Fast and Powerful Hashing using Tabulation

Randomized algorithms are often enjoyed for their simplicity, but the hash functions employed to yield the desired probabilistic guarantees are often too complicated to be practical. Here we survey recent results on how simple hashing schemes based on tabulation provide unexpectedly strong guarantees. Simple tabulation hashing dates back to Zobrist [1970]. Keys are viewed as consisting of $c$ characters and we have precomputed character tables $h_1,...,h_c$ mapping characters to random hash values. A key $x=(x_1,...,x_c)$ is hashed to $h_1[x_1] \oplus h_2[x_2].....\oplus h_c[x_c]$. This schemes is very fast with character tables in cache. While simple tabulation is not even 4-independent, it does provide many of the guarantees that are normally obtained via higher independence, e.g., linear probing and Cuckoo hashing. Next we consider twisted tabulation where one input character is "twisted" in a simple way. The resulting hash function has powerful distributional properties: Chernoff-Hoeffding type tail bounds and a very small bias for min-wise hashing. This also yields an extremely fast pseudo-random number generator that is provably good for many classic randomized algorithms and data-structures. Finally, we consider double tabulation where we compose two simple tabulation functions, applying one to the output of the other, and show that this yields very high independence in the classic framework of Carter and Wegman [1977]. In fact, w.h.p., for a given set of size proportional to that of the space consumed, double tabulation gives fully-random hashing. We also mention some more elaborate tabulation schemes getting near-optimal independence for given time and space. While these tabulation schemes are all easy to implement and use, their analysis is not

Simple Tabulation, Fast Expanders, Double Tabulation, and High Independence

Simple tabulation dates back to Zobrist in 1970. Keys are viewed as c characters from some alphabet A. We initialize c tables h_0, ..., h_{c-1} mapping characters to random hash values. A key x=(x_0, ..., x_{c-1}) is hashed to h_0[x_0] xor...xor h_{c-1}[x_{c-1}]. The scheme is extremely fast when the character hash tables h_i are in cache. Simple tabulation hashing is not 4-independent, but we show that if we apply it twice, then we get high independence. First we hash to intermediate keys that are 6 times longer than the original keys, and then we hash the intermediate keys to the final hash values. The intermediate keys have d=6c characters from A. We can view the hash function as a degree d bipartite graph with keys on one side, each with edges to d output characters. We show that this graph has nice expansion properties, and from that we get that with another level of simple tabulation on the intermediate keys, the composition is a highly independent hash function. The independence we get is |A|^{Omega(1/c)}. Our space is O(c|A|) and the hash function is evaluated in O(c) time. Siegel [FOCS'89, SICOMP'04] proved that with this space, if the hash function is evaluated in o(c) time, then the independence can only be o(c), so our evaluation time is best possible for Omega(c) independence---our independence is much higher if c=|A|^{o(1)}. Siegel used O(c)^c evaluation time to get the same independence with similar space. Siegel's main focus was c=O(1), but we are exponentially faster when c=omega(1). Applying our scheme recursively, we can increase our independence to |A|^{Omega(1)} with o(c^{log c}) evaluation time. Compared with Siegel's scheme this is both faster and higher independence. Our scheme is easy to implement, and it does provide realistic implementations of 100-independent hashing for, say, 32 and 64-bit keys

Approximately Minwise Independence with Twisted Tabulation

A random hash function $h$ is $\varepsilon$-minwise if for any set $S$, $|S|=n$, and element $x\in S$, $\Pr[h(x)=\min h(S)]=(1\pm\varepsilon)/n$. Minwise hash functions with low bias $\varepsilon$ have widespread applications within similarity estimation. Hashing from a universe $[u]$, the twisted tabulation hashing of P\v{a}tra\c{s}cu and Thorup [SODA'13] makes $c=O(1)$ lookups in tables of size $u^{1/c}$. Twisted tabulation was invented to get good concentration for hashing based sampling. Here we show that twisted tabulation yields $\tilde O(1/u^{1/c})$-minwise hashing. In the classic independence paradigm of Wegman and Carter [FOCS'79] $\tilde O(1/u^{1/c})$-minwise hashing requires $\Omega(\log u)$-independence [Indyk SODA'99]. P\v{a}tra\c{s}cu and Thorup [STOC'11] had shown that simple tabulation, using same space and lookups yields $\tilde O(1/n^{1/c})$-minwise independence, which is good for large sets, but useless for small sets. Our analysis uses some of the same methods, but is much cleaner bypassing a complicated induction argument.Comment: To appear in Proceedings of SWAT 201

Fast hashing with Strong Concentration Bounds

Previous work on tabulation hashing by Patrascu and Thorup from STOC'11 on simple tabulation and from SODA'13 on twisted tabulation offered Chernoff-style concentration bounds on hash based sums, e.g., the number of balls/keys hashing to a given bin, but under some quite severe restrictions on the expected values of these sums. The basic idea in tabulation hashing is to view a key as consisting of $c=O(1)$ characters, e.g., a 64-bit key as $c=8$ characters of 8-bits. The character domain $\Sigma$ should be small enough that character tables of size $|\Sigma|$ fit in fast cache. The schemes then use $O(1)$ tables of this size, so the space of tabulation hashing is $O(|\Sigma|)$. However, the concentration bounds by Patrascu and Thorup only apply if the expected sums are $\ll |\Sigma|$. To see the problem, consider the very simple case where we use tabulation hashing to throw $n$ balls into $m$ bins and want to analyse the number of balls in a given bin. With their concentration bounds, we are fine if $n=m$, for then the expected value is $1$. However, if $m=2$, as when tossing $n$ unbiased coins, the expected value $n/2$ is $\gg |\Sigma|$ for large data sets, e.g., data sets that do not fit in fast cache. To handle expectations that go beyond the limits of our small space, we need a much more advanced analysis of simple tabulation, plus a new tabulation technique that we call \emph{tabulation-permutation} hashing which is at most twice as slow as simple tabulation. No other hashing scheme of comparable speed offers similar Chernoff-style concentration bounds.Comment: 54 pages, 3 figures. An extended abstract appeared at the 52nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC20

Practical Hash Functions for Similarity Estimation and Dimensionality Reduction

Hashing is a basic tool for dimensionality reduction employed in several aspects of machine learning. However, the perfomance analysis is often carried out under the abstract assumption that a truly random unit cost hash function is used, without concern for which concrete hash function is employed. The concrete hash function may work fine on sufficiently random input. The question is if it can be trusted in the real world when faced with more structured input. In this paper we focus on two prominent applications of hashing, namely similarity estimation with the one permutation hashing (OPH) scheme of Li et al. [NIPS'12] and feature hashing (FH) of Weinberger et al. [ICML'09], both of which have found numerous applications, i.e. in approximate near-neighbour search with LSH and large-scale classification with SVM. We consider mixed tabulation hashing of Dahlgaard et al.[FOCS'15] which was proved to perform like a truly random hash function in many applications, including OPH. Here we first show improved concentration bounds for FH with truly random hashing and then argue that mixed tabulation performs similar for sparse input. Our main contribution, however, is an experimental comparison of different hashing schemes when used inside FH, OPH, and LSH. We find that mixed tabulation hashing is almost as fast as the multiply-mod-prime scheme ax+b mod p. Mutiply-mod-prime is guaranteed to work well on sufficiently random data, but we demonstrate that in the above applications, it can lead to bias and poor concentration on both real-world and synthetic data. We also compare with the popular MurmurHash3, which has no proven guarantees. Mixed tabulation and MurmurHash3 both perform similar to truly random hashing in our experiments. However, mixed tabulation is 40% faster than MurmurHash3, and it has the proven guarantee of good performance on all possible input.Comment: Preliminary version of this paper will appear at NIPS 201

The universality of iterated hashing over variable-length strings

Iterated hash functions process strings recursively, one character at a time. At each iteration, they compute a new hash value from the preceding hash value and the next character. We prove that iterated hashing can be pairwise independent, but never 3-wise independent. We show that it can be almost universal over strings much longer than the number of hash values; we bound the maximal string length given the collision probability

On randomness in Hash functions

In the talk, we shall discuss quality measures for hash functions used in data structures and algorithms, and survey positive and negative results. (This talk is not about cryptographic hash functions.) For the analysis of algorithms involving hash functions, it is often convenient to assume the hash functions used behave fully randomly; in some cases there is no analysis known that avoids this assumption. In practice, one needs to get by with weaker hash functions that can be generated by randomized algorithms. A well-studied range of applications concern realizations of dynamic dictionaries (linear probing, chained hashing, dynamic perfect hashing, cuckoo hashing and its generalizations) or Bloom filters and their variants. A particularly successful and useful means of classification are Carter and Wegman's universal or k-wise independent classes, introduced in 1977. A natural and widely used approach to analyzing an algorithm involving hash functions is to show that it works if a sufficiently strong universal class of hash functions is used, and to substitute one of the known constructions of such classes. This invites research into the question of just how much independence in the hash functions is necessary for an algorithm to work. Some recent analyses that gave impossibility results constructed rather artificial classes that would not work; other results pointed out natural, widely used hash classes that would not work in a particular application. Only recently it was shown that under certain assumptions on some entropy present in the set of keys even 2-wise independent hash classes will lead to strong randomness properties in the hash values. The negative results show that these results may not be taken as justification for using weak hash classes indiscriminately, in particular for key sets with structure. When stronger independence properties are needed for a theoretical analysis, one may resort to classic constructions. Only in 2003 it was found out how full randomness can be simulated using only linear space overhead (which is optimal). The "split-and-share" approach can be used to justify the full randomness assumption in some situations in which full randomness is needed for the analysis to go through, like in many applications involving multiple hash functions (e.g., generalized versions of cuckoo hashing with multiple hash functions or larger bucket sizes, load balancing, Bloom filters and variants, or minimal perfect hash function constructions). For practice, efficiency considerations beyond constant factors are important. It is not hard to construct very efficient 2-wise independent classes. Using k-wise independent classes for constant k bigger than 3 has become feasible in practice only by new constructions involving tabulation. This goes together well with the quite new result that linear probing works with 5-independent hash functions. Recent developments suggest that the classification of hash function constructions by their degree of independence alone may not be adequate in some cases. Thus, one may want to analyze the behavior of specific hash classes in specific applications, circumventing the concept of k-wise independence. Several such results were recently achieved concerning hash functions that utilize tabulation. In particular if the analysis of the application involves using randomness properties in graphs and hypergraphs (generalized cuckoo hashing, also in the version with a "stash", or load balancing), a hash class combining k-wise independence with tabulation has turned out to be very powerful