Pointwise Lipschitz Continuous Graph Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many real-world applications, it is undesirable to drastically change the problem solution after a small perturbation in the input, as unstable outputs can lead to costly transaction fees, privacy and security concerns, reduced user trust, and lack of replicability. Despite the widespread application of graph algorithms, many classical algorithms are not robust to small input disturbances. Towards addressing this issue, we study the pointwise Lipschitz continuity of graph algorithms, a notion of stability introduced by Kumabe and Yoshida [KY23, FOCS'23] and further studied in related settings [KY24, ICALP'24], [KY25, SODA'25], [GKY25, ESA'25]. Our main result is a linear programming (LP) based minimum $S$-$T$ cut algorithm with a provably optimal Lipschitz constant, as witnessed by an accompanying lower bound. As a direct corollary, we give the first dynamic minimum $S$-$T$ cut algorithm with non-trivial recourse bound. At the core of our techniques is a novel framework for analyzing the Lipschitz constant of regularized LP relaxations. Our framework crucially unlocks the use of weighted regularizers, which could not be analyzed through previous methods, and leads to polynomial improvements in the Lipschitz constant compared to what is achievable through previous techniques. To demonstrate the flexibility of our methods, we also design an LP-based $b$-matching algorithm that improves on the state-of-the-art [KY23] Lipschitz constant in certain input regimes when $b\equiv 1$. Moreover, our algorithm cleanly extends to the general case when $b\geq 1$, whereas [KY23] is specialized to the case of $b\equiv 1$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".