Maintaining an EDCS in General Graphs: Simpler, Density-Sensitive and with Worst-Case Time Bounds

Abstract

In their breakthrough ICALP'15 paper, Bernstein and Stein presented an algorithm for maintaining a (3/2+ε)-approximate maximum matching in fully dynamic bipartite graphs with a worst-case update time of Oε(m1/4); we use the Oε notation to suppress the ε-dependence. Their main technical contribution was in presenting a new type of bounded-degree subgraph, which they named an edge degree constrained subgraph (EDCS), which contains a large matching -- of size that is smaller than the maximum matching size of the entire graph by at most a factor of 3/2+ε. They demonstrate that the EDCS can be maintained with a worst-case update time of Oε(m1/4), and their main result follows as a direct corollary. In their followup SODA'16 paper, Bernstein and Stein generalized their result for general graphs, achieving the same update time of Oε(m1/4), albeit with an amortized rather than worst-case bound. To date, the best deterministic worst-case update time bound for any better-than-2 approximate matching is O(m) [Neiman and Solomon, STOC'13], [Gupta and Peng, FOCS'13]; allowing randomization (against an oblivious adversary) one can achieve a much better (still polynomial) update time for approximation slightly below 2 [Behnezhad, Lacki and Mirrokni, SODA'20]. In this work we quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes simplify the approach of Bernstein and Stein for bipartite graphs, which allows us to generalize it for general graphs while maintaining the same bound of Oε(m1/4) on the worst-case update time. Moreover, our approach is density-sensitive: If the arboricity of the dynamic graph is bounded by α at all times, then the worst-case update time of the algorithm is Oε(α).

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…