Packing constants in graphs and connectivity

AbstractWe prove the following theorem: If G an r-connected graph and there are k vertices of G which have pairwise distance at least d, then G has at least k(r⌞(itd−1)/2⌟+1)+ ((1+(−1)d)/2)r vertices. This bound is sharp

Distributed Connectivity Decomposition

We present time-efficient distributed algorithms for decomposing graphs with large edge or vertex connectivity into multiple spanning or dominating trees, respectively. As their primary applications, these decompositions allow us to achieve information flow with size close to the connectivity by parallelizing it along the trees. More specifically, our distributed decomposition algorithms are as follows: (I) A decomposition of each undirected graph with vertex-connectivity $k$ into (fractionally) vertex-disjoint weighted dominating trees with total weight $\Omega(\frac{k}{\log n})$, in $\widetilde{O}(D+\sqrt{n})$ rounds. (II) A decomposition of each undirected graph with edge-connectivity $\lambda$ into (fractionally) edge-disjoint weighted spanning trees with total weight $\lceil\frac{\lambda-1}{2}\rceil(1-\varepsilon)$, in $\widetilde{O}(D+\sqrt{n\lambda})$ rounds. We also show round complexity lower bounds of $\tilde{\Omega}(D+\sqrt{\frac{n}{k}})$ and $\tilde{\Omega}(D+\sqrt{\frac{n}{\lambda}})$ for the above two decompositions, using techniques of [Das Sarma et al., STOC'11]. Moreover, our vertex-connectivity decomposition extends to centralized algorithms and improves the time complexity of [Censor-Hillel et al., SODA'14] from $O(n^3)$ to near-optimal $\tilde{O}(m)$. As corollaries, we also get distributed oblivious routing broadcast with $O(1)$-competitive edge-congestion and $O(\log n)$-competitive vertex-congestion. Furthermore, the vertex connectivity decomposition leads to near-time-optimal $O(\log n)$-approximation of vertex connectivity: centralized $\widetilde{O}(m)$ and distributed $\tilde{O}(D+\sqrt{n})$. The former moves toward the 1974 conjecture of Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman postulating an $O(m)$ centralized exact algorithm while the latter is the first distributed vertex connectivity approximation

An ETH-Tight Exact Algorithm for Euclidean TSP

We study exact algorithms for {\sc Euclidean TSP} in $\mathbb{R}^d$. In the early 1990s algorithms with $n^{O(\sqrt{n})}$ running time were presented for the planar case, and some years later an algorithm with $n^{O(n^{1-1/d})}$ running time was presented for any $d\geq 2$. Despite significant interest in subexponential exact algorithms over the past decade, there has been no progress on {\sc Euclidean TSP}, except for a lower bound stating that the problem admits no $2^{O(n^{1-1/d-\epsilon})}$ algorithm unless ETH fails. Up to constant factors in the exponent, we settle the complexity of {\sc Euclidean TSP} by giving a $2^{O(n^{1-1/d})}$ algorithm and by showing that a $2^{o(n^{1-1/d})}$ algorithm does not exist unless ETH fails.Comment: To appear in FOCS 201

Optimal construction of k-nearest neighbor graphs for identifying noisy clusters

We study clustering algorithms based on neighborhood graphs on a random sample of data points. The question we ask is how such a graph should be constructed in order to obtain optimal clustering results. Which type of neighborhood graph should one choose, mutual k-nearest neighbor or symmetric k-nearest neighbor? What is the optimal parameter k? In our setting, clusters are defined as connected components of the t-level set of the underlying probability distribution. Clusters are said to be identified in the neighborhood graph if connected components in the graph correspond to the true underlying clusters. Using techniques from random geometric graph theory, we prove bounds on the probability that clusters are identified successfully, both in a noise-free and in a noisy setting. Those bounds lead to several conclusions. First, k has to be chosen surprisingly high (rather of the order n than of the order log n) to maximize the probability of cluster identification. Secondly, the major difference between the mutual and the symmetric k-nearest neighbor graph occurs when one attempts to detect the most significant cluster only.Comment: 31 pages, 2 figure

Embedding large subgraphs into dense graphs

What conditions ensure that a graph G contains some given spanning subgraph H? The most famous examples of results of this kind are probably Dirac's theorem on Hamilton cycles and Tutte's theorem on perfect matchings. Perfect matchings are generalized by perfect F-packings, where instead of covering all the vertices of G by disjoint edges, we want to cover G by disjoint copies of a (small) graph F. It is unlikely that there is a characterization of all graphs G which contain a perfect F-packing, so as in the case of Dirac's theorem it makes sense to study conditions on the minimum degree of G which guarantee a perfect F-packing. The Regularity lemma of Szemeredi and the Blow-up lemma of Komlos, Sarkozy and Szemeredi have proved to be powerful tools in attacking such problems and quite recently, several long-standing problems and conjectures in the area have been solved using these. In this survey, we give an outline of recent progress (with our main emphasis on F-packings, Hamiltonicity problems and tree embeddings) and describe some of the methods involved