Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Near-optimal Hypergraph Sparsification in Insertion-only and Bounded-deletion Streams

Sanjeev Khanna, Aaron Putterman, Madhu Sudan

TL;DR

This work resolves the space complexity of constructing $(1 obreak ext{±} obreak ext{ε})$ hypergraph cut-sparsifiers in streaming models. It proves that insertion-only streams admit a sparsification algorithm with $ ilde{O}(n r/ ext{ε}^2)$ bits, matching the static setting, and establishes a smooth transition to dynamic/bounded-deletion streams with a $ ilde{O}(n r ext{log}(k)/ ext{ε}^2)$ space bound, alongside a matching lower bound of $ ilde{Ω}(n r ext{log}(k/n))$. The key technique is strength-based sampling combined with contracting strong components into super-vertices, leveraging laminar structure to limit the number of components and reduce the effective vertex count across multiple sampling levels. The results separate insertion-only and dynamic streaming in hypergraph sparsification and provide a coherent interpolation as deletions grow, with concurrent work highlighting related improvements in spectral sparsification. Overall, the paper advances practical streaming sparsification by showing near-optimal space usage in insertion-only streams and a principled, parameterized transition to bounded-deletion dynamics.

Abstract

We study the problem of constructing hypergraph cut sparsifiers in the streaming model where a hypergraph on $n$ vertices is revealed either via an arbitrary sequence of hyperedge insertions alone ({\em insertion-only} streaming model) or via an arbitrary sequence of hyperedge insertions and deletions ({\em dynamic} streaming model). For any $ε\in (0,1)$, a $(1 \pm ε)$ hypergraph cut-sparsifier of a hypergraph $H$ is a reweighted subgraph $H'$ whose cut values approximate those of $H$ to within a $(1 \pm ε)$ factor. Prior work shows that in the static setting, one can construct a $(1 \pm ε)$ hypergraph cut-sparsifier using $\tilde{O}(nr/ε^2)$ bits of space [Chen-Khanna-Nagda FOCS 2020], and in the setting of dynamic streams using $\tilde{O}(nr\log m/ε^2)$ bits of space [Khanna-Putterman-Sudan FOCS 2024]; here the $\tilde{O}$ notation hides terms that are polylogarithmic in $n$, and we use $m$ to denote the total number of hyperedges in the hypergraph. Up until now, the best known space complexity for insertion-only streams has been the same as that for the dynamic streams. This naturally poses the question of understanding the complexity of hypergraph sparsification in insertion-only streams. Perhaps surprisingly, in this work we show that in \emph{insertion-only} streams, a $(1 \pm ε)$ cut-sparsifier can be computed in $\tilde{O}(nr/ε^2)$ bits of space, \emph{matching the complexity} of the static setting. As a consequence, this also establishes an $Ω(\log m)$ factor separation between the space complexity of hypergraph cut sparsification in insertion-only streams and dynamic streams, as the latter is provably known to require $Ω(nr \log m)$ bits of space.

Near-optimal Hypergraph Sparsification in Insertion-only and Bounded-deletion Streams

TL;DR

This work resolves the space complexity of constructing hypergraph cut-sparsifiers in streaming models. It proves that insertion-only streams admit a sparsification algorithm with bits, matching the static setting, and establishes a smooth transition to dynamic/bounded-deletion streams with a space bound, alongside a matching lower bound of . The key technique is strength-based sampling combined with contracting strong components into super-vertices, leveraging laminar structure to limit the number of components and reduce the effective vertex count across multiple sampling levels. The results separate insertion-only and dynamic streaming in hypergraph sparsification and provide a coherent interpolation as deletions grow, with concurrent work highlighting related improvements in spectral sparsification. Overall, the paper advances practical streaming sparsification by showing near-optimal space usage in insertion-only streams and a principled, parameterized transition to bounded-deletion dynamics.

Abstract

We study the problem of constructing hypergraph cut sparsifiers in the streaming model where a hypergraph on vertices is revealed either via an arbitrary sequence of hyperedge insertions alone ({\em insertion-only} streaming model) or via an arbitrary sequence of hyperedge insertions and deletions ({\em dynamic} streaming model). For any , a hypergraph cut-sparsifier of a hypergraph is a reweighted subgraph whose cut values approximate those of to within a factor. Prior work shows that in the static setting, one can construct a hypergraph cut-sparsifier using bits of space [Chen-Khanna-Nagda FOCS 2020], and in the setting of dynamic streams using bits of space [Khanna-Putterman-Sudan FOCS 2024]; here the notation hides terms that are polylogarithmic in , and we use to denote the total number of hyperedges in the hypergraph. Up until now, the best known space complexity for insertion-only streams has been the same as that for the dynamic streams. This naturally poses the question of understanding the complexity of hypergraph sparsification in insertion-only streams. Perhaps surprisingly, in this work we show that in \emph{insertion-only} streams, a cut-sparsifier can be computed in bits of space, \emph{matching the complexity} of the static setting. As a consequence, this also establishes an factor separation between the space complexity of hypergraph cut sparsification in insertion-only streams and dynamic streams, as the latter is provably known to require bits of space.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 23 sections, 14 theorems, 11 equations, 10 algorithms.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

There is an insertion-only streaming algorithm requiring $\widetilde{O}(n r / \epsilon^2)$ bits of space which creates a $(1 \pm \epsilon)$ cut-sparsifier for a hypergraph on $n$ vertices and hyperedges of arity $\leq r$, with probability $1 - 1 / \mathrm{poly}(n)$.

Theorems & Definitions (72)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Theorem 1.2
  • Theorem 1.3
  • Definition 1.4
  • Theorem 1.5
  • Claim 1.6
  • Definition 1.7
  • Claim 1.8
  • Definition 2.1
  • Definition 2.2
  • ...and 62 more