Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Expander Decomposition with Almost Optimal Overhead

Nikhil Bansal, Arun Jambulapati, Thatchaphol Saranurak

TL;DR

The paper resolves a long-standing gap in expander decomposition by providing the first polynomial-time algorithm that achieves near-optimal flow-expander overhead, matching the existential lower bound up to a subpolynomial factor. It introduces a novel combination of concurrent-flow programming and a spreading-metric framework, along with a consensus-scale clustering mechanism and a heavy-cluster handling case, to decompose a graph into φ-flow-expanders while removing only a small fraction of edges. The main technical advance lies in telescoping the cost via invariant node-mass $A$, enabling a logarithmic boundary term to be balanced against a recursive cost that scales with the preserved mass, resulting in overhead $\gamma=O(\log n\exp(\sqrt{\log\log n}))$. The method extends to capacitated graphs and other variants, offering a near-optimal, practically applicable tool for routing, sparsification, and related graph algorithms, and opens questions about extending the approach to tree, vertex, and directed expander decompositions.

Abstract

We present the first polynomial-time algorithm for computing a near-optimal \emph{flow}-expander decomposition. Given a graph $G$ and a parameter $φ$, our algorithm removes at most a $φ\log^{1+o(1)}n$ fraction of edges so that every remaining connected component is a $φ$-\emph{flow}-expander (a stronger guarantee than being a $φ$-\emph{cut}-expander). This achieves overhead $\log^{1+o(1)}n$, nearly matching the $Ω(\log n)$ graph-theoretic lower bound that already holds for cut-expander decompositions, up to a $\log^{o(1)}n$ factor. Prior polynomial-time algorithms required removing $O(φ\log^{1.5}n)$ and $O(φ\log^{2}n)$ fractions of edges to guarantee $φ$-cut-expander and $φ$-flow-expander components, respectively.

Expander Decomposition with Almost Optimal Overhead

TL;DR

The paper resolves a long-standing gap in expander decomposition by providing the first polynomial-time algorithm that achieves near-optimal flow-expander overhead, matching the existential lower bound up to a subpolynomial factor. It introduces a novel combination of concurrent-flow programming and a spreading-metric framework, along with a consensus-scale clustering mechanism and a heavy-cluster handling case, to decompose a graph into φ-flow-expanders while removing only a small fraction of edges. The main technical advance lies in telescoping the cost via invariant node-mass , enabling a logarithmic boundary term to be balanced against a recursive cost that scales with the preserved mass, resulting in overhead . The method extends to capacitated graphs and other variants, offering a near-optimal, practically applicable tool for routing, sparsification, and related graph algorithms, and opens questions about extending the approach to tree, vertex, and directed expander decompositions.

Abstract

We present the first polynomial-time algorithm for computing a near-optimal \emph{flow}-expander decomposition. Given a graph and a parameter , our algorithm removes at most a fraction of edges so that every remaining connected component is a -\emph{flow}-expander (a stronger guarantee than being a -\emph{cut}-expander). This achieves overhead , nearly matching the graph-theoretic lower bound that already holds for cut-expander decompositions, up to a factor. Prior polynomial-time algorithms required removing and fractions of edges to guarantee -cut-expander and -flow-expander components, respectively.
Paper Structure (39 sections, 12 theorems, 52 equations, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 39 sections, 12 theorems, 52 equations, 1 algorithm.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

There is a polynomial-time algorithm that, given an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges and parameter $\phi$, returns an edge set $C\subseteq E$ such that each connected component of $G-C$ is a $\phi$-flow-expander and $|C|\le\phi\gamma m$, where $\gamma=O(\log(n)\exp(\sqrt{\l

Theorems & Definitions (21)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Theorem 3.1
  • Lemma 3.2: Lemma 6 of bansal2024approximating
  • Proposition 3.4
  • proof
  • Proposition 3.5
  • proof
  • Proposition 3.6
  • proof
  • Lemma 3.7
  • ...and 11 more