Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 48 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 26 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 19 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 107 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 205 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 473 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Local Algorithms for Sparse Spanning Graphs (1402.3609v3)

Published 14 Feb 2014 in cs.DS

Abstract: Constructing a spanning tree of a graph is one of the most basic tasks in graph theory. We consider a relaxed version of this problem in the setting of local algorithms. The relaxation is that the constructed subgraph is a sparse spanning subgraph containing at most $(1+\epsilon)n$ edges (where $n$ is the number of vertices and $\epsilon$ is a given approximation/sparsity parameter). In the local setting, the goal is to quickly determine whether a given edge $e$ belongs to such a subgraph, without constructing the whole subgraph, but rather by inspecting (querying) the local neighborhood of $e$. The challenge is to maintain consistency. That is, to provide answers concerning different edges according to the same spanning subgraph. We first show that for general bounded-degree graphs, the query complexity of any such algorithm must be $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$. This lower bound holds for constant-degree graphs that have high expansion. Next we design an algorithm for (bounded-degree) graphs with high expansion, obtaining a result that roughly matches the lower bound. We then turn to study graphs that exclude a fixed minor (and are hence non-expanding). We design an algorithm for such graphs, which may have an unbounded maximum degree. The query complexity of this algorithm is $poly(1/\epsilon, h)$ (independent of $n$ and the maximum degree), where $h$ is the number of vertices in the excluded minor. Though our two algorithms are designed for very different types of graphs (and have very different complexities), on a high-level there are several similarities, and we highlight both the similarities and the differences.

Citations (34)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.