Graph Sparsifiers

Nick Harvey University of British Columbia

Based on joint work with Isaac Fung,and independent work of Ramesh Hariharan & Debmalya Panigrahi

Approximating Dense Objectsby Sparse Objects

• Floor joists

Wood Joists Engineered Joists

Approximating Dense Objectsby Sparse Objects

• Bridges

Masonry Arch Truss Arch

Approximating Dense Objectsby Sparse Objects

• Bones

Human Femur Robin Bone

Approximating Dense Objectsby Sparse Objects

• Graphs

Dense Graph Sparse Graph

• Input: Undirected graph G=(V,E), weights u : E ! R+

• Output: A subgraph H=(V,F) of G with weightsw : F ! R+ such that |F| is small and u(±G(U)) = (1 § ²) w(±H(U)) 8U µ V

weight of edges between U and V\U in G weight of edges between U and V\U in H

Graph SparsifiersWeighted subgraphs that approximately preserve graph structure

Cut Sparsifiers (Karger ‘94)

G H

• Input: Undirected graph G=(V,E), weights u : E ! R+

• Output: A subgraph H=(V,F) of G with weightsw : F ! R+ such that |F| is small and xT LG x = (1 § ²) xT LH x 8x 2 RV

Spectral SparsifiersWeighted subgraphs that approximately preserve graph structure

(Spielman-Teng ‘04)

Laplacian matrix of G Laplacian matrix of H

G H

Motivation:Faster Algorithms

Dense Input graph G Exact/Approx Output

Algorithm A for some problem P

Sparse graph HApproximately

preserves solution of P

Algorithm Aruns faster on sparse input

Approximate Output

(Fast) Sparsification

Algorithm

Min s-t cut, Sparsest cut,Max cut, …

State of the artSparsifier Authors # edges Running TimeCut Benczur-Karger ’96 O(n log n / ²2) O(m log3 n)Spectral Spielman-Teng ’04 O(n logc n / ²2) O(m logc n / ²2)Spectral Spielman-Srivastava ’08 O(n log n / ²2) O(m logc n / ²2)Spectral Batson et al. ’09 O(n / ²2) O(mn3)Cut This paper O(n log n / ²2) O(m + n log5 n / ²2) *Spectral Levin-Koutis-Peng ’12 O(n log n / ²2) O(m log2 n / ²2)

n = # verticesm = # edges

*: The best algorithm in our paper is due to Panigrahi.

~

c = large constant

Random Sampling

• Can’t sample edges with same probability!• Idea: [Benczur-Karger ’96]

Sample low-connectivity edges with high probability, and high-connectivity edges with low probability

Keep this

Eliminate most of these

Generic algorithm• Input: Graph G=(V,E), weights u : E ! R+

• Output: A subgraph H=(V,F) with weights w : F ! R+

Choose ½ (= #sampling iterations)Choose probabilities { pe : e2E }For i=1 to ½

For each edge e2EWith probability pe

Add e to F Increase we by ue/(½pe)• E[|F|] · ½ ¢ e pe

• E[ we ] = ue 8e2E

) For every UµV, E[ w(±H(U)) ] = u(±G(U))

[Benczur-Karger ‘96]

Goal 1: E[|F|] = O(n log n / ²2)

How should we choosethese parameters?

Goal 2: w(±H(U)) is highly concentrated

Benczur-Karger Algorithm• Input: Graph G=(V,E), weights u : E ! R+

• Output: A subgraph H=(V,F) with weights w : F ! R+

Choose ½ = O(log n / ²2)Let pe = 1/“strength” of edge eFor i=1 to ½

For each edge e2EWith probability pe

Add e to F Increase we by ue/(½pe)

• Fact 1: E[|F|] = O(n log n / ²2)

• Fact 2: w(±H(U)) is very highly concentrated

) For every UµV, w(±H(U)) = (1 § ²) u(±G(U))

“strength” is a slightly unusual quantity, but

Fact 3: Can estimate all edge strengths inO(m log3 n) time

“strength” is a slightly unusual quantity

Question: [BK ‘02]Can we use connectivity instead of strength?

Our Algorithm• Input: Graph G=(V,E), weights u : E ! R+

• Output: A subgraph H=(V,F) with weights w : F ! R+

Choose ½ = O(log2 n / ²2)Let pe = 1/“connectivity” of eFor i=1 to ½

For each edge e2EWith probability pe

Add e to F Increase we by

ue/(½pe)• Fact 1: E[|F|] = O(n log2 n / ²2)

• Fact 2: w(±H(U)) is very highly concentrated

) For every UµV, w(±H(U)) = (1 § ²) u(±G(U))

• Extra trick: Can shrink |F| to O(n log n / ²2) by using Benczur-Karger to sparsify our sparsifier!

Motivation for our algorithm

Connectivities are simpler and more natural) Faster to compute

Fact: Can estimate all edge connectivitiesin O(m + n log n) time [Ibaraki-Nagamochi ’92]

) Useful in other scenariosOur sampling method has been used to compute sparsifiers in the streaming model [Ahn-Guha-McGregor ’12]

Overview of Analysis

Most cuts hit a huge number of edges) extremely concentrated

) whp, most cuts are close to their mean

Most Cuts are Big & Easy!

Overview of Analysis

High connectivityLow sampling

probability

Low connectivityHigh sampling

probability

Hits many red edges) reasonably concentrated

Hits only one red edge) poorly concentrated

The same cut also hits many green edges) highly concentrated

This masks the poor concentration above

There are few small cuts [Karger ’94],so probably all are concentrated.

Key Question: Are there few such cuts?Key Lemma: Yes!

• Notation: kuv = min size of a cut separating u and v• Main ideas:– Partition edges into connectivity classes

E = E1 [ E2 [ ... Elog n where Ei = { e : 2i-1·ke<2i }– Prove weight of sampled edges that each cut

takes from each connectivity class is about right

– This yields a sparsifier

U

Prove weight of sampled edges that each cuttakes from each connectivity class is about right

• Notation:• C = ±(U) is a cut • Ci := ±(U) Å Ei is a cut-induced set

• Chernoff bounds can analyze each cut-induced set, but…

• Key Question: Are there few small cut-induced sets?

C1 C2 C3 C4

Counting Small Cuts• Lemma: [Karger ’93]

Let G=(V,E) be a graph.Let K be the edge-connectivity of G. (i.e., global min cut value)

Then, for every ®¸1,|{ ±(U) : |±(U)|·®K }| < n2®.

• Example: Let G = n-cycle.Edge connectivity is K=2.

Number of cuts of size c = £( nc ).) |{ ±(U) : |±(U)|·®K }| · O(n2®).

Counting Small Cut-Induced Sets• Our Lemma: Let G=(V,E) be a graph. Fix any BµE.

Suppose ke¸K for all e in B. (kuv = min size of a cut separating u and v)

Then, for every ®¸1,|{ ±(U) Å B : |±(U)|·®K }| < n2®.

• Karger’s Lemma: the special case B=E and K=min cut.

When is Karger’s Lemma Weak?• Lemma: [Karger ’93]

Let G=(V,E) be a graph.Let K be the edge-connectivity of G. (i.e., global min cut value)

Then, for every c¸K,|{ ±(U) : |±(U)|·c }| < n2c/K.

• Example: Let G = n-cycle.Edge connectivity is K=2|{ cuts of size c }| < nc

²K = ² < n2c/²

Our Lemma Still Works• Our Lemma: Let G=(V,E) be a graph. Fix any BµE.

Suppose ke¸K for all e in B. (kuv = min size of a cut separating u and v)

Then, for every ®¸1,|{ ±(U) Å B : |±(U)|·®K }| < n2®.

• Example: Let G = n-cycle.Let B = cycle edges.We can take K=2.So |{ ±(U) Å B : |±(U)|·®K }| < n2®.

|{cut-induced subsets of B induced by cuts of size · c}| · nc

²

Algorithm for Finding a Min Cut [Karger ’93]

• Input: A graph• Output: A minimum cut (maybe)• While graph has 2 vertices–Pick an edge at random–Contract it

• End While• Output remaining edges

• Claim: For any min cut, this algorithm outputs it with probability ¸ 1/n2.

• Corollary: There are · n2 min cuts.

Finding a Small Cut-Induced Set• Input: A graph G=(V,E), and BµE• Output: A cut-induced subset of B• While graph has 2 vertices– If some vertex v has no incident edges in B• Split-off all edges at v and delete v

–Pick an edge at random–Contract it

• End While• Output remaining edges in B• Claim: For any min cut-induced subset of B, this

algorithm outputs it with probability >1/n2.• Corollary: There are <n2 min cut-induced subsets of B

Splitting OffReplace edges {u,v} and {u’,v} with {u,u’}while preserving edge-connectivitybetween all vertices other than v Wolfgang Mader

vu u’

vu u’

Conclusions

Questions

• Sampling according to connectivities gives a sparsifier• We generalize Karger’s cut counting lemma

• Improve O(log2 n) to O(log n) in sampling analysis• Applications of our cut-counting lemma?