skip to main content
research-article

Approximating Sparsest Cut in Low-treewidth Graphs via Combinatorial Diameter

Published:22 January 2024Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The fundamental Sparsest Cut problem takes as input a graph G together with edge capacities and demands and seeks a cut that minimizes the ratio between the capacities and demands across the cuts. For n-vertex graphs G of treewidth k, Chlamtáč, Krauthgamer, and Raghavendra (APPROX’10) presented an algorithm that yields a factor-\(2^{2^k}\) approximation in time \(2^{O(k)} \cdot n^{O(1)}\). Later, Gupta, Talwar, and Witmer (STOC’13) showed how to obtain a 2-approximation algorithm with a blown-up runtime of \(n^{O(k)}\). An intriguing open question is whether one can simultaneously achieve the best out of the aforementioned results, that is, a factor-2 approximation in time \(2^{O(k)} \cdot n^{O(1)}\).

In this article, we make significant progress towards this goal via the following results:

(i)

A factor-\(O(k^2)\) approximation that runs in time \(2^{O(k)} \cdot n^{O(1)}\), directly improving the work of Chlamtáč et al. while keeping the runtime single-exponential in k.

(ii)

For any \(\varepsilon \in (0,1]\), a factor-\(O(1/\varepsilon ^2)\) approximation whose runtime is \(2^{O(k^{1+\varepsilon }/\varepsilon)} \cdot n^{O(1)}\), implying a constant-factor approximation whose runtime is nearly single-exponential in k and a factor-\(O(\log ^2 k)\) approximation in time \(k^{O(k)} \cdot n^{O(1)}\).

Key to these results is a new measure of a tree decomposition that we call combinatorial diameter, which may be of independent interest.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Arora Sanjeev, Lee James, and Naor Assaf. 2008. Euclidean distortion and the sparsest cut. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 21, 1 (2008), 121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Arora Sanjeev, Rao Satish, and Vazirani Umesh. 2009. Expander flows, geometric embeddings and graph partitioning. J. ACM 56, 2 (2009), 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Bienstock Daniel and Ozbay Nuri. 2004. Tree-width and the Sherali-Adams operator. Discrete Optim. 1, 1 (2004), 1321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Bodlaender Hans L.. 1988. NC-Algorithms for graphs with small treewidth. In WG’88(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 344). 110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Bonsma Paul, Broersma Hajo, Patel Viresh, and Pyatkin Artem. 2012. The complexity of finding uniform sparsest cuts in various graph classes. J. Discrete Algor. 14 (2012), 136149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Chalermsook Parinya, Das Syamantak, Even Guy, Laekhanukit Bundit, and Vaz Daniel. 2018. Survivable network design for group connectivity in low-treewidth graphs. In APPROX-RANDOM’18(Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 116). 8:1–8:19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Chalermsook Parinya, Das Syamantak, Laekhanukit Bundit, and Vaz Daniel. 2017. Beyond metric embedding: Approximating group Steiner trees on bounded treewidth graphs. In SODA’17. 737751.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Chawla Shuchi, Krauthgamer Robert, Kumar Ravi, Rabani Yuval, and Sivakumar D.. 2006. On the hardness of approximating multicut and sparsest-cut. Computat. Complex. 15, 2 (2006), 94114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Chekuri Chandra, Gupta Anupam, Newman Ilan, Rabinovich Yuri, and Sinclair Alistair. 2006. Embedding k-outerplanar graphs into \(\ell _1\). SIAM J. Discrete Math. 20, 1 (2006), 119136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Chlamtáč Eden, Krauthgamer Robert, and Raghavendra Prasad. 2010. Approximating sparsest cut in graphs of bounded treewidth. In APPROX/RANDOM’10(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6302). 124137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Chlamtáč Eden, Krauthgamer Robert, and Raghavendra Prasad. 2010. Approximating sparsest cut in graphs of bounded treewidth. CoRR abs/1006.3970 (2010). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3970Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Chuzhoy Julia and Khanna Sanjeev. 2009. Polynomial flow-cut gaps and hardness of directed cut problems. J. ACM 56, 2 (2009), 128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Cohen-Addad Vincent, Gupta Anupam, Klein Philip N., and Li Jason. 2021. A quasipolynomial (2+\(\varepsilon\))-approximation for planar sparsest cut. In STOC’21. 10561069.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Cohen-Addad Vincent, Mömke Tobias, and Verdugo Victor. 2022. A 2-approximation for the bounded treewidth sparsest cut Problem in FPT time. In IPCO’22(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13265). 112125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Garg Naveen, Konjevod Goran, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. 2000. A polylogarithmic approximation algorithm for the group Steiner tree problem. J. Algor. 37, 1 (2000), 6684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Gupta Anupam, Newman Ilan, Rabinovich Yuri, and Sinclair Alistair. 2004. Cuts, trees and \(\ell _1\)-embeddings of graphs. Combinatorica 24, 2 (2004), 233269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Gupta Anupam, Talwar Kunal, and Witmer David. 2013. Sparsest cut on bounded treewidth graphs: Algorithms and hardness results. In STOC’13. 281290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Halperin Eran and Krauthgamer Robert. 2003. Polylogarithmic inapproximability. In STOC’03. 585594.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Korhonen Tuukka. 2022. A single-exponential time 2-approximation algorithm for treewidth. In FOCS’21. 184192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Laurent Monique. 2003. A comparison of the Sherali-Adams, Lovász-Schrijver, and Lasserre relaxations for 0-1 programming. Math. Oper. Res. 28, 3 (2003), 470496.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Gupta Anupam and Basu Amitabh. 2008. Lecture 19: Sparsest Cut and \(\ell _1\) Embeddings. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/anupamg/adv-approx/lecture19.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Lee James R. and Sidiropoulos Anastasios. 2013. Pathwidth, trees, and random embeddings. Combinatorica 33, 3 (2013), 349374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Leighton Tom and Rao Satish. 1999. Multicommodity max-flow min-cut theorems and their use in designing approximation algorithms. J. ACM 46, 6 (1999), 787832.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Magen Avner and Moharrami Mohammad. 2009. Robust algorithms for on minor-free graphs based on the Sherali-Adams hierarchy. In APPROX/RANDOM’09(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5687). 258271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Matula David W. and Shahrokhi Farhad. 1990. Sparsest cuts and bottlenecks in graphs. Discr. Appl. Math. 27, 1-2 (1990), 113123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Sherali Hanif D. and Adams Warren P.. 1990. A hierarchy of relaxations between the continuous and convex hull representations for zero-one programming problems. SIAM J. Discr. Math. 3, 3 (1990), 411430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Wainwright Martin J. and Jordan Michael I.. 2004. Treewidth-based Conditions for Exactness of the Sherali-Adams and Lasserre Relaxations. Technical Report. Technical Report 671, University of California, Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Approximating Sparsest Cut in Low-treewidth Graphs via Combinatorial Diameter

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Algorithms
        ACM Transactions on Algorithms  Volume 20, Issue 1
        January 2024
        297 pages
        ISSN:1549-6325
        EISSN:1549-6333
        DOI:10.1145/3613497
        • Editor:
        • Edith Cohen
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 January 2024
        • Online AM: 14 November 2023
        • Accepted: 30 October 2023
        • Revised: 9 October 2023
        • Received: 26 September 2021
        Published in talg Volume 20, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)167
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text