Tight Guarantees for Cut-Relative Survivable Network Design via a Decomposition Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the classical survivable-network-design problem (SNDP), we are given an undirected graph G = (V, E), non-negative edge costs, and some k tuples (s_i,t_i,r_i), where s_i,t_i ∈ V and r_i ∈ ℤ_+. The objective is to find a minimum-cost subset H ⊆ E such that each s_i-t_i pair remains connected even after the failure of any r_i-1 edges. It is well-known that SNDP can be equivalently modeled using a weakly-supermodular cut-requirement function f, where the objective is to find the minimum-cost subset of edges that picks at least f(S) edges across every cut S ⊆ V. Recently, motivated by fault-tolerance in graph spanners, Dinitz, Koranteng, and Kortsartz proposed a variant of SNDP that enforces a relative level of fault tolerance with respect to G. Even if a feasible SNDP-solution may not exist due to G lacking the required fault-tolerance, the goal is to find a solution H that is at least as fault-tolerant as G itself. They formalize the latter condition in terms of paths and fault-sets, which gives rise to path-relative SNDP (which they call relative SNDP). Along these lines, we introduce a new model of relative network design, called cut-relative SNDP (CR-SNDP), where the goal is to select a minimum-cost subset of edges that satisfies the given (weakly-supermodular) cut-requirement function to the maximum extent possible, i.e., by picking min{f(S), |δ_G(S)|} edges across every cut S ⊆ V. Unlike SNDP, the cut-relative and path-relative versions of SNDP are not equivalent. The resulting cut-requirement function for CR-SNDP (as also path-relative SNDP) is not weakly supermodular, and extreme-point solutions to the natural LP-relaxation need not correspond to a laminar family of tight cut constraints. Consequently, standard techniques cannot be used directly to design approximation algorithms for this problem. We develop a novel decomposition technique to circumvent this difficulty and use it to give a tight 2-approximation algorithm for CR-SNDP. We also show some new hardness results for these relative-SNDP problems.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".