Rapid Mixing of k-Class Biased Permutations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10807)

Abstract

In this paper, we study a biased version of the nearest-neighbor transposition Markov chain on the set of permutations where neighboring elements i and j are placed in order (ij) with probability \(p_{i,j}\). Our goal is to identify the class of parameter sets \(\mathbf{P} = \{p_{i,j}\}\) for which this Markov chain is rapidly mixing. Specifically, we consider the open conjecture of Jim Fill that all monotone, positively biased distributions are rapidly mixing.

We resolve Fill’s conjecture in the affirmative for distributions arising from k-class particle processes, where the elements are divided into k classes and the probability of exchanging neighboring elements depends on the particular classes the elements are in. We further require that k is a constant, and all probabilities between elements in different classes are bounded away from 1/2. These particle processes arise in the context of self-organizing lists and our result also applies beyond permutations to the setting where all particles in a class are indistinguishable. Our work generalizes recent work by Haddadan and Winkler (STACS ’17) studying 3-class particle processes. Additionally we show that a broader class of distributions based on trees is also rapidly mixing, which generalizes a class analyzed by Bhakta et al. (SODA ’13).

Our proof involves analyzing a generalized biased exclusion process, which is a nearest-neighbor transposition chain applied to a 2-particle system. Biased exclusion processes are of independent interest, with applications in self-assembly. We generalize the results of Greenberg et al. (SODA ’09) and Benjamini et al. (Trans. AMS ’05) on biased exclusion processes to allow the probability of swapping neighboring elements to depend on the entire system, as long as the minimum bias is bounded away from 1.

References

  1. 1.
    Knuth, D.: The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldous, D.J.: Random walks on finite groups and rapidly mixing Markov chains. Séminaire de probabilités de Strasbourg 17, 243–297 (1983)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diaconis, P., Shahshahani, M.: Generating a random permutation with random transpositions. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Verw. Gebiete 57, 159–179 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diaconis, P., Saloff-Coste, L.: Comparison techniques for random walks on finite groups. Ann. Appl. Probab. 21, 2131–2156 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson, D.: Mixing times of lozenge tiling and card shuffling Markov chains. Ann. Appl. Probab. 1, 274–325 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhakta, P., Miracle, S., Randall, D., Streib, A.: Mixing times of Markov chains for self-organizing lists and biased permutations. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM/SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2013, pp. 1–15 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fill, J.: An interesting spectral gap problem (2003, unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fill, J.: Background on the gap problem (2003, unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benjamini, I., Berger, N., Hoffman, C., Mossel, E.: Mixing times of the biased card shuffling and the asymmetric exclusion process. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 357, 3013–3029 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hester, J.H., Hirschberg, D.S.: Self-organizing linear search. Comput. Surv. 17, 295–311 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haddadan, S., Winkler, P.: Mixing of permutations by biased transposition. In: 34th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 2017, pp. 41:1–41:13 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spitzer, F.: Interaction of Markov processes. Adv. Math. 5, 240–290 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luby, M., Randall, D., Sinclair, A.: Markov chain algorithms for planar lattice structures. SIAM J. Comput. 31, 167–192 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenberg, S., Pascoe, A., Randall, D.: Sampling biased lattice configurations using exponential metrics. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pascoe, A., Randall, D.: Self-assembly and convergence rates of heterogenous reversible growth processes. In: Foundations of Nanoscience (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Labbé, C., Lacoin, H.: Cutoff phenomenon for the asymmetric simple exclusion process and the biased card shuffling. arXiv:1610.07383v1 (2016)
  17. 17.
    Levin, D., Peres, Y.: Mixing of the exclusion process with small bias. J. Stat. Phys. 165, 1036–1050 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenberg, S., Randall, D., Streib, A.: Sampling biased monotonic surfaces using exponential metrics (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, R., Randall, D.: Sampling adsorbing staircase walks using a new Markov chain decomposition method. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 492–502 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin, R., Randall, D.: Disjoint decomposition of Markov chains and sampling circuits in cayley graphs. Comb. Probab. Comput. 15, 411–448 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinclair, A.: Algorithms for Random Generation and Counting. Progress in Theoretical Computer Science. Birkhäuser, Basel (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Randall, D.: Mixing. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Madras, N., Randall, D.: Markov chain decomposition for convergence rate analysis. Ann. Appl. Probab. 12, 581–606 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diaconis, P., Saloff-Coste, L.: Comparison theorems for reversible Markov chains. Ann. Appl. Probab. 3, 696–730 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Randall, D., Tetali, P.: Analyzing Glauber dynamics by comparison of Markov chains. J. Math. Phys. 41, 1598–1615 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. ThomasSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Center for Computing SciencesBowieUSA

Personalised recommendations