Source-linked AI summary
Dynamic Minimum Spanning Forest with Subpolynomial Worst-case Update Time
Danupon Nanongkai, Thatchaphol Saranurak, Christian Wulff-Nilsen
TL;DR
Dynamic MSF asks for maintaining a minimum spanning forest as edges are inserted or deleted, with update time as the objective. The paper combines expander-pruning and contraction-based ideas and gives a Las Vegas algorithm with O(n^o(1)) worst-case update time in expectation and with high probability.
Problem
Dynamic MSF asks for maintaining a minimum spanning forest as graph edges are inserted or deleted, while minimizing update time.
Source: §1 · p. 4Method
The paper combines expander-pruning machinery with a new contraction-based approach for dynamic MSF on sparse graphs.
Source: §1 · p. 6, §5 · p. 15Results
O(n^o(1)) worst-case update time in expectation and with high probability for a Las Vegas dynamic MSF algorithm.
Source: §1 · p. 5Takeaways & Limitations
The new contraction approach reduces MSF maintenance with few non-tree edges to the same problem on graphs with few edges and fewer nodes.
Source: §1 · p. 6The idealized maximum-volume low-conductance cut choice is NP-hard to compute.
Source: §5.1 · p. 16
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
We present a Las Vegas algorithm for dynamically maintaining a minimum spanning forest of an $n$-node graph undergoing edge insertions and deletions. Our algorithm guarantees an $O(n^{o(1)})$ worst-case update time with high probability. This significantly improves the two recent Las Vegas algorithms by Wulff-Nilsen [STOC'17] with update time $O(n^{0.5-\epsilon})$ for some constant $\epsilon>0$ and, independently, by Nanongkai and Saranurak [STOC'17] with update time $O(n^{0.494})$ (the latter works only for maintaining a spanning forest). Our result is obtained by identifying the common framework that both two previous algorithms rely on, and then improve and combine the ideas from both works. There are two main algorithmic components of the framework that are newly improved and critical for obtaining our result. First, we improve the update time from $O(n^{0.5-\epsilon})$ in Wulff-Nilsen [STOC'17] to $O(n^{o(1)})$ for decrementally removing all low-conductance cuts in an expander undergoing edge deletions. Second, by revisiting the "contraction technique" by Henzinger and King [1997] and Holm et al. [STOC'98], we show a new approach for maintaining a minimum spanning forest in connected graphs with very few (at most $(1+o(1))n$) edges. This significantly improves the previous approach in [Wulff-Nilsen STOC'17] and [Nanongkai and Saranurak STOC'17] which is based on Frederickson's 2-dimensional topology tree and illustrates a new application to this old technique.
1 Introduction
The paper gives a Las Vegas dynamic MSF algorithm with subpolynomial worst-case update time, narrowing the gap between polylogarithmic amortized and polynomial worst-case bounds. It improves expander pruning and ultra-sparse-graph maintenance within a shared framework, then combines these components recursively.
Motivation
- Worst-case dynamic MSF update time had remained at O(√n) for decades, despite polylogarithmic amortized bounds and polylogarithmic worst-case progress for dynamic connectivity.Worst-case bounds matter in settings such as real-time systems that need a hard response-time guarantee.Source: §1 · pp. 4–5
Our Result
- O(n^o(1)) update time in expectation and with high probability is achieved by the Las Vegas dynamic MSF algorithm.The result improves on recent Las Vegas bounds of Wulff-Nilsen and Nanongkai and Saranurak.Source: §1 · p. 5
Key Technical Contribution and Organization
- The shared framework combines expansion decomposition, expander pruning, and dynamic MSF or SF maintenance on the sparse remainder.The decomposition produces expanders and a remaining part with o(n) edges.Source: §1 · pp. 5–6
Improved expander pruning
- O(d^1+o(1)) time improves the one-shot expander-pruning bound from O(d^1.5+o(1)); dynamic pruning improves from O(n^0.5−ε) to O(n^o(1)).The dynamic approach uses multiple static instances at different frequencies and does not require the random sampling used by Wulff-Nilsen.Source: §1 · p. 6
Improved dynamic MSF algorithm on “ultra-sparse” graphs
- A new contraction-based approach maintains MSF on ultra-sparse graphs with few non-tree edges and handles batches of edge insertions.It reduces the problem to one on a graph with few edges and fewer nodes, enabling recursion, rather than using Frederickson’s 2-dimensional topology tree.Source: §1 · p. 6
Integration method
- Recursive integration combines improved MSF decomposition, dynamic expander pruning, and ultra-sparse MSF maintenance to obtain the subpolynomial update bound.The MSF decomposition is a subroutine implicit in Wulff-Nilsen, and flow-based expansion decomposition yields a slight improvement to the exponent.Source: §1 · pp. 6–7
2 Preliminaries
The preliminaries specify the graph and update model, notation, and basic MSF facts used in the paper. They also summarize dynamic-forest tools and prior algorithms that support later constructions.
2 Preliminaries
- The graph is weighted with distinct edge weights, and a dynamic MSF algorithm reports the edge changes after each update against an adversarial sequence.Update time measures the time to output those changes; the paper’s ˜O notation hides polylogarithmic factors.Source: §2 · pp. 7–8
- Contracting two nodes preserves the inclusion MSF(G′) ⊆ MSF(G), and MSF of a union of edge sets is contained in the union of their individual MSFs.The paper also assumes access to graph adjacency lists and a list of non-isolated nodes for local algorithms.Source: §2 · pp. 7–8
2.1 Some Known Results for Dynamic MSF
- A top-tree data structure supports forest edge updates and path queries in O(log n) time, while a deterministic fully dynamic MSF algorithm has ˜O(n) worst-case update time.The path query returns the heaviest edge between two connected nodes or reports that they are disconnected.Source: §2.1 · p. 8
- A decremental MSF algorithm runs in ˜O(|S|) per deletion when every non-tree edge has exactly one endpoint in S and nodes outside S have constant degree.This is a specialized setting used in later dynamic MSF work.Source: §2.1 · p. 9
3 The Extended Unit Flow Algorithm
Extended Unit Flow is the main tool for finding locally balanced sparse cuts used in the dynamic algorithm. It routes source supply subject to sink limits, returning either a flow or a low-conductance cut certificate when the input is unsuitable.
3 The Extended Unit Flow Algorithm
- Extended Unit Flow is the main tool for developing the locally balanced sparse-cut algorithm used by the dynamic algorithm.It extends ideas from Henzinger, Rao, and Wang.Source: §3 · p. 9
- A flow routes node supplies through an unweighted graph, respecting source and sink constraints; congestion measures the maximum amount routed through an edge.The algorithm uses source and sink functions and can operate without reading the entire graph.Source: §3 · p. 9
The main theorem
- Given G, h, F, source function Δ, and sink function T, the algorithm returns a source-feasible preflow with congestion at most 2hF and its total excess.Its running time is O(Fh(|Δ(·)| + |T(·)|) log m).Source: Remark 3.2 ( · p. 10
Remark 3.2 (
- For inputs with bounded source per node and sufficiently high conductance, a flow can have congestion ˜O(hF); failure to find one yields a low-conductance cut certificate.The relationship between the cut’s volume and the preflow’s excess is a key property used later.Source: Remark 3.2 ( · p. 10
- The extended algorithm handles sink functions with T(v) < deg(v) by transforming the instance and applying Unit Flow.Unit Flow returns a flow or a cut S with φG(S) < 1/h, with excess localized to S in the cut case.Source: Remark 3.2 ( · p. 11
4 Locally Balanced Sparse Cut
The section formalizes locally balanced sparse cuts and develops an approximate algorithm for finding them. Its central design challenge is balancing cut-size and conductance guarantees with running time.
4 Locally Balanced Sparse Cut
- An approximate LBS cut has conductance below α and its size is compared with the largest qualifying overlapping sparse cut, allowing size and conductance approximation factors.Such a cut implies that any sufficiently large (A, σ)-overlapping cut has conductance at least α/ccon.Source: §4 · p. 12
- Theorem 4.4 gives an (O(1/σ^2), O(1/σ^2))-approximate LBS cut algorithm.Source: §4 · p. 13
- The central challenge is achieving good guarantees on both csize and running time.Source: §4 · p. 13
- Extended Unit Flow yields either a report that no qualifying overlapping sparse cut exists or a set S returned as an approximate LBS cut.The proof uses the resulting preflow’s excess to distinguish the two cases.Source: §4 · p. 14
5 Expander Pruning
The section improves expander pruning, a key tool for dynamic minimum spanning forest algorithms, and builds a dynamic pruning algorithm from one-shot pruning instances. The dynamic method grows a pruning set while preserving a connected unpruned graph under its stated expansion condition.
5 Expander Pruning
- The expander-pruning algorithm is deterministic with n^o(1) update time, improving the earlier n^(0.5−ε0) bound, although the final dynamic MSF algorithm is randomized.Source: §5 · pp. 14–15
5.2 Dynamic Expander Pruning
- For an initial graph with φ(G0) ≥ α0(n), the dynamic algorithm uses n^O(log log 1/ε(n)) = n^o(1) time per deletion and preserves a connected graph after removing some subset of the pruning set.The stated guarantee assumes α0(n) = 1/n^ε(n) and applies to the specified deletion sequence.Source: §5 · p. 15, §5.2 · p. 17
5.1 One-shot Expander Pruning
- The one-shot algorithm improves the deletion-set dependency from ~D^(1.5+δ) in to ~D^(1+δ).It either reports that the graph before deletions has conductance below α_b or outputs a pruning set whose complement has conductance at least α = Ω(α_b^(2/δ)).Source: §5.1 · p. 16
5.2.1 The Algorithm
- The dynamic construction uses multiple levels with staggered update periods, repeatedly applying one-shot pruning to maintain progressively stronger expander guarantees.The level intervals are d_i = n^(1−i/ℓ), and each pruning step upgrades an induced α_i-expander to an induced α_(i+1)-expander.Source: §5.2.1 · pp. 17–18
5.2.2 Analysis
- When the initial graph meets the expansion condition, the analysis guarantees that the pruning set can contain a subset whose removal leaves a connected graph after every update.The update-time bound is stated as ~O(ℓ²Δ n^O(1/ℓ+ε_ℓℓ)).Source: §5.2.2 · p. 19
6 Pruning on Arbitrary Graphs
This section extends dynamic expander pruning to arbitrary initial graphs using a randomized algorithm that may report failure. When the initial graph is an expander, it does not fail with high probability and maintains pruning that preserves connectivity after removing some pruned nodes.
6 Pruning on Arbitrary Graphs
- The randomized pruning algorithm handles arbitrary initial graphs by either producing a desired pruning set or reporting failure; for an initial expander, it never fails with high probability.The guarantee applies to a graph undergoing edge deletions; the theorem specifies an initial maximum-degree-3 graph and a deletion horizon of O(mα0(n)^2).Source: §6 · p. 20
- The algorithm combines a dynamic spanning forest with expander pruning, then reports P only when the forest spans V − P.Otherwise, it reports failure; the spanning-forest component is correct with probability 1 − p for polynomial-length update sequences.Source: §6 · pp. 20–21
- If the algorithm does not fail, its forest spans V − P, so some W ⊆ P can be removed while G[V − W] remains connected.When the initial graph is an expander, this connectivity guarantee holds with high probability at every deletion time.Source: §6 · p. 21
7 Reduction from Graphs with Few Non-tree Edges Undergoing Batch Insertions
This section develops reductions for maintaining a minimum spanning forest in graphs with few non-tree edges, using contraction to obtain smaller-edge instances and extending decremental algorithms to fully dynamic updates with batch insertions. It establishes the update procedures, correctness, and running-time bounds, culminating in the algorithm of Theorem 7.1.
7 Reduction from Graphs with Few Non-tree Edges Undergoing Batch Insertions
- The reduction uses a decremental MSF algorithm on max-degree-3 graphs to obtain a fully dynamic algorithm for graphs with at most k non-tree edges, handling batch insertions or single deletions.The extension of Wulff-Nilsen is designed to be faster when there are few non-tree edges and to handle batch insertions; its use of contraction is conceptually different from previous applications and illustrates a new application.Source: §7 · pp. 21–22
7.1 Reduction to Decremental Algorithms for Few Non-tree Edges
- For B ≥ 5⌈log k⌉, a decremental MSF algorithm on graphs with at most k non-tree edges yields a fully dynamic algorithm that handles batches of B insertions or single deletions.The reduction adds O(m log m) preprocessing overhead and allocates failure probability p′ = O(p/log k) to its underlying algorithm while guaranteeing per-operation success probability 1 − p.Source: §7.1 · p. 22
7.1.1 Preprocessing
- The preprocessing maintains subgraphs whose non-tree-edge sets partition N, with each level’s set bounded by min{2^iB, k}.Initially, the top-level subgraph is G and the other maintained subgraphs are empty.Source: §7.1.1 · p. 23
7.1.2 Update
- For batch insertions, the update compares each new edge with the heaviest edge on its MSF path; for deletions, it selects a reconnecting candidate and runs cleanup.The insertion batch produces at most B candidate edges, while the deletion procedure gathers reconnecting candidates from the maintained decremental instances.Source: §7.1.2 · p. 23
7.1.3 Correctness
- The algorithm preserves the partition of non-tree edges across maintained subgraphs and keeps F equal to MSF(G) after updates.When an edge leaves N, it is removed from the maintained sets as well; the lightest reconnecting edge restores the MSF after a tree-edge deletion.Source: §7.1.3 · p. 25
7.1.4 Running Time
- The preprocessing time is tpre(m, k, p′) + O(m log m), and each maintained non-tree-edge set is bounded by min{2^(i+1)B, k}.The size bound supports the reduction’s running-time analysis.Source: §7.1.4 · p. 25
- A batch of at most B insertions or one deletion takes tpre(m, min{2^(i+1)B, k}, p′)/2^i + log k · tu(m, k, p′) + B log m time, with probability 1 − p.The clean-up procedure contributes the first two terms; insertion overhead contributes B log m.Source: §7.1.4 · p. 26
7.2 Contraction
- Contraction reduces a graph with at most k non-tree edges to at most 5k edges while preserving its MSF, enabling preprocessing tpre(5k, p) + O(k log m) and deletion time tu(5k, p) + O(log m).Connecting paths are uniquely defined; each is replaced by a super edge weighted by the maximum weight on its path.Source: §7.2 · p. 26, §7.2.1 · pp. 27–28
7.2.1 Property of Contracted Graphs/Forests
- For a forest F and terminals S containing endpoints of non-tree edges, connecting paths are induced, and contraction yields at most |N| + 2|S| edges while preserving the MSF.The contracted forest replaces each connecting path with a super edge whose weight is the maximum edge weight along that path.Source: §7.2.1 · pp. 27–28
7.2.2 The Proof
- Using Holm et al.’s [19] two-phase top-tree structure, the reduction runs the decremental MSF algorithm on at most 5k edges, with preprocessing tpre(5k, p) + O(k log m) and deletion time tu(5k, p) + O(log m).Each deletion causes at most one edge update in the contracted graph; the structure identifies a super edge covering a forest edge in O(log m) time.Source: §7.2.2 · p. 29
7.3 Reduction to Decremental Algorithm for Few Edges
- Lemma 7.24 gives a fully dynamic MSF algorithm for m-edge graphs with at most k non-tree edges, preprocessing in tpre(5k, p′) + O(m log² m); its batch-update expression includes B log² m and log k · tu(5k, p′).The batch is B insertions or one deletion; p′ = O(p/log k), and each operation’s time guarantee holds with probability 1 − p.Source: §7.3 · p. 30
- For the few-edge reduction, preprocessing is pre(m, k, p) = tpre(5k, p) + O(k log m); the supplied passage does not establish a final-update bound.Source: Preprocessing · p. 31
7.4 Reduction to Restricted Decremental Algorithm for Few Edges
- For any m′-edge graph, Proposition 7.25 yields decremental MSF preprocessing O(m′) + tpre(3m′, p/3) and update time O(m′/T(m′)) + 3tu(3m′, p/3), with probability 1 − p.Plugging this algorithm into Lemma 7.24 yields the algorithm B of Theorem 7.1.Source: §7.4 · p. 31
8 MSF Decomposition
This section presents an improved hierarchical MSF decomposition using a flow-based expansion decomposition algorithm, with a better trade-off between running time and decomposition quality and running time independent of conductance. It analyzes the decomposition’s depth, weight changes, and per-level own-edge volume, and uses a recursive MSF identity to establish correctness and bound construction time.
8 MSF Decomposition
- The algorithm replaces diffusion- or spectral-based methods with Nanongkai and Saranurak’s flow-based expansion decomposition, improving the running-time/quality trade-off over Wulff-Nilsen’s approach.Its running time does not depend on the conductance parameter α.Source: §8 · pp. 32–33
- For every cluster and deleted edge set, its MSF is the union of child-cluster MSFs and the cluster’s own MSF edges, enabling recursive decomposition even after deletions.The decomposition also implies that the graph’s MSF can be recovered from the MSF edges among each cluster’s own edges.Source: §8 · p. 33
- The hierarchy has depth at most d; leaves have at most shigh edges and at least slow/3 nodes, while non-root clusters have conductance Ω(α/slow) with probability 1 − p.These are the decomposition’s stated structural and conductance guarantees.Source: §8 · p. 33
8.1 Expansion Decomposition that Respects a Given Partition
- Given a partition into connected sets of size Θ(s), the extended expansion decomposition returns connected parts respecting that partition, with at most αγn crossing edges, conductance Ω(α/s) with probability 1 − p, and running time O(nγ log 1/p).The size-respecting partition is used to ensure that output parts are not too small, as required for leaf clusters.Source: §8.1 · p. 34
8.2 MSF Decomposition Algorithm
- MSFdecomp first computes an MSF, partitions it into connected M-clusters of size between slow/3 and slow, then recursively builds the hierarchy using the extended expansion decomposition.The section presents this construction modularly, proving the needed properties while hiding implementation details such as M-clusters from other sections.Source: §8.2 · p. 36
8.2.1 Analysis
- The analysis shows that every cluster respects the initial M-partition, and each level-i cluster contains only edges from levels i or later or from the M-cluster forest.These invariants support the hierarchy’s leaf-size and conductance guarantees.Source: §8.2.1 · p. 37
- The decomposition H has depth at most d.At level d′ + 2, a cluster is returned as a leaf because it intersects at most two M-clusters and has at most slow edges.Source: §8.2.1 · pp. 37–38
- For each level-i non-leaf cluster C, its own edges are EC = Ei(C) ∪ ∂C, and their total is at most n/(d − 2) + αγn.This formula does not generally hold for leaf clusters, whose own edges may include M-cluster edges.Source: §8.2.1 · p. 38
- At most α^dγn edges have different original and modified weights.The bound follows from at most d recursion levels and the per-cluster bound on changed edges.Source: §8.2.1 · p. 38
- For any cluster C and edge set D, the recursive MSF decomposition remains valid after removing D from the clusters.The proof combines child-cluster MSFs with C’s own-edge contribution to construct MSF(C).Source: §8.2.1 · pp. 38–39
- Each Build call takes ~O(αγ|V(C)| log n p) time excluding recursion, and the recursion depth is at most d.The analysis identifies Build(G, PM, 1) as the bottleneck.Source: §8.2.1 · pp. 37, 39
9 Dynamic MSF Algorithm
This section develops and analyzes a sketch-based fully dynamic MSF algorithm with subpolynomial worst-case update time. It establishes that the sparse sketch graph preserves the MSF and bounds preprocessing and update costs, with the analysis reducing to decremental MSF in bounded-degree graphs.
9 Dynamic MSF Algorithm
- O(n^{O(log log log n / log log n)} log(1/p)) worst-case update time, equal to O(n^{o(1)} log(1/p)), holds with probability 1 − p for the fully dynamic MSF algorithm.Theorem 9.1 gives preprocessing time O(m^{1+O(√(log log m / log m))} log(1/p)).Source: §9 · p. 39
- Lemma 9.2 gives a decremental MSF algorithm for an n-node, m-edge graph of maximum degree 3 handling T = Θ(n^(1−O(log log log n / log log n))) edge deletions, with worst-case update time O(n^(O(log log log n / log log n)) log(1/p)).Its preprocessing time is O(n^(1+O(√(log log n / log n))) log(1/p)); the bounds hold with probability 1 − p.Source: §9 · p. 39
9.1 The Algorithm
- The algorithm maintains a sketch graph H with MSF(G) = MSF(H) and few non-tree edges with high probability, then maintains MSF(H) using an algorithm for graphs with few non-tree edges, following Wulff-Nilsen.The section integrates that approach with improved tools and analyzes its running time.Source: §9 · p. 39
9.1.1 Preprocessing and Definitions Related to Compressed Clusters
- For each large cluster C, the compressed cluster replaces small children by their MSFs, contracts large children, and removes edges incident to the pruning set; compressed clusters are edge-disjoint.The algorithm maintains compressed clusters with respect to each cluster’s total pruning set.Source: §9.1.1 · pp. 41–42
9.1.2 Update
- During deletions, H is updated to preserve MSF(G) = MSF(H), while junk edges are retained to avoid costly recursive MSF updates.The algorithm marks certain removed forest edges as junk rather than removing them from H because one deletion can otherwise trigger many removals.Source: §9.1.2 · p. 45
9.2.1 Sketch Graph Preserves MSF
- Assuming no Pruning instance fails, the sketch graph satisfies MSF(H) = MSF(G), so maintaining MSF(H) correctly maintains MSF(G).The proof establishes the equality through the cluster hierarchy.Source: §9.2.1 · pp. 46, 48, §9.2 · p. 46
9.2.2 Sketch Graph is Extremely Sparse
- The sketch graph has only O(n/γ) edges beyond its minimum spanning forest.This is the stated sparsity bound on |E(H) − MSF(H)|.Source: §9.2 · p. 46, §9.2.2 · p. 48
9.3.1 Preprocessing
- For an n-node, m-edge graph of maximum degree 3, Algorithm 9.1 preprocesses in O(m^(1+O(sqrt(log log n / log n))) log(1/p)) time.The bound is for parameter p.Source: §9.3.1 · p. 49
- Initializing A2 and A3 across large clusters costs ~O(n), since compressed clusters are edge-disjoint and the structures have near-linear preprocessing.Source: §9.3.1 · p. 50
9.3.2 Maintaining the Sketch Graph
- Each G-edge deletion updates H in time tu(n/γ,p)+tfew_ins(n,O(n/γ),1,p)+~O(πγ^2), with at most 2 deletions and B=O(πγ) insertions.This bound assumes the algorithm does not fail.Source: §9.3.2 · p. 51
9.3.3 Maintaining MSF of the Sketch Graph
- Maintaining MSF(H) has update time O(m^{O(logloglog m/loglog m)} log(1/p)) after solving the recursive update-time bound.The recursion reduces the problem size from m to O(m/γ) per level.Source: §9.3.3 · pp. 51–52
9.3.4 Wrapping Up
- MSF(G) is maintained correctly with per-update time O(m^{O(logloglog m/loglog m)} log(1/p)) and success probability 1−p after parameter adjustment.Before adjustment, each update fails with probability O(γp), accounting for failures of A/Afew and Pruning.Source: §9.3.4 · p. 53
10 Open Problems
The paper identifies open problems in dynamic MSF and related dynamic graph algorithms, including closing worst-case update-time gaps and simplifying the algorithm. It also points to possible uses of expander techniques beyond MSF.
10 Open Problems
- The paper asks whether deterministic dynamic MSF can match its speed, whether O(n^o(1)) update time can become O(polylog(n)), and whether the algorithm can be simplified.The authors say the polylogarithmic improvement faces barriers in their approach and should require new ideas.Source: §10 · p. 54
- Expansion decomposition combined with dynamic expander pruning may apply to other dynamic problems, including maintaining low-diameter decompositions under edge updates.The authors note that additional work may be required for the low-diameter-decomposition application.Source: §10 · p. 54
- Worst-case update bounds matter in real-time applications requiring a request to be processed before the next one arrives.The paper also notes that adaptive-adversary guarantees can be needed when dynamic algorithms serve as subroutines in static algorithms.Source: §10 · p. 54
- The algorithm works against adaptive adversaries with O(n^o(1)) worst-case update time, reducing gaps in both worst-case versus amortized time and adaptive versus oblivious adversaries.The paper contrasts this with O(polylog(n)) amortized dynamic MSF bounds.Source: §10 · p. 54
- The paper highlights dynamic 2-edge connectivity and dynamic APSP as problems with large amortized-versus-worst-case update-time gaps, and calls for adaptive-adversary algorithms for several other problems.Examples include dynamic maximal matching, spanners, and cut or spectral sparsifiers.Source: §10 · p. 54
A Reduction from One-shot Expander Pruning to LBS Cuts
This section reduces one-shot expander pruning to an approximate locally balanced sparse cut algorithm. The pruning guarantee trades running time against the conductance of the output.
A Reduction from One-shot Expander Pruning to LBS Cuts
- An approximate locally balanced sparse cut algorithm yields a one-shot expander pruning algorithm, with its time limit and conductance guarantee determined by the reduction.The theorem assumes a running-time bound for the cut algorithm on inputs including the graph, node set, and parameters.Source: A Reduction from One-shot Expander… · p. 58
- Given a graph, a conductance parameter, an error parameter, and a set of absent edges, the algorithm either reports low conductance or outputs pruning nodes.When the augmented graph has conductance at least the threshold, the pruned graph has conductance at least α, and the pruning nodes have volume at most 2|D|/αb.Source: A Reduction from One-shot Expander… · p. 58
- The parameter ǫ trades speed against output conductance: smaller values make the algorithm faster but weaken the conductance guarantee, while larger values do the reverse.Source: A Reduction from One-shot Expander… · p. 58
A.1 The Reduction
The reduction recursively decomposes the graph using sparse cuts, collecting selected cuts in a pruning set. It uses a sequence of conductance and size thresholds and reports failure if the procedure exceeds its time limit.
A.1 The Reduction
- Acut uses the endpoints of deleted edges and boundary edges as BH, with overlap parameter σ = αb/2.Source: §A.1 · pp. 58–59
- The algorithm runs decomp(G, G, 1) with time limit t and reports FAIL if it exceeds t, indicating φ(Gb) < αb.Source: §A.1 · p. 58
- At level ℓ, Acut returns an αℓ-sparse cut S whose volume is between OPT(H, αℓ/ccon, BH, σ)/csize and vol(VH)/2.Source: §A.1 · p. 59
- If the returned cut is large enough, the procedure adds it to P and recurses on the graph with S removed; otherwise, it advances to level ℓ+1.Source: §A.1 · p. 59
A.1.1 Upper Bounding vol(P)
When the before graph has conductance at least αb, the pruning set has volume at most 2|D|/αb. The proof bounds individual low-conductance cuts and rules out a pruning set occupying more than half the graph.
A.1.1 Upper Bounding vol(P)
- volG(P) ≤ 2|D|/αb when φ(Gb) ≥ αb and the algorithm does not fail for another reason.Source: §A.1.1 · pp. 59, 61
- The pruning sets Pi are disjoint, and each has conductance below αb/4 in its corresponding graph Hi.Source: §A.1.1 · p. 59
- Any cut S with vol(S) ≤ vol(G)/2 and φG(S) < αb/2 has volG(S) ≤ 2|D|/αb.Source: §A.1.1 · p. 60
- If volG(P) exceeded half the graph, the partition argument would force volG(Q) < 2|D|/αb, contradicting the assumed large graph volume.Source: §A.1.1 · pp. 60–61
A.1.2 Upper bounding volH(BH)
Under the assumption that the before graph has conductance at least αb, the algorithm bounds the volume of BH and avoids a decomposition condition that would obstruct the cut-finding calls.
A.1.2 Upper bounding volH(BH)
- volH(BH) ≤ 4∆|D|/αb when φ(Gb) ≥ αb.Source: §A.1.2 · p. 61
- When φ(Gb) ≥ αb, the condition in Step 2 of Algorithm A.1 never holds.Source: §A.1.2 · p. 61
- Whenever Acut is called, vol(VH−BH) ≥ 3σvol(BH), satisfying its stated requirement.Source: §A.1.2 · p. 62
A.1.3 Lower Bounding Conductance
Assuming φ(Gb) ≥ αb, the decomposition maintains a bound on sparse cuts at each level and returns a pruned graph with conductance at least α.
A.1.3 Lower Bounding Conductance
- If φ(Gb) ≥ αb and decomp(H,I,1) is called, Lemma A.11 states OPT(I,α1) < 2|D|/αb + 1 = s̄1.When ℓ=1, I=G, and the proof establishes OPT(G,α1) ≤ OPT(G,αb/2) ≤ 2|D|/αb.Source: §A.1.3 · p. 62
- For induced H and α′ < αb/2, OPT(H, α′) equals the largest qualifying (BH, σ)-overlapping sparse cut size.Source: §A.1.3 · p. 62
- Whenever decomp(H, I, ℓ) is called, OPT(I, αℓ) < s̄ℓ; the recursion preserves this invariant across levels.Source: §A.1.3 · p. 62
- The pruned graph H = G[V − P] has conductance φ(H) ≥ α.Source: §A.1.3 · p. 63
A.1.4 Running time
The running-time analysis bounds the recursion tree’s depth and charges each level to the LSB cut algorithm. Under the stated conductance condition, the decomposition procedure has a bounded running time; exceeding its threshold signals low conductance.
A.1.4 Running time
- If decomp(G, G, 1) exceeds its time threshold, the procedure reports FAIL, which the section states implies φ(Gb) < αb.The proof rules out failure at Step 2 under its stated bound on |D|.Source: §A.1.4 · pp. 63–64
- Each recursion level costs the running time of Acut, so total time is O(dT × tLSB(n, ∆|D|, ...)).The LSB cut algorithm’s time is parameterized by graph size, set volume, conductance, and overlap; the supplied expression is truncated.Source: §A.1.4 · p. 63
- When φ(Gb) ≥ αb, the tree has at most L down edges and Lcsize¯s1^ε right edges, bounding its depth.The text gives L ≤ 1/ε and ¯s1 = 2|D|/αb + 1.Source: §A.1.4 · p. 63
- The right-edge bound follows because successive removed cuts are disjoint and together would violate the decomposition invariant on OPT(H1, αℓ).Each cut has size at least ¯sℓ+1/csize; their union has conductance below αℓ, contradicting the invariant OPT(H1, αℓ) < ¯sℓ.Source: §A.1.4 · p. 64
B.1 Proof of Lemma 3.4 (Unit Flow)
The proof derives a simplified Unit Flow statement from a more general result by restricting its input conditions and adapting its flow guarantee to congestion. It also specifies three possible outcomes of the algorithm.
B.1 Proof of Lemma 3.4 (Unit Flow)
- The proof adapts the original result’s capacity-U graph formulation to congestion U, which it states is equivalent.A flow in G(U) corresponds to a flow in G with congestion U, and conversely.Source: §B.1 · p. 64
- Unit Flow runs in O(F′h′|∆(·)|) time and returns a source-feasible preflow with congestion at most U.Its input includes a graph without self-loops, source function bounded by F′deg(v), and sink function T(v) = deg(v).Source: §B.1 · p. 65
- The simplified lemma assumes h′ ≥ log m and |∆(·)| ≤ 2m, and retains the general lemma’s three outcome cases.The listed outcomes include a flow, absorption of deg(v) supply at every vertex, or a returned set S with stated flow bounds and a conductance guarantee when h ≥ log m.Source: §B.1 · pp. 64–65
- The parameter substitution sets F = F′ and h = h′; the proof then uses h ≥ 1 and drops the |∆(·)| ≤ 2m condition from the earlier lemma.It justifies dropping that condition because the theorem’s input has |∆(·)| ≤ |T(·)| ≤ 2m.Source: §B.1 · p. 65