Nearly-Tight Bounds for Flow Sparsifiers in Quasi-Bipartite Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow sparsification is a classic graph compression technique which, given a capacitated graph G on k terminals, aims to construct another capacitated graph H, called a flow sparsifier, that preserves, either exactly or approximately, every multicommodity flow between terminals (ideally, with size as a small function of k). Cut sparsifiers are a restricted variant of flow sparsifiers which are only required to preserve maximum flows between bipartitions of the terminal set. It is known that exact cut sparsifiers require 2^Ω(k) many vertices [Krauthgamer and Rika, SODA 2013], with the hard instances being quasi-bipartite graphs, where there are no edges between non-terminals. On the other hand, it has been shown recently that exact (or even (1+ε)-approximate) flow sparsifiers on networks with just 6 terminals require unbounded size [Krauthgamer and Mosenzon, SODA 2023, Chen and Tan, SODA 2024]. In this paper, we construct exact flow sparsifiers of size 3^k³ and exact cut sparsifiers of size 2^k² for quasi-bipartite graphs. In particular, the flow sparsifiers are contraction-based, that is, they are obtained from the input graph by (vertex) contraction operations. Our main contribution is a new technique to construct sparsifiers that exploits connections to polyhedral geometry, and that can be generalized to graphs with a small separator that separates the graph into small components. We also give an improved reduction theorem for graphs of bounded treewidth [Andoni et al., SODA 2011], implying a flow sparsifier of size O(k⋅w) and quality O((log w)/log log w), where w is the treewidth.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".