}^{d} has edge expansion at least 1/12d1/12d because PndP_{n}^{d} has at most dd vertices. Indeed, given any subset SPndS\subset P_{n}^{d} with |S||Pnd|/2|S|\leq|P_{n}^{d}|/2, the fact that graphs of polytopes are connected implies that there is at least one edge connecting a vertex in SS to a vertex in PndSP_{n}^{d}\setminus S. Since |S|d/2|S|\leq d/2, this is enough to show that the edge expansion of PpdP_{p}^{d} is at least 2/d1/12d2/d\geq 1/12d.

If nd2dn\geq d2^{d}, then we claim that Pnd=CdP_{n}^{d}=C^{d} with high probability. Indeed, the probability that there exists some vertex of CdC^{d} that is not chosen once in SndS_{n}^{d} is less than or equal to

2d(112d)d2d(2e)d2^{d}\bigg{(}1-\frac{1}{2^{d}}\bigg{)}^{d2^{d}}\leq\bigg{(}\frac{2}{e}\bigg{)}^{d}

and so the probability that PndCdP_{n}^{d}\neq C^{d} goes to zero as dd\to\infty. The fact that PndP_{n}^{d} has edge expansion at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability now follows from the fact that the edge expansion of CdC^{d} is 1.

Now assume that d<n<d2dd<n<d2^{d}. Let kk be the largest integer such that nk2kn\geq k2^{k}. We will show that by considering the projection of PndP_{n}^{d} to the first kk coordinates, we can apply Lemma 7 to show that the edge expansion of PndP_{n}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability. Note that since n<d2dn<d2^{d}, this means that k<dk<d. Let πk:V(Pnd)k\pi_{k}:V(P_{n}^{d})\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{k} denote the orthogonal projection of V(Pnd)V(P_{n}^{d}) to the first kk coordinates. We claim that two things hold with high probability:

Claim 1: Letting CkC^{k} denote the kk-cube in πkd=k\pi_{k}\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{d}=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{k}, every vertex of CkC^{k} appears at least once in πkV(Pnd)\pi_{k}V(P_{n}^{d}).

Claim 2: For every vertex vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), the cardinality of πk1(v)V(Pnd)\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)\subset V(P_{n}^{d}) is at most 6d6d.

To prove that the first claim holds with high probability, note that it suffices to prove that every vertex of CkC^{k} appears at least once in πkSnd\pi_{k}S_{n}^{d} with high probability. Observe that πkSnd\pi_{k}S_{n}^{d} is the same as SnkS_{n}^{k}. Therefore, the first claim is equivalent to the statement that every vertex of CkC^{k} appears at least once in SnkS_{n}^{k}. Since nk2kn\geq k2^{k}, as argued above, we have that the probability that there exists some vertex of CkC^{k} that is not chosen once in SnkS_{n}^{k} is less than or equal to (2e)k(\frac{2}{e})^{k}. Since we are assuming in this case that (k+1)2k+1>n>d(k+1)2^{k+1}>n>d, we have that kk\to\infty as dd\to\infty and therefore the probability that there exists some vertex of CkC^{k} that is not chosen once in SnkS_{n}^{k} goes to zero as dd\to\infty. And so we have that that Claim 1 holds with high probability.

For the second claim, we use the well-known analysis of the classic \sayballs-into-bins problem from probability theory, see for example [15]. In our application, that balls are the points in SndS_{n}^{d} and the bins are the vertices of CkC^{k}. That is, we have nn balls each of which is placed into one of 2k2^{k} bins uniformly at random. Using the fact that k2kn(k+1)2k+1k2^{k}\leq n\leq(k+1)2^{k+1}, by [15, Theorem 1], each bin contains at most 6k6k balls with high probability. Since k<dk<d, each bin contains at most 6d6d balls with high probability. In other words, Claim 2 holds with high probability.

Because Claims 1 and 2 hold with high probability, by Lemma 7 we have that the edge expansion of the graph of PndP_{n}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability. ∎

Theorem 9 (The binomial model).

For any p(0,1)p\in(0,1), let SpdS_{p}^{d} be the subset of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d} where each x{0,1}dx\in\{0,1\}^{d} is in SpdS_{p}^{d} with probability pp. Then the edge expansion of the polytope Ppd:=convSpdP_{p}^{d}:=\operatorname{conv}S_{p}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability.

Proof.

First, if pd/2dp\leq d/2^{d}, then it is clear that PpdP_{p}^{d} has edge expansion at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability because it has few vertices with high probability. Indeed, the cardinality of SpdS_{p}^{d} is a binomial random variable with number of trials 2d2^{d} and probability of success pp and so it has expected value μ:=p2d\mu:=p2^{d}. Using the Chernoff bound, we have that |Spd||S_{p}^{d}| is less than 3μ=3p2d3d3\mu=3p2^{d}\leq 3d with high probability. This means that PpdP_{p}^{d} has at most 3d3d vertices with high probability. Given any subset SPpdS\subset P_{p}^{d} with |S||Ppd|/2|S|\leq|P_{p}^{d}|/2, the fact that graphs of polytopes are connected implies that there is at least one edge connecting a vertex in SS to a vertex in PpdSP_{p}^{d}\setminus S. Since |S|3d/2|S|\leq 3d/2, this is enough to show that the edge expansion of PpdP_{p}^{d} is at least 2/3d1/12d2/3d\geq 1/12d.

So now assume that p>d/2dp>d/2^{d}.

Let kk be the largest integer such that p2dk2kp2^{d}\geq k2^{k}. We will show that by considering the projection of PpdP_{p}^{d} to the first kk coordinates, we can apply Lemma 7 to show that the edge expansion of PpdP_{p}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability. Note that since p<1p<1, this means that k<dk<d. Let πk:V(Ppd)k\pi_{k}:V(P_{p}^{d})\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{k} denote the orthogonal projection of V(Ppd)V(P_{p}^{d}) to the first kk coordinates. We claim that two things hold with high probability:

Claim 1: Every vertex of CkC^{k} appears at least once in πkV(Ppd)\pi_{k}V(P_{p}^{d}).

Claim 2: For every vertex vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), the cardinality of πk1(v)Ppd\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)\subset P_{p}^{d} is at most 6d6d.

To prove the first claim holds with high probability, observe that for each vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), the set πk1(v)\pi_{k}^{-1}(v) consists of 2dk2^{d-k} vertices of CdC^{d}. Therefore, the probability that there is some vertex in CkC^{k} that doesn’t appear in πkV(Ppd)\pi_{k}V(P_{p}^{d}) is equal to 2k(1p)2dk2^{k}(1-p)^{2^{d-k}}. Now using the fact that p2dk2kp2^{d}\geq k2^{k}, we have that 1p1k2k2d1-p\leq 1-\frac{k2^{k}}{2^{d}}. Therefore, the previously mentioned probability is at most 2k(1k2dk)2dk2^{k}(1-\frac{k}{2^{d-k}})^{2^{d-k}}. This quantity is less than (2/e)k(2/e)^{k}. Since kk is the largest integer such that p2dk2kp2^{d}\geq k2^{k}, we know that p2d(k+1)2k+1p2^{d}\leq(k+1)2^{k+1}. Substituting p>d/2dp>d/2^{d} into the previous inequality yields d<(k+1)2k+1d<(k+1)2^{k+1} and so kk\to\infty as dd\to\infty. Now since the probability that there is some vertex that doesn’t appear in πpV(Pnd)\pi_{p}V(P_{n}^{d}) is less than (2/e)k(2/e)^{k}, we have that this probability goes to zero as dd\to\infty and so Claim 1 holds with high probability.

For the second claim, observe that for each vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), |πk1(v)||\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)| is a binomial random variable with number of trials 2dk2^{d-k} and probability of success pp. This means that the expected value μ\mu of each of these random variables is p2dkp2^{d-k}. Now by the fact that k2kp2d(k+1)2k+1k2^{k}\leq p2^{d}\leq(k+1)2^{k+1}, we have that kμ2(k+1)k\leq\mu\leq 2(k+1). This means that 3μ6(k+1)3\mu\leq 6(k+1). Therefore, using the Chernoff bound, we have

(|πk1(v)|6(k+1))(|πk1(v)|3μ)(e233)μ(e233)k.\begin{split}\mathbb{P}(|\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)|\geq 6(k+1))&\leq\mathbb{P}(|\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)|\geq 3\mu)\\ &\leq\bigg{(}\frac{e^{2}}{3^{3}}\bigg{)}^{\mu}\\ &\leq\bigg{(}\frac{e^{2}}{3^{3}}\bigg{)}^{k}.\end{split} (1)

This means that the probability that there is some vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}) such that |πk1(v)|6(k+1)|\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)|\geq 6(k+1) is at most (2e233)k\bigl{(}\frac{2e^{2}}{3^{3}}\bigr{)}^{k} which goes to zero as kk\to\infty. Therefore, with high probability, for every vertex vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), the cardinality of πk1(v)\pi_{k}^{-1}(v) is at most 6k+5<6d6k+5<6d.

Because Claims 1 and 2 hold with high probability, by Lemma 7 we have that the edge expansion of the graph of PpdP_{p}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability. ∎

Theorem 10 (The uniform model).

Let UndU_{n}^{d} be chosen uniformly at random from the set of all nn-element subsets of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}. Then the edge expansion of the polytope Qnd:=convUndQ_{n}^{d}:=\operatorname{conv}U_{n}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability.

Proof.

For this proof, we will make use of the fact that the uniform model is in some sense very similar to the binomial model. Recall that in the proof of Theorem 9 we showed that with πk\pi_{k} denoting the orthogonal projection to the first kk coordinates, two claims hold with high probability:

Claim 1: Every vertex of CkC^{k} appears at least once in πkV(Ppd)\pi_{k}V(P_{p}^{d}).

Claim 2: For every vertex vV(Ck)v\in V(C^{k}), the cardinality of πk1(v)Ppd\pi_{k}^{-1}(v)\subset P_{p}^{d} is at most 6d6d.

Now it is easy to see that, considering V(Ppd)V(P_{p}^{d}) as a subset of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d}, satisfying Claim 1 and Claim 2 is a convex property of subsets of {0,1}d\{0,1\}^{d} as defined in [9, Section 1.3]. Therefore, by [9, Proposition 1.15], Claim 1 and 2 hold with high probability if we replace PpdP_{p}^{d} by QndQ_{n}^{d} in the statements of these claims. Therefore, again using Lemma 7, we have that the edge expansion of QndQ_{n}^{d} is at least 1/12d1/12d with high probability. ∎

Acknowledgments.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants CCF-1657939 and CCF-2006994.

References

  • [1] N. Anari, K. Liu, S. O. Gharan, and C. Vinzant. Log-concave polynomials II: High-dimensional walks and an FPRAS for counting bases of a matroid. In STOC’19—Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1–12. ACM, New York, 2019.
  • [2] F. R. K. Chung. Laplacians of graphs and Cheeger’s inequalities. In Combinatorics, Paul Erdős is eighty, Vol. 2 (Keszthely, 1993), volume 2 of Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., pages 157–172. János Bolyai Math. Soc., Budapest, 1996.
  • [3] J. Edmonds. Maximum matching and a polyhedron with 0,10,1-vertices. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards Sect. B, 69B:125–130, 1965.
  • [4] J. Edmonds. Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra. In Combinatorial optimization—Eureka, you shrink!, volume 2570 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 11–26. Springer, Berlin, 2003.
  • [5] T. Feder and M. Mihail. Balanced matroids. In S. R. Kosaraju, M. Fellows, A. Wigderson, and J. A. Ellis, editors, Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 4-6, 1992, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, pages 26–38. ACM, 1992.
  • [6] R. Gillmann. 0/1-Polytopes: Typical and Extremal Properties. Doctoral thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Fakultät II - Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, Berlin, 2007.
  • [7] R. Gillmann and V. Kaibel. Revlex-initial 0/10/1-polytopes. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 113(5):799–821, 2006.
  • [8] L. H. Harper. Optimal numberings and isoperimetric problems on graphs. J. Combinatorial Theory, 1:385–393, 1966.
  • [9] S. Janson, T. Łuczak, and A. Rucinski. Random graphs. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2000.
  • [10] V. Kaibel. On the expansion of graphs of 0/1-polytopes. In The sharpest cut, MPS/SIAM Ser. Optim., pages 199–216. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2004.
  • [11] V. Kaibel and A. Remshagen. On the graph-density of random 0/1-polytopes. In S. Arora, K. Jansen, J. D. P. Rolim, and A. Sahai, editors, Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Techniques, 6th International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, APPROX 2003 and 7th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, RANDOM 2003, Princeton, NJ, USA, August 24-26, 2003, Proceedings, volume 2764 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 318–328. Springer, 2003.
  • [12] T. Matsui and S. Tamura. Adjacency on combinatorial polyhedra. Discret. Appl. Math., 56(2-3):311–321, 1995.
  • [13] M. Mihail. On the expansion of combinatorial polytopes. In Mathematical foundations of computer science 1992 (Prague, 1992), volume 629 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 37–49. Springer, Berlin, 1992.
  • [14] M. Mihail. Combinatorial Aspects of Expanders. Doctoral thesis, Aiken Laboratory, Harvard University, July 1989.
  • [15] M. Raab and A. Steger. “Balls into bins”—a simple and tight analysis. In Randomization and approximation techniques in computer science (Barcelona, 1998), volume 1518 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 159–170. Springer, Berlin, 1998.
  • [16] A. Sinclair. Improved bounds for mixing rates of Markov chains and multicommodity flow. Combin. Probab. Comput., 1(4):351–370, 1992.
  • [17] G. M. Ziegler. Lectures on polytopes. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
  • [18] G. M. Ziegler. Lectures on 0/10/1-polytopes. In Polytopes—combinatorics and computation (Oberwolfach, 1997), volume 29 of DMV Sem., pages 1–41. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2000.