Computational Complexity of Normalizing Constants for the Product of Determinantal Point Processes
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We consider the product of determinantal point processes (DPPs), a point process whose probability mass is proportional to the product of principal minors of multiple matrices, as a natural, promising generalization of DPPs. We study the computational complexity of computing its normalizing constant, which is among the most essential probabilistic inference tasks. Our complexity-theoretic results (almost) rule out the existence of efficient algorithms for this task unless the input matrices are forced to have favorable structures. In particular, we prove the following: (1) Computing sumSdet(bf AS,S)p exactly for every (fixed) positive even integer p is UP-hard and Mod3P-hard, which gives a negative answer to an open question posed by Kulesza and Taskar. (2) sumSdet(bf AS,S)det(bf BS,S)det(bf CS,S) is NP-hard to approximate within a factor of 2^O(|I|1-ε) or 2^O(n1/ε) for any ε>0, where |I| is the input size and n is the order of the input matrix. This result is stronger than the #P-hardness for the case of two matrices derived by Gillenwater. (3) There exists a kO(k)nO(1)-time algorithm for computing sumSdet(bf AS,S)det(bf BS,S), where k is the maximum rank of bf A and bf B or the treewidth of the graph formed by nonzero entries of bf A and bf B. Such parameterized algorithms are said to be fixed-parameter tractable. These results can be extended to the fixed-size case. Further, we present two applications of fixed-parameter tractable algorithms given a matrix bf A of treewidth w: (4) We can compute a 2^fracn2p-1-approximation to sumSdet(bf AS,S)p for any fractional number p>1 in wO(wp)nO(1) time. (5) We can find a 2√ n-approximation to unconstrained MAP inference in wO(w√ n)nO(1) time.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Nov 2021.
Builds on
16 of 72 references.
References · 16
- 2018Fair and Diverse DPP-based Data Summarizationcited by 39
- 2014Learning the Parameters of Determinantal Point Process Kernelscited by 23
- 2019Learning Nonsymmetric Determinantal Point Processescited by 16
- 2016Fast DPP Sampling for Nystr"om with Application to Kernel Methodscited by 15
- 2016Low-Rank Factorization of Determinantal Point Processes for Recommendationcited by 14
- 2014Randomized Rounding for the Largest Simplex Problemcited by 10
- 2018Parameterized Algorithms for the Matrix Completion Problemcited by 7
- 2018Log-Concave Polynomials II: High-Dimensional Walks and an FPRAS for Counting Bases of a Matroidcited by 7
- 2014On largest volume simplices and sub-determinantscited by 6
- 2019Flexible Modeling of Diversity with Strongly Log-Concave Distributionscited by 6
- 2016On the Complexity of Constrained Determinantal Point Processescited by 4
- 2021Some Inapproximability Results of MAP Inference and Exponentiated Determinantal Point Processescited by 3
4 more
- 2015Block-Wise MAP Inference for Determinantal Point Processes with Application to Change-Point Detectioncited by 2
- 2017A Generalization of Permanent Inequalities and Applications in Counting and Optimizationcited by 2
- 2014Complexity of counting subgraphs: only the boundedness of the vertex-cover number countscited by 1
- 2021Spanning Tree Constrained Determinantal Point Processes are Hard to (Approximately) Evaluatecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.