Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Approximating Sparsest Cut in Low-Treewidth Graphs via Combinatorial Diameter (2111.06299v1)

Published 11 Nov 2021 in cs.DS

Abstract: The fundamental sparsest cut problem takes as input a graph $G$ together with the edge costs and demands, and seeks a cut that minimizes the ratio between the costs and demands across the cuts. For $n$-node graphs~$G$ of treewidth~$k$, \chlamtac, Krauthgamer, and Raghavendra (APPROX 2010) presented an algorithm that yields a factor-$2{2k}$ approximation in time $2{O(k)} \cdot \operatorname{poly}(n)$. Later, Gupta, Talwar and Witmer (STOC 2013) showed how to obtain a $2$-approximation algorithm with a blown-up run time 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 $2{O(k)} \cdot \operatorname{poly}(n)$. In this paper, we make significant progress towards this goal, via the following results: (i) A factor-$O(k2)$ approximation that runs in time $2{O(k)} \cdot \operatorname{poly}(n)$, directly improving the work of Chlamt\'a\v{c} et al. while keeping the run time single-exponential in $k$. (ii) For any $\varepsilon>0$, a factor-$O(1/\varepsilon2)$ approximation whose run time is $2{O(k{1+\varepsilon}/\varepsilon)} \cdot \operatorname{poly}(n)$, implying a constant-factor approximation whose run time is nearly single-exponential in $k$ and a factor-$O(\log2 k)$ approximation in time $k{O(k)} \cdot \operatorname{poly}(n)$. Key to these results is a new measure of a tree decomposition that we call combinatorial diameter, which may be of independent interest.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Parinya Chalermsook (32 papers)
  2. Matthias Kaul (4 papers)
  3. Matthias Mnich (53 papers)
  4. Joachim Spoerhase (30 papers)
  5. Sumedha Uniyal (6 papers)
  6. Daniel Vaz (17 papers)
Citations (1)