The Densest k-Subhypergraph Problem
Eden Chlamtáč

∗

Michael Dinitz

†

Christian Konrad

arXiv:1605.04284v1 [] 13 May 2016

George Rabanca

‡

Guy Kortsarz§

¶

Abstract
The Densest k-Subgraph (DkS) problem, and its corresponding minimization problem Smallest p-Edge Subgraph (SpES), have come to play a central role in approximation algorithms. This
is due both to their practical importance, and their usefulness as a tool for solving and establishing approximation bounds for other problems. These two problems are not well understood, and
it is widely believed that they do not an admit a subpolynomial approximation ratio (although
the best known hardness results do not rule this out).
In this paper we generalize both DkS and SpES from graphs to hypergraphs. We consider
the Densest k-Subhypergraph problem (given a hypergraph (V, E), find a subset W ⊆ V of k
vertices so as to maximize the number of hyperedges contained in W ) and define the Minimum
p-Union problem (given a hypergraph, choose p of the hyperedges so as to minimize the number
of vertices in their union). We focus in particular on the case where all hyperedges √have size 3,
as this is the simplest non-graph setting. For this case we provide an O(n4(4− 3)/13+ ) ≤
O(n0.697831+ )-approximation (for arbitrary constant  > 0) for Densest√k-Subhypergraph and
an Õ(n2/5 )-approximation for Minimum p-Union. We also give an O( m)-approximation for
Minimum p-Union in general hypergraphs. Finally, we examine the interesting special case of
interval hypergraphs (instances where the vertices are a subset of the natural numbers and the
hyperedges are intervals of the line) and prove that both problems admit an exact polynomial
time solution on these instances.

∗

Department of Computer Science, Ben Gurion University. Partially supported by ISF grant 1002/14. Email:
chlamtac@cs.bgu.ac.il.
†
Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University. Partially supported by NSF grants 1464239 and
1535887. Email: mdinitz@cs.jhu.edu
‡
ICE-TCS, School of Computer Science, Reykjavik University. Supported by Icelandic Research Fund grants
120032011 and 152679-051. Email: christiank@ru.is.
§
Computer Science Department, Rutgers University, Camden, NY, USA. Partially supported by NSF grants
1218620 and 1540547. Email: guyk@crab.rutgers.edu
¶
Department of Computer Science, The Graduate Center, CUNY, USA. Email: grabanca@gmail.com

1

Introduction

Two of the most important outstanding problems in approximation algorithms are the approximability of the Densest k-Subgraph problem (DkS) and its minimization version, the Smallest p-Edge
Subgraph problem (SpES or min-DkS). In DkS we are given as input a graph G = (V, E) and an
integer k, and the goal is to find a subset V 0 ⊆ V with |V 0 | = k which maximizes the number
of edges in the subgraph of G induced by V 0 . In the minimization version, SpES, we are given a
lower bound p on the number of required edges and the goal is to find a set V 0 ⊆ V of minimum
size so that the subgraph induced by V 0 has at least p edges. These problems have proved to be
extremely useful: for example, a variant of DkS was recently used to get a new cryptographic system [3]. The same variant of the DkS problem was shown to be central in understanding financial
derivatives [4]. The best-known algorithms for many other problems involve using an algorithm for
Densest k-Subgraph or SpES as a black box (e.g. [22, 15, 11]).
Despite decades of work, very little is actually known about these problems. The first approximation ratio for DkS was O(n2/5 ) [18] and was devised in 1993. These days, 23 years later, the best
known ratio for the Densest k-Subgraph is O(n1/4+
) for arbitrarily small constant  > 0 [7], and the
√
3−2
2+
best known approximation for SpES is O(n
) for arbitrarily small constant  > 0 [9]. Given
the slow improvement over 23 years, it is widely believed that DkS and SpES do not admit better
than a polynomial approximation ratio. Furthermore, the existing approximation guarantees are
tight assuming the recently conjectured hardness of finding a planted dense subgraph in a random
graph (for certain parameters). However, there has been very little progress towards an actual
proof of hardness of approximation. It is clear that they are both NP-hard, but that is all that is
known under the assumption that P 6= N P . Under much stronger complexity assumptions it is
known that they cannot be approximated better than some constant [16, 12] or any constant [1],
but this is still a long way from the conjectured polynomial hardness.
Based on the believed hardness of DkS and SpES, they have been used many times to give
evidence for hardness of approximation. For example, consider the Steiner k-forest problem in
which the input is an edge weighted graph, a collection of q pairs {si , ti }qi=1 , and a number k < q.
The goal is to find a minimum cost subgraph that connects at least k of the pairs. It is immediate to
see that SpES is a special case of the Steiner k-forest problem1 , and hence it seems highly unlikely
that the Steiner k-Forest problem admits a better than polynomial approximation ratios.
Given the interest in and importance of DkS and SpES, it is somewhat surprising that there
has been very little exploration of the equivalent problems in hypergraphs. A hypergraph is most
simply understood as a collection E of subsets over a universe V of vertices, where each e ∈ E
is called a hyperedge (so graphs are the special case when each e ∈ E has cardinality 2). In
general hypergraphs, the obvious extensions of DkS and SpES are quite intuitive. In the Densest
k-Subhypergraph (DkSH) problem we are given a hypergraph (V, E) and a value k, and the goal
is to find a set W ⊆ V of size k that contains the largest number of hyperedges from E. In the
Minimum p-Union (MpU) problem we are given a hypergraph and a number p, and the goal is to
choose p of the hyperedges to minimize the size of their union.
Clearly these problems are at least as hard as the associated problems in graphs, but how
much harder are they? Can we design nontrivial approximation algorithms? Can we extend the
known algorithms for graphs to the hypergraph setting? Currently, essentially only lower bounds
1

Given an instance (G = (V, E), p) of SpES, create an instance of Steiner k-Forest on a star with V as the leaves,
uniform weights, a demand pair for each edge in E, and k = p.

1

are known: Applebaum [2] showed that they are both hard to approximate to within n for some
fixed  > 0, assuming that a certain class of one-way functions exist. But it was left as an open
problem to design any nontrivial upper bound (see footnote 5 of [2]).

1.1

Our Results

In this paper we provide the first nontrivial upper bounds for these problems. Let n denote the
number of vertices and m denote the number of hyperedges in the input hypergraph. Our first
result is an approximation for Minimum p-Union in general hypergraphs:
√
Theorem 1.1. There is an O( m)-approximation for the Minimum p-Union problem.
We then switch our attention to the low rank case, since this is the setting closest to graphs. In
particular, we focus on the 3-uniform case, where all hyperedges have size at most 3. In this setting
it is relatively straightforward to design an O(n)-approximation for Densest k-Subhypergraph,
although even this is not entirely trivial (the optimal solution could have size up to k 3 rather than
k 2 as in graphs, which would make the trivial algorithm of choosing k/3 hyperedges only an O(n2 )approximation rather than an O(n)-approximation as in graphs). We show that by very carefully
combining a set of algorithms and considering the cases where they are all jointly tight we can
significantly improve this approximation, obtaining the following theorem:
√

Theorem 1.2. For every constant  > 0, there is an O(n4(4− 3)/13+ ) ≤ O(n0.697831+ )-approximation
for the Densest k-Subhypergraph problem on 3-uniform hypergraphs.
Adapting these ideas to the minimization setting gives an improved bound for Minimum p-Union
as well.
Theorem 1.3. There is an Õ(n2/5 )-approximation for the Minimum p-Union problem on 3-uniform
hypergraphs.
It is worth noting that any f -approximation for DkSH can be used to give an Õ(f )-approximation
for MpU (see Theorem 2.6), so Theorem 1.3 gives a significant improvement over this blackbox reduction from Theorem 1.2.
Finally, we define an interesting special case of Densest k-Subhypergraph and Minimum pUnion that can be solved exactly in polynomial time. Suppose we have an interval hypergraph: a
hypergraph in which the vertices are a finite subset of N and each hyperedge is an interval of the
real line (restricted to the vertices). Then we show that a dynamic programming algorithm can be
used to actually solve our problems.
Theorem 1.4. Densest k-Subhypergraph and Minimum p-Union can be solved in polynomial time
on interval hypergraphs.

1.2

Related Work

As discussed, the motivation for these problems mostly comes from the associated graph problems,
which have been extensively studied and yet are still poorly understood. The Densest k-Subgraph
problem was introduced by Kortsarz and Peleg [18], who gave an O(n2/5 ) ratio for the problem.
Feige, Kortsarz and Peleg [13] improved the ratio to O(n1/3− ) for  that is roughly 1/60. The
current best-known approximation for DkS is O(n1/4+ ) for arbitrarily small constant  > 0, due
2

to Bhaskara et al. [7]. For many years the minimization version, SpES, was not considered separately, and it was only relatively recently that the first separation was developed: building on
the techniques of [7] but optimizing
them for the minimization version, Chlamtáč, Dinitz, and
√
2+
3−2
)-approximation for SpES for arbitrarily small constant  > 0.
Krauthgamer [9] gave an O(n
While defined slightly differently, DkSH and MpU were introduced earlier by Applebaum [2]
in the context of cryptography: he showed that if certain one way functions exist (or that certain
pseudorandom generators exist) then DkSH is hard to approximate within n for some constant
 > 0. Based on this result, DkSH and MpU were used to prove hardness for other problems, such
as the k-route cut problem [10]. To the best of our knowledge, though, there has been no previous
work on algorithms for these problems.

1.3

Organization

We begin in Section 2 with some preliminaries, showing the basic relationships between the prob√
lems. In Section 3 we give our O( m)-approximation for MpU in general hypergraphs. We then
focus on small-rank hypergraphs, giving an O(n4/5 )-approximation for DkSH on 3-uniform hypergraphs in Section 4, which we then improve to roughly O(n0.698 ) in Section 5. We follow this in
Section 6 with our improved bound for MpU on 3-uniform hypergraphs. Finally in Section 7 we
show how to solve both problems exactly in polynomial time on interval hypergraphs. We conclude
in Section 8 with some open questions for future work.

2

Preliminaries and Notation

A hypergraph H = (V, E) consists of a set V (the vertices) together with a collection E ⊆ 2V (the
hyperedges), where each hyperedge is a subset of V . We will typically use n = |V | and m = |E| to
denote the number of vertices and hyperedges respectively. The degree of a vertex in a hypergraph
is the number of hyperedges which contain it. Given a subset V 0 ⊆ V , the subhypergraph of H
induced by V 0 is H[V 0 ] = (V 0 , EH ) where EH = {e ∈ E : e ⊆ V 0 }. We say that H is α-uniform if
|e| = α for all e ∈ E, and that the rank of H is maxe∈E |e| (i.e. the smallest α such that all edges
have cardinality at most α). A hyperedge e is covered by a set of vertices V 0 if e ⊆ V 0 .
Given a graph G = (V, E) and a vertex v ∈ V , we use ΓG (v) to denote the set of nodes adjacent
to v, and for a subset V 0 ⊆ V we let ΓG (V 0 ) = ∪v∈V 0 Γ(v). If G is clear from context, we will
sometimes drop the subscript.
The main problems that we will consider are the following.
Definition 2.1. Given a hypergraph H = (V, E) and an integer k, the Densest k-Subhypergraph
problem (DkSH) is to find a set V 0 ⊆ V , with |V 0 | = k, such that the number of edges in H[V 0 ] is
maximized.
Definition 2.2. Given a hypergraph H = (V, E) and an integer p, the Minimum p-Union problem
(MpU) is to find a set E 0 ⊆ E, with |E 0 | = p, such that | ∪e∈E 0 e| is minimized.
Note that on 2-uniform hypergraphs, these two problems are the classic graph problems DkS
and SpES respectively.
A special class of hypergraphs that we will consider are interval hypergraphs, defined as follows.
Definition 2.3. H = (V, E) is an interval hypergraph if V is a finite subset of N and for each
e ∈ E there are values ae , be ∈ N such that e = {i ∈ V : ae ≤ i ≤ be }.
3

2.1

Relationship Between Problems

We begin by proving some relatively straightforward relationships between the two problems. We
first make the obvious observation that a solution for one problem implies a solution for the other.
Observation 2.4. If there exists a polynomial time algorithm that solves the Densest k-Subhypergraph
problem for any k on a hypergraph H, then there exists a polynomial time algorithm that solves
the Minimum p-Union problem on the hypergraph H. Similarly, if there is an algorithm that solves
MpU on H, then there is an algorithm that solves DkSH on H.
The relationship is not quite so simple when we are reduced to approximating the problems,
but it is relatively straightforward to show that a relationship still exists. This is given by the
following lemma, which will also prove to be useful later.
Lemma 2.5. If there exists an algorithm which in a hypergraph H containing a subhypergraph with
k vertices and p hyperedges finds a subhypergraph (V 0 , E 0 ) with |V 0 | ≤ f k and |E 0 | ≥ |V 0 |p/(kf ),
we can get an O(f log p)-approximation for Min p-Union.
Since any f -approximation algorithm for Densest k-Subhypergraph satisfies the conditions of
the lemma, as an immediate corollary we get the following:
Theorem 2.6. If there is an f -approximation for Densest k-Subhypergraph, then there is an
O(f log p)-approximation for Minimum p-Union.
Proof of Lemma 2.5. Let (H = (V, E), p) be an instance of Minimum p-Union, and let A be an
algorithm as described in the lemma. We assume without loss of generality that we know the
number of nodes k in the optimal solution (since we can just try all possibilities for k), and hence
that there exists a set V ∗ ⊆ V with |V ∗ | = k such that V ∗ covers at least p hyperedges. Initialize
E 0 = ∅, and consider the following algorithm for Minimum p-Union that repeats the following until
|E 0 | ≥ p.
1. Let V 0 = A(H, k), and let E 00 be the hyperedges of H covered by V 0 .
2. Let E 0 ← E 0 ∪ E 00 .
3. Remove E 00 from H (remove only the edges, not the corresponding vertices).
We claim that this is an Õ(f )-approximation for Minimum p-Union. Indeed, suppose at iteration i we added xi vertices, and that at the beginning of the iteration, we had already added
p − pi edges to the solution. In particular, that means that at least pi of the original hyperedges
contained in V ∗ were not yet removed. This then implies that the number of edges added in iteration i was at least xi · pi /(kf ). Thus the number of edges we still need to add after iteration i
is pi+1 ≤ pi − xi · pi /(kf ) = pi (1 − xi /(kf )). Thus by induction, after t iterations, the number of
hyperedges we need to add is bounded by
!
t
t
Y
X
pt+1 ≤ p (1 − xi /(kf )) ≤ p exp −
xi /(kf ) .
i=1

i=1

Thus, as soon as the total number of vertices added exceeds kf ln p for the first time, the number
of edges will exceed p. Since the last iteration adds at most kf vertices, we are done.


4

A standard argument also shows a (more lossy) reduction in the other direction.
Theorem 2.7. If there is an f -approximation for Minimum p-Union on α-uniform hypergraphs,
then there is an O(f α )-approximation for Densest k-Subhypergraph on α-uniform hypergraphs (when
α = O(1)).

3

Minimum p-Union in General Hypergraphs

Given a hypergraph H = (V, E), in this section we work with the bipartite incidence graph G =
(E, V, F ) of H, where F = {(e, v) ∈ E × V : v ∈ e}. Solving MpU on H corresponds to finding
a subset E 0 ⊆ E of p vertices in G of minimum vertex expansion, i.e., E 0 such that |ΓG (E 0 )| is
minimized.
Our algorithm requires a subroutine that returns a subset of vertices of minimum expansion
(without the cardinality bound on the set). In other words, we need a polynomial-time algorithm
Min-Exp(G) which returns a subset of E so that
|Min-Exp(G)|
|E 0 |
≥
,
|ΓG (Min-Exp(G))|
|ΓG (E 0 )|
for every subset E 0 ⊆ E.
Minimally expanding subsets of this kind have previously been used (e.g. in [17, 14]) in communication settings where computation time is disregarded, but in our context we need a polynomialtime algorithm. In Appendices A and B we give two different algorithms for doing this. The first, in
Appendix A, uses a reduction to network flows. The second, in Appendix B, is based on a straightforward adaptation of a linear programming approach for the graph case due to Charikar [8]. In
order to simplify the presentation, we will for the rest of the section assume that we have such an
algorithm and will defer them to the appendices.
In the following, for subsets E 0 ⊆ E and V 0 ⊆ V , we denote the induced subgraph of G by
vertex set E 0 ∪ V 0 by G[E 0 , V 0 ].
In the first phase, our algorithm (Algorithm 1) iteratively adds vertices E 00 to an initially empty
√
set E 0 until E 0 exceeds the size p − m. The set E 00 is a minimally expanding subset in the induced
subgraph G[E \ E 0 , V ]. If E 00 is large so that |E 0 ∪ E 00 | > p, then an arbitrary subset of E 00 is added
to E 0 so that E 0 has the desired size p. Then, in the second phase, we add the k − |E 0 | vertices of
E \ E 0 of smallest degree to E 0 (ties broken arbitrarily), and the algorithm returns set E 0 .
√
Theorem 3.1. Algorithm 1 is a (2 m)-approximation algorithm for MpU.
Proof. Let OP T ⊆ E be an optimal solution and let r = |ΓG (OP T )|. Let Ei0 denote the set E 0 in
the beginning of the ith iteration of the repeat loop. Suppose that the algorithm runs in l rounds.
0
Then, El+1
is the set E 0 after the last iteration of the loop, but before the nodes selected in Line 9
are added.
Consider an arbitrary iteration i ≤ l and let E 00 ← Min-Exp(G[E \ Ei0 , V ]) as in the algorithm.
√
Note that by the condition of the loop, we have |Ei0 | ≤ p − m. Furthermore, we have
|E 00 |
|OP T \ Ei0 |
k − |Ei0 |
≥
≥
,
|ΓG (E 00 )|
|ΓG (|OP T \ Ei0 |)|
r

5

√
Algorithm 1: 2 m-approximation algorithm for the Minimum p-Union problem
Data: Bipartite input graph G = (E, V, F ) with m = |E|, n = |V |, parameter p
1 E 0 ← {};
2 repeat
3
E 00 ← Min-Exp(G[E \ E 0 , V ]);
4
if |E 0 | + |E 00 | ≤ p then
5
E 0 ← E 0 ∪ E 00 ;
6
else
7
Add arbitrary p − |E 0 | nodes from E 00 to E 0 ;
√
8 until |E 0 | ≥ p − m;
9 E 00 ← subset of p − |E 0 | nodes of E \ E 0 of smallest degree;
10 E 0 ← E 0 ∪ E 00 ;
11 return E 0 ;

since E 00 is a set of minimum expansion. Then,
|ΓG (E 00 )| ≤

|E 00 |r
|E 00 |r
|E 00 |r
√
√ .
≤
=
p − |Ei0 |
p−p+ m
m
00

|r
0 )| ≤ |Γ (E 0 )| + |E
√
(note that this inequality also captures the case
Thus, we have |ΓG (Ei+1
G
i
m
00
0
when only a subset of E is added to E in Line 7). Now, note that the sets E 00 of any two different
iterations are disjoint and thus the sizes of the sets E 00 of the different iterations sum up to at most
m. We thus obtain the bound:
√
mr
0
)| ≤ √ = mr.
|ΓG (El+1
m
√
00
In phase two, we select at most m vertices E of minimum degree in G[E \ E 0 , V ]. Clearly, the
maximum degree of these vertices is at most r (if it was larger, then |ΓG (OP T )| would be larger as
√
well) and thus |ΓG (E 00 )| ≤ mr. The neighborhood of the returned set of our algorithm is hence
√
√

at most 2 mr which gives an approximation factor of 2 m.

4

Densest k-Subhypergraph in 3-uniform hypergraphs

In this section, we consider the Densest k-Subhypergraph problem in 3-uniform hypergraphs. We
develop an O(n4/5 )-approximation algorithm here, and show in Section 5 how to improve the
approximation factor to O(n0.697831+ ), for any  > 0, by replacing one of our subroutines with an
algorithm of Bhaskara et al. [7].
Throughout this section, let H = (V, E) be the input 3-uniform hypergraph. Let K ⊆ V denote
an optimal solution, i.e., a subset of vertices such that H[K] is a densest k-subhypergraph. The
average degree of H[K] is denoted by d = 3|E(H[K])|/k. We say that a hyperedge is optimal if it
is contained in H[K].

6

4.1

Overview of our Algorithm

Let K1 ⊆ V be a set of k/3 vertices of largest degree (ties broken arbitrarily), ∆ the minimum
degree of a node in K1 , and H 0 = H[V \ K1 ]. Note that the maximum degree in H 0 is ∆.
Suppose first that at least half of the optimal hyperedges contain at least one vertex of K1 .
Then the following lemma shows that we can easily achieve a much better approximation than we
are aiming for:
Lemma 4.1. Suppose that at least half of the optimal hyperedges contain a vertex of K1 . Then we
can achieve an O(n1/4+ε ) approximation for any ε > 0.
Proof. By our assumption, there is a set P of optimal hyperedges of size at least dk/6 such that
every edge in P intersects K1 . Consider two cases.
Case 1: For at least half the edges e ∈ P , we have |e ∩ K1 | ≥ 2. Denote the set of these edges
by P 0 . For every vertex u ∈ V , let its K1 -weight be the number of pairs {v, x} such v, x ∈ K1 and
{u, v, x} is a hyperedge. Then by our assumption, the vertices in K have average K1 -weight at
least |P 0 |/k ≥ d/12. Choosing 2k/3 vertices greedily (by maximum K1 -weight) gives (along with
K1 ) a k-subhypergraph with at least dk/18 hyperedges.
Case 2: P 00 = P \ P 0 contains at least half the hyperedges in P . Note that |e ∩ K1 | = 1 for
every e ∈ P 00 . For every pair of vertices u, v ∈ V \ K1 , let its K1 -weight be the number of vertices
x ∈ K1 such that {u, v, x} is a hyperedge, and let G be the graph on vertices V \ K1 with these
edge weights. Then any k 0 -subgraph of G with total edge weight w corresponds to a (|K1 | + k 0 )subhypergraph of H with at least w hyperedges, and in particular, G contains a k-subgraph with
average weighted degree at least 2|P 00 |/k ≥ d/6, which can be easily pruned (randomly or greedily) down to a 2k/3-subgraph with average weighted degree Ω(d). Thus we can run the Densest
k-Subgraph approximation algorithm of Bhaskara et al. [7]2 , and find a 2k/3-subgraph of G with
total weight at least kd/n1/4+ε , which in turn gives a (|K1 | + 2k/3 =)k-subhypergraph of H with
a corresponding number of hyperedges.

In the more difficult case, at least half of the optimal hyperedges are fully contained in H 0 .
Exploiting the fact that the maximum degree in H 0 is ∆ and trading off multiple algorithms, we
4
show in the following subsection how to obtain an O(n 5 )-approximation algorithm in this case.

4.2

An O(n4/5 )-approximation

We start with a greedy algorithm similar to the greedy algorithm commonly used for Densest
k-Subgraph [18, 13, 7].
Algorithm 2 selects a subset K2 of k/3 vertices v with largest K1 -degree, i.e., the number of
hyperedges incident to v that contain at least one vertex of K1 . Then, a subset K3 of k/3 vertices w
with largest (K1 , K2 )-degree is selected, where the (K1 , K2 )-degree of w is the number of hyperedges
containing w of the form {w, x, y} with x ∈ K1 and y ∈ K2 . Note that the sets K1 , K2 and K3 are
not necessarily disjoint and the returned set may thus be smaller than k.
The following lemma gives a lower bound on the average degree guaranteed by this algorithm.
It is a straightforward extension of similar algorithms for graphs.
2
Strictly speaking, the algorithm in [7] is defined for unweighted graphs, but one can easily adapt it by partitioning
the edges into O(log n) sets with similar edge weights, and running the algorithm separately on every set of edges,
thus losing only an additional O(log n) factor in the approximation.

7

Algorithm 2: Greedy algorithm for Densest k-Subhypergraph in 3-uniform hypergraphs
Data: 3-uniform Hypergraph H = (V, E), parameter k, vertex set K1 ⊆ V of size k/3
1 For every v ∈ V , let its K1 -degree be |{e ∈ E | v ∈ e, e ∩ K1 6= ∅}|;
2 K2 ← a set of k/3 vertices of highest K1 -degree (K1 and K2 may intersect);
3 For any u ∈ V , let its (K1 , K2 )-degree be the number of edges of the form (u, v, x) ∈ E such
that v ∈ K2 and x ∈ K1 ;
4 K3 ← a set of k/3 vertices of highest (K1 , K2 )-degree. (K3 may intersect K1 and/or K2 );
5 return K1 ∪ K2 ∪ K3 ;
Lemma 4.2. Algorithm 2 returns a k-subhypergraph with average degree Ω(∆k 2 /n2 ).
Proof. By choice of K1 and definition of ∆, every vertex in K1 has degree at least ∆, and so
the total number of edges containing vertices in K1 is at least ∆|K1 |/3 = ∆k/9 (since we could
potentially be double-counting or triple-counting some edges).
If we were to choose n vertices for K2 , there would be at least ∆k/9 edges containing both a
vertex in K1 and a vertex in K2 (as noted above). Choosing k/3 vertices greedily out of n yields a
set K2 such that there are at least ∆k/9 · (k/3)/n = ∆k 2 /(27n) such edges.
Finally, choosing the k/3 vertices with the largest contribution (out of n) for K3 ensures that
there will be at least ∆k 2 /(27n) · (k/3)/n = Ω(∆k 3 /n2 ) edges in E ∩ K1 × K2 × K3 , giving average
degree Ω(∆k 2 /n2 ).

We now offer a second algorithm, which acts on H 0 and is based on neighborhoods of vertices.
Algorithm 3: A neighborhood-based algorithm for Densest k-Subhypergraph in 3-uniform
hypergraphs
Data: 3-uniform Hypergraph H 0 = (V 0 , E 0 ) and parameter k.
1 foreach vertex v ∈ V do
2
Gv ← (V \ {v}, {(u, x) | (v, u, x) ∈ E});
3
foreach integer dˆ ∈ [k − 1] do
ˆ
4
Gdv ← Gv ;
ˆ
ˆ
5
while there exists a vertex u in Gd of degree < dˆ do delete u from Gd ;
v

v

ˆ

ˆ

6

Svd ← a set of (k − 1)/2 vertices with highest degree in Gdv ;

7

Tvd ← a set of (k − 1)/2 vertices with the most neighbors in Svd ;

8

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
return The densest among all subhypergraphs H 0 [{v} ∪ Svd ∪ Tvd ] over all choices of v, d;

Algorithm 3 exploits the bound on the maximum degree in H 0 to find a dense hypergraph inside
the neighborhood of any vertex of degree Ω(d) in K, by considering the neighborhood of a vertex as
a graph. Pruning low-degree vertices in this graph (which would not contribute many hyperedges
to K) helps reduce the size of the graph, and makes it easier to find a slightly denser subgraph.
Since the vertices of K and their degrees are not known, the algorithm tries all possible vertices.
Lemma 4.3. If H 0 contains a k-subhypergraph with average degree d0 = Ω(d), then Algorithm 3
returns a k-subhypergraph with average degree Ω(d2 /(∆k)).
8

Proof. Since at the end of the algorithm we take the densest induced subhypergraph of H 0 (among
the various choices), it suffices to show that there is some choice of v and dˆ which gives this
guarantee. So let v be an arbitrary vertex in K with degree (in K) at least d0 . We know that
Gv contains a subgraph with at most k vertices and at least d0 edges, so its average degree is
at least 2d0 /k. Setting dˆ = d0 /(2k), we know that the pruning procedure can remove at most
k · d0 /(2k) = d0 /2 out of the d0 edges in this subgraph, so the subgraph still retains at least d0 /2
edges. On the other hand, we know that Gv has at most ∆ edges (since we’ve assumed the maximum
ˆ
degree in H 0 is at most ∆), and therefore, the same holds for the graph Gdv , in which the minimum
ˆ
degree is now at least d0 /2k. This means that Gdv has at most 2∆/(d0 /2k) = O(∆k/d) vertices.
ˆ
ˆ
Since there exists a k-subgraph of Gdv with Ω(d) edges, the greedy choice of Svd must give some
ˆ
set in which at least Ω(d) edges are incident. The greedy choice of Tvd then reduces the lower bound
ˆ
on the number of edges by a ((k − 1)/2)/|V (Gdv )| = Ω(d/∆) factor, giving us Ω(d2 /∆) edges. However, by the definition of Gv , together with v these edges correspond to hyperedges in H 0 . Thus,
the algorithm returns a k-subhypergraph with Ω(d2 /∆) hyperedges, or average degree d2 /(∆k). 
Combining the various algorithms we’ve seen with a trivial algorithm and choosing the best one
gives us the following guarantee:
Theorem 4.4. There is an O(n4/5 )-approximation for Dense k-Subhypergraph in 3-uniform hypergraphs.
Proof. By Lemma 4.1, if at least half the optimal edges intersect K1 , then we can achieve a
significantly better approximation (namely, n1/4+ε ). Thus, from now on let us assume this is not
the case. That is, H 0 still contains a k-subhypergraph with average degree Ω(d). Again, recall that
the maximum degree in H 0 is at most ∆.
By Lemma 4.2, Algorithm 2 gives us a k-subhypergraph with average degree d1 = Ω(∆k 2 /n2 ).
On the other hand, applying Algorithm 3 to H 0 will give us a k-subhypergraph with average degree
d2 = Ω(d2 /(∆k)) by Lemma 4.3.
Finally, we could choose k/3 arbitrary edges in H and the subhypergraph induced on the
vertices they span, giving us average degree d3 ≥ 1. Thus, the best of the three will give us a
k-subhypergraph with average degree at least
max{d1 , d2 , d3 } ≥ (d21 d22 d3 )1/5 = Ω((∆2 k 4 /n4 · d4 /(∆2 k 2 ))1/5 ) = d · Ω((k 2 /d)1/5 /n4/5 ).
Since we must have k 2 /d ≥ 1, the above gives an O(n4/5 ) approximation.

5



An improved approximation for 3-uniform Densest k-Subhypergraph

In Section 4 we gave an O(n4/5 ) approximation which combined a greedy algorithm with Algorithm 3, which looked for a dense subgraph inside a graph defined by the neighborhood of a vertex
in H. To find this dense subgraph, we used a very simple greedy approach. However, we have at
our disposal more sophisticated algorithms, such as that of Bhaskara et al. [7]. One way to state
the result in that paper (see Bhaskara’s PhD thesis for details on this version [6]) is as follows:

9

Theorem 5.1. In any n-vertex graph G, for any α ∈ [0, 1], if k = nα , then Densest k-Subgraph in
G can be approximated within an nε k 1−α factor in time nO(1/ε) for any ε > 0.
The n1/4+ε guarantee of [7] follows since for any α ∈ [0, 1], we have k 1−α = nα(1−α) ≤ n1/4 .
Using this guarantee instead of the simple greedy algorithm for DkS, we get the following
improved algorithm for 3-uniform Densest k-Subhypergraph:
Algorithm 4: A DkS-based algorithm for Densest k-Subhypergraph in 3-uniform hypergraphs

1
2
3
4
5
6

7

Data: 3-uniform Hypergraph H 0 = (V 0 , E 0 ) and parameters k and ε > 0.
foreach vertex v ∈ V do
Gv ← (V \ {v}, {(u, x) | (v, u, v) ∈ E});
foreach integer dˆ ∈ [k − 1] do
ˆ
Gdv ← Gv ;
ˆ
ˆ
while there exists a vertex u in Gdv of degree < dˆ do delete u from Gdv ;
ˆ

ˆ

Kvd ← the vertex set returned by the algorithm of Bhaskara et al. [7] on the graph Gdv
with parameters k − 1 and ε;
ˆ
ˆ
return The densest among all subhypergraphs H 0 [{v} ∪ Kvd ] over all choices of v, d;

The approximation guarantee in this final algorithm is given by the following lemma:
Lemma 5.2. Let H 0 be an n-vertex 3-uniform hypergraph with maximum degree ≤ ∆, containing
a k-subhypergraph of average degree d0 , and let α, β be such that k = nα and ∆k/d0 = nβ . Then
Algorithm 4 returns a k-subhypergraph of H of average degree


d0
Ω
.
nε+α(2−α/ min{β,1})
ˆ the
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 4.3, we can deduce that for at least some choice of v and d,
ˆ
d
0
min{1,β}
graph Gv has at most min{n, O(∆k/d )} = O(n
) vertices and contains a k-subgraph with
0
average degree Ω(d /k).
ˆ
By Theorem 5.1, since k = nα = Ω(|V (Gdv )|α/ min{1,β} ), the algorithm of [7] will return a (k − 1)ˆ
subgraph of Gdv with average degree




d0 /k
d0
=Ω
.
Ω
nε k 1−α/ min{β,1}
nε+α(2−α/ min{β,1})
As noted in the proof of Lemma 4.3, this corresponds to a k-subhypergraph of H 0 with the same
guarantee.

Remark 5.3. In the notation of Lemma 5.2 we have ∆/d0 = nβ−α which implies that β ≥ α (since
∆ ≥ d0 ).
Trading off the various algorithms we have seen, we can now prove the guarantee stated in
Theorem 1.2
10

√

Theorem 5.4 (Theorem 1.2 restated). For every constant ε > 0, there is an O(n4(4−
O(n0.697831+ε )-approximation for Densest k-Subhypergraph in 3-uniform hypergraphs.

3)/13+ε )

≤

Proof. By Lemma 4.1, if at least half the optimal edges intersect K1 , then we can achieve a
significantly better approximation (namely, n1/4+ε ). Thus, from now on let us assume this is not
the case. That is, H 0 still contains a k-subhypergraph with average degree Ω(d). Again, recall that
the maximum degree in H 0 is at most ∆.
As before, let α, β be such that k = nα and ∆k/d = nβ . By Lemma 4.2, Algorithm 2 gives us
a k-subhypergraph with average degree






d
d
d
2
2
d1 = Ω(∆k /n ) = Ω
=Ω
.
=Ω
(d/∆)n2 /k 2
nα−β n2−2α
n2−α−β
On the other hand, by Lemma 5.2, Algorithm 4 to H 0 will give us a k-subhypergraph with average
degree


d
d2 = Ω
.
nε+α(2−α/ min{β,1})
Let us analyze the guarantee given by the best of Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 4. First, consider
the case of β > 1. In this case, taking the best of the two gives us approximation ratio at most
nε+min{2−α−β,α(2−α)}
≤ nε+min{1−α,α(2−α)} . It is easy
√ to check that this minimum is maximized
√
when α = (3 − 5)/2 giving approximation ratio n( 5−1)/2+ε ≤ n0.618034+ε , which is even better
than our claim.
Now suppose β ≤ 1. In this case, the approximation guarantee is nε+min{h1 ,h2 } , where h1 =
2 − α − β and h2 = α(2 − α/β). If α ≥ 2/3, then it can be checked that we always have h1 ≤ h2 for
any β ∈ [α, 1], in which case we have approximation factor at √
most nε+2−2/3−2/3 = n2/3+ε , which
is again better than our claim. On the other hand, if α ≤ (3 − 5)/2, then h2 ≤ √h1 for any β ≤ 1,
ε+α(2−α) ≤ n( 5−1)/2 , which as
and so for this range of α we get approximation factor at most
√n
we’ve noted is also better than our claim. Finally, if α ∈ ((3 − 5)/2, 2/3) then a straightforward
calculation shows that
p

+ 1 − 3α + 13α2 /4
h1 if β ≥ 1 − 3α
2
min{h1 , h2 } =
h2 otherwise,
and that the value of min{h1 , h2 } is maximized at this threshold value of β. And so for α in√this
p
3
≈
range we have min{h1 , h2 } ≤ 1 + α/2 − 1 − 3α + 13α2 /4, which is maximized at α = 18+2
39
√
ε+4(4−
3)/13
0.55, giving approximation ratio n
.


6

Minimum p-Union in 3-uniform hypergraphs

In this section we explore Minimum p-Union (the minimization version of Densest k-Subhypergraph),
and give the following guarantee:
Theorem 6.1. There is an Õ(n2/5 )-approximation algorithm for Minimum p-Union in 3-uniform
hypergraphs.

11

Note that this is significantly better than the n0.69... -approximation we would get by reducing the
problem to Densest k-Subhypergraph via Theorem 2.6 and applying the approximation algorithm
from Theorem 1.2.
In this problem, we are given a 3-uniform hypergraph H = (V, E), and a parameter p, the
number of hyperedges that we want to find. Let us assume that the optimal solution, P ⊆ E, has
k vertices (i.e. | ∪e∈P e| = k). We do not know k, but the algorithm can try every possible value
of k = 1, . . . , n, and output the best solution. Thus, we assume that k is known, in which case the
average degree in the optimum solution is d = 3p/k.
Recall that it is not necessary to get p edges in one shot. By Lemma 2.5, it is enough to find
any subhypergraph of size at most kn2/5 with average degree at least Ω(d/n2/5 ).
We follow along the lines of DkSH by choosing vertex set K1 to be the kn2/5 vertices of largest
degree. The following lemma (corresponding to Lemma 4.1 for DkSH) shows that if at least half
the edges in P intersect K1 , then by Lemma 2.5 we are done.
Lemma 6.2. Suppose that at least half of the optimal edges contain a vertex of K1 . Then we can
find a subhypergraph with at most O(kn2/5 ) vertices and average degree at least Ω(d/n2/5 ).
Proof. By our assumption, there is a set of optimal hyperedges P 0 ⊂ P of size at least dk/6 such
that every edge in P 0 intersects K1 .
As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, if at least half the edges in P 0 intersect K1 in more than one vertex,
then we can easily recover a set of k vertices which along with K1 contain at least Ω(p) = Ω(kd)
hyperedges. Since |K1 | = kn2/5 , this subgraph has O(kn2/5 ) vertices and average degree Ω(d/n2/5 )
as required.
Thus, we may assume that at least half the edges in P 0 intersect K1 in exactly one vertex.
Then again as in Lemma 4.1, we define a graph G on vertices V \ K1 where every pair of vertices
u, v ∈ V \ K1 is an edge with weight |{x ∈ K1 | (u, v, x) ∈ E}|. Once again, subgraphs of G with
total edge weight w correspond to a subhypergraphs of H with at least w edges, and in particular, G contains a k-subgraph with average weighted degree at least Ω(d). Thus running the SpES
approximation of [9] (or more precisely, the weighted version [11]), gives a subgraph with at most
kf vertices and total edge weight at least Ω(kd) for some f = n0.17+ε (which is well below n2/5 ).
Once again, the corresponding subhypergraph has at most |K1 | + kf = O(kn2/5 ) vertices, and so
the average degree is at least Ω(d/n2/5 ) as required.

Thus, we will assume from now on that at least half of the hyperedges in P do not contain at
least one vertex from K1 , i.e. that H 0 = H[V \ K1 ] still contains at least half the hyperedges in P .
As with DkSH, we now proceed with a greedy algorithm. Starting with the same vertex set K1
defined above, it follows from Lemma 4.2 that if we run Algorithm 2 on H with parameter n2/5 k,
then we get a subhypergraph on O(kn2/5 ) vertices induced on sets K1 , K2 , K3 such that if the
minimum degree in K1 (which bounds the maximum degree in V \K1 ) is ∆, then the subhypergraph
has average degree Ω(∆k 2 n4/5 /n2 ). The total number of hyperedges in this subhypergraph is
Ω(∆k 3 n6/5 /n2 ) = Ω(∆k 3 /n4/5 ). If this is at least p = dk/3, then we are done. Thus, we will
assume from now on that ∆k 3 /n4/5 = O(dk), that is
!
dn4/5
∆=O
.
(1)
k2
We reuse Algorithm 3 on H 0 , which gives us the following guarantee:
12

Lemma 6.3. Applying Algorithm 3 to the above hypergraph H 0 with parameter
r
√
k3 ∆
k p∆
k̂ =
=
d
3d
returns a subhypergraph with at most kf vertices and average degree at least d/f for some
√
f = O(max{k, n2/5 / k}).
ˆ the
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 4.3, we can deduce that for at least some choice of v and d,
ˆ
d
graph Gv has at most O(∆k/d) vertices and has minimum degree at least Ω(d/k).
ˆ
Note that we may not even have k̂ vertices in Gdv . If we do have at least k̂ vertices, then the
ˆ
greedy choice of Svd gives us Ω(k̂d/k) edges incident in the set (in fact, any choice of Ω(k̂) vertices
ˆ
would do). The greedy choice of Tvd then reduces the number of edges by (in the worst case) a
k̂/(∆k/d)-factor, giving us a total number of edges
!
k̂ 2 d2
Ω
= Ω(p).
∆k 2
Thus, in this case, we only need to bound the size of the subgraph. By (1), we can bound k̂ as
follows:
!
!
r
r
n2/5
k3 ∆
dn4/5 k 3
k̂ =
=O
·
=O k· √
,
3d
k2
d
k
which proves the lemma for this case.
ˆ
ˆ
If we do not have√k̂ vertices in Gdv , then the algorithm simply returns Gdv itself, which has at
most k̂ = O(k · n2/5 / k) vertices and average degree at least Ω(d/k), as required.
As noted in the proof of Lemma 4.3, this corresponds to a subhypergraph of H 0 with the same
guarantee.

We can now prove the main theorem.
√
2/5 / k} =
Proof of Theorem 6.1. By Lemma
6.3
and
Lemma
2.5,
it
suffices
to
show
that
max{k,
n
√
O(n2/5 ). Since clearly n2/5 / k ≤ n2/5 , let us consider the parameter k. By definition of d and ∆,
we clearly have d ≤ ∆, thus, by (1) we have
!
dn4/5
d≤∆=O
k2
which implies k = O(n2/5 ), and so the theorem follows.

13



7

Interval Hypergraphs

We show now that DkS and MpU can be solved in polynomial time on interval hypergraphs. We
only give an algorithm for MpU; a similar algorithm for DkS follows then from Observation 2.4.
As defined in Section 2, a hypergraph H = (V, E) is an interval hypergraph, if V ⊆ N and for
each e ∈ E there are integers ae , be such that e = {i ∈ V : ae ≤ i ≤ be }. Solving MpU on H can
be interpreted as finding p intervals with minimum joint support.
Theorem 7.1. Minimum p-Union is solvable in polynomial time on interval hypergraphs.
Proof. Let b1 , ..., bm be the largest elements in hyperedges e1 , ..., em respectively, and assume that
bi ≤ bj for any i < j. Similarly let a1 , ..., am be the smallest elements in e1 , ..., em respectively.
We present a dynamic programming algorithm which calculates for each j ≤ i the optimal
solution to an instance of Minimum p-Union on the hyperedges e1 , ..., ei with p = j under the
constraint that ei belongs to the solution. Let A[i, j] store the value of this optimal solution.
Assume that the values of A have been computed for all i0 , j 0 with j 0 ≤ i0 < i. We show how to
compute A[i, j] for any j ≤ i.
We partition the hyperedges e1 , ..., ei in three sets Ai , Bi , Ci with Ai containing all hyperedges
disjoint from ei , Bi containing all hyperedges intersecting but not included in ei , and Ci containing
ei and all hyperedges included in ei (see Fig. 1). Therefore we have:
1. bi0 < ai for all ei0 ∈ Ai ,
2. ai0 < ai ≤ bi0 for all ei0 ∈ Bi , and
3. ai ≤ ai0 ≤ bi0 ≤ bi for all ei0 ∈ Ci .
Clearly, for every j ≤ |Ci | we have A[i, j] = |ei | since by definition of A, ei is included in the
solution, and adding any other j − 1 sets from Ci to the solution does not increase the size of the
union. In the remainder of the proof, when we refer to an optimal solution corresponding to A[i0 , j 0 ]
for some indices i0 and j 0 we always mean a solution that uses the maximum number of sets in Ci0 .
For any t ≥ 0 and j = t + |Ci |, the optimal solution contains exactly t sets in Ai ∪ Bi . Fix
an optimal solution OP Ti corresponding to A[i, j] and let ei∗ be the hyperedge with largest bei∗ in
OP Ti that does not belong to Ci . We show that
A[i, j] = A[i∗ , j − |Ci \ Ci∗ |] + |ei \ ei∗ |.

(2)

Then, by considering every hyperedge with index i0 < i as the possible i∗ in Eq. (2) and taking the
minimum value, one can compute A[i, j] in linear time.
To complete the proof, we argue why Equation 2 holds. First observe that a solution with value
A[i, j] exists. Indeed, by adding all elements of Ci \ Ci∗ to an optimal solution for A[i∗ , j − |Ci \ Ci∗ |]
we obtain a solution for A[i, j] covering exactly |ei \ ei∗ | additional elements. Next, assume that the
value of A[i, j] is less than that of Equation 2. Then we can obtain a solution for A[i∗ , j − |Ci \ Ci∗ |]
by removing from OP Ti all the elements in |Ci \ Ci∗ | to obtain a solution with value at most
A[i, j] − |ei \ ei∗ |, contradicting the fact that A[i∗ , j − |Ci \ Ci∗ |] is the value of an optimal solution.


14

Ci0

ei0
ei
Figure 1: Partitioning of hyperedges induced by ei . The dotted edges form set Ai , the dashed edge
forms set Bi and the elements of Ci are represented by continuous edges. The set Ci0 is also shown
in dashed pattern.

8

Open problems

While no tight hardness results are known for Densest k-Subgraph and Smallest p-Edge Subgraph,
there are lower bounds given by the log-density framework [7, 9]. In this framework, one considers
the problem of distinguishing between a random graph and a graph which contains a planted dense
subgraph. It has been conjectured that for certain parameters (namely, when the “log-density”
of the subgraph is smaller than that of the host graph), this task is impossible, thus giving lower
bounds on the approximability of these problems. In the graph setting, the existing algorithm
of [7, 9] match these lower bounds.
However, in the hypergraph case, our current algorithms are still far from the corresponding
lower bounds. In c-uniform hypergraphs, the lower bounds
predicted by the log-density framework
√
(c−1)/4
1−2/(
c+1)
are n
for Densest k-Subhypergraph and
for Min p-Union. For c = 3, for exam√ n
ple, these lower bounds give n1/2 and n2− 3 = n0.2679... , respectively (contrast with our current
guarantees of n0.6978... and n0.4 ). The existing approach for the graph case does not seem to easily
carry over to hypergraphs, and it remains a technical challenge to match the log-density based
predictions for hypergraphs of bounded rank.
For arbitrary rank, the lower bound given by the log-density framework is m1/4 (note that we
do not expect to achieve approximations that are sublinear in n in this case), as opposed to our
√
current guarantee of m. In general hypergraphs, one may also hope for hardness results which at
the moment are elusive for the graph case or for bounded rank hypergraphs.
There is also an interesting connection between MpU/DkSH and the Small-Set Vertex Expansion
problem (SSVE) [5, 20, 19]. In Small-Set Vertex Expansion we are given a graph G and a parameter
0
δ, and are asked to find the a set V 0 ⊆ V with |V 0 | ≤ δn in order to minimize |{v∈V \V|V :v∈Γ(v)}|
.
0|
Given a graph G, consider the collection of neighborhoods Ê = {Γ(v) : v ∈ V } and the hypergraph
H = (V, Ê). If we let p = δn, the MpU problem (choosing p hyperedges in H to minimize their
union) is quite similar to the SSVE problem. The main difference is that SSVE only “counts” nodes
that are in V \ V 0 , while MpU would also count nodes in V 0 . It is known [21] that this special case
of MpU reduces to SSVE, so it is no harder than SSVE, but it is not clear how much easier it is.
This motivates the study of MpU when hyperedges are neighborhoods in an underlying graph, and

15

studying the approximability of this problem is an interesting future direction.

References
[1] N. Alon, S. Arora, R. Manokaran, D. Moshkovitz, and O. Weinstein. Inapproximability of
densest k-subgraph from average case hardness. Unpublished manuscript, 2011.
[2] B. Applebaum. Pseudorandom generators with long stretch and low locality from random
local one-way functions. SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(5):2008–2037, 2013.
[3] B. Applebaum, B. Barak, and A. Wigderson. Public-key cryptography from different assumptions. In Proceedings of the Forty-second ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC
’10, pages 171–180, 2010.
[4] S. Arora, B. Barak, M. Brunnermeier, and R. Ge. Complicational complexity and information
asymmetry in finnancial products. Submitted, 2016.
[5] S. Arora and R. Ge. Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques: 14th International Workshop, APPROX 2011, and 15th International
Workshop, RANDOM 2011, Princeton, NJ, USA, August 17-19, 2011. Proceedings, chapter
New Tools for Graph Coloring, pages 1–12. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
2011.
[6] A. Bhaskara. Finding Dense Structures in Graphs and Matrices. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2012.
[7] A. Bhaskara, M. Charikar, E. Chlamtac, U. Feige, and A. Vijayaraghavan. Detecting high
log-densities: an O(n 1/4 ) approximation for densest k -subgraph. In Proceedings of the 42nd
ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 5-8
June 2010, pages 201–210, 2010.
[8] M. Charikar. Greedy approximation algorithms for finding dense components in a graph.
In Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization, Third International Workshop,
APPROX 2000, Saarbrücken, Germany, September 5-8, 2000, Proceedings, pages 84–95, 2000.
[9] E. Chlamtac, M. Dinitz, and R. Krauthgamer. Everywhere-sparse spanners via dense subgraphs. In 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2012,
New Brunswick, NJ, USA, October 20-23, 2012, pages 758–767, 2012.
[10] J. Chuzhoy, Y. Makarychev, A. Vijayaraghavan, and Y. Zhou. Approximation algorithms and
hardness of the k-route cut problem. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 12(1):2:1–2:40, Dec. 2015.
[11] M. Dinitz, G. Kortsarz, and Z. Nutov. Improved Approximation Algorithm for Steiner k-Forest
with Nearly Uniform Weights. In K. Jansen, J. D. P. Rolim, N. R. Devanur, and C. Moore, editors, Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX/RANDOM 2014), volume 28 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 115–127, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2014. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum
fuer Informatik.

16

[12] U. Feige. Relations between average case complexity and approximation complexity. In Proceedings of the Thiry-fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’02,
pages 534–543, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM.
[13] U. Feige, G. Kortsarz, and D. Peleg. The dense k -subgraph problem. Algorithmica, 29(3):410–
421, 2001.
[14] A. Goel, M. Kapralov, and S. Khanna. On the communication and streaming complexity
of maximum bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM
Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2012, Kyoto, Japan, January 17-19, 2012, pages
468–485, 2012.
[15] A. Gupta, M. Hajiaghayi, V. Nagarajan, and R. Ravi. Dial a ride from k-forest. ACM Trans.
Algorithms, 6(2):41:1–41:21, Apr. 2010.
[16] S. Khot. Ruling out ptas for graph min-bisection, dense k-subgraph, and bipartite clique.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 36(4):1025–1071, 2006.
[17] C. Konrad and A. Rosén. Approximating semi-matchings in streaming and in two-party
communication. In Automata, Languages, and Programming - 40th International Colloquium,
ICALP 2013, Riga, Latvia, July 8-12, 2013, Proceedings, Part I, pages 637–649, 2013.
[18] G. Kortsarz and D. Peleg. On choosing a dense subgraph. In 34th Annual Symposium on
Foundations of Computer Science, Palo Alto, California, USA, 3-5 November 1993, pages
692–701, 1993.
[19] A. Louis and Y. Makarychev. Approximation Algorithms for Hypergraph Small Set Expansion and Small Set Vertex Expansion. In K. Jansen, J. D. P. Rolim, N. R. Devanur, and
C. Moore, editors, Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX/RANDOM 2014), volume 28 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 339–355, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2014. Schloss Dagstuhl–
Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
[20] A. Louis, P. Raghavendra, and S. Vempala. The complexity of approximating vertex expansion.
2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 0:360–369, 2013.
[21] Y. Makarychev. Personal communication.
[22] Z. Nutov. Approximating steiner networks with node-weights. SIAM Journal on Computing,
39(7):3001–3022, 2010.

A

Finding a Set of Minimum Expansion

Given a bipartite graph G = (E, V, F ), the subroutine Min-Exp(G) returns a subset of E so that
|Min-Exp(G)|
|E 0 |
≥
,
|ΓG (Min-Exp(G))|
|ΓG (E 0 )|
for every subset E 0 ⊆ E. Minimally expanding subsets of this kind have previously been used (e.g.
in [17, 14]) in communication settings where computation time is disregarded. We therefore present
17

Graph G

Network Nq

Es

Vs

Et

Vt

Figure 2: Left: Input graph G. Center: Network Nq . Right: Min-s-t-cut. Gray edges are cut edges.
a polynomial time implementation for Min-Exp using network flows. An alternative algorithm can
be derived from a straightforward adaptation of a linear programming approach for the graph case
due to Charikar [8] to our setting (see Appendix B for more details).
Let Nq = (G̃, cq , s, t) be a flow network with directed bipartite graph G̃ = (E ∪ {t}, V ∪ {s}, F̃ ),
capacities cq parameterized by a parameter q with m
n < q < m, source s and sink t as follows (and
as illustrated in Figure 2):
1. Vertex s is connected to every e ∈ E via directed edges (leaving s) with capacity 1.
2. Every v ∈ V is connected to t via a directed edge (directed towards t) with capacity q.
3. Edges from F are included in F̃ and directed from E-vertex to V -vertex with capacity ∞.
Denote by C ∗ a minimum s-t cut in Nq and let val(C ∗ ) be the value of the cut. Since cutting
all edges incident to vertex s results in a cut of value m, the min-cut value is at most m and thus
finite, and, in particular, no edge connecting E to V is included in the min-cut. Denote by Es
the set of E-vertices that, when removing the cut-edges from the graph, are incident to s, and let
Et = E \ Es . Let Vs = ΓG (Es ) and let Vt = V \ Vs . Since removing C ∗ from G̃ separates s from t,
all outgoing edges from Vs are included in C ∗ . Furthermore, since C ∗ is a minimum cut, none of
the edges leaving Vt are contained in the cut. The resulting structure is illustrated on the right in
Figure 2. The value of the cut is computed as follows:
val(F ∗ ) = |Et | + q · |Vs |.

(3)

We prove now a property connecting the value of a minimum cut to the expansion of a subset
of E. This property allows us then to define an efficient algorithm for Min-Exp.
Lemma A.1. Let q be such that

m
n

< q < m. Then:

val(F ∗ ) < m ⇔ ∃E 0 ⊆ E :

18

|E 0 |
> q.
|ΓG (E 0 )|

Proof. Suppose that val(F ∗ ) < m. We prove that E 0 = Es fulfills the claimed property. The value
of the cut val(F ∗ ) is computed according to Inequality 3 as follows:
m > val(F ∗ ) = |Et | + q · |Vs | = m − |Es | + qp · |Vs | = m − |E 0 | + q · |ΓG (E 0 )|,
which implies

|E 0 |
|ΓG (E 0 )|

> q as desired.
0

Suppose now that there is a E 0 ⊆ E such that |ΓG|E(E| 0 )| > q. Then the set of edges C consisting
of those that connect s to E \ E 0 and those that connect ΓG (E 0 ) to t form a cut. We compute
val(C):
val(C) = |E \ E 0 | + q|ΓG (E 0 )| = m − |E 0 | + q|ΓG (E 0 )| < m − |E 0 | + |E 0 | = m.
The fact that val(C ∗ ) ≤ val(C) completes the proof.



Lemma A.1 allows us to test whether there is a subset E 0 ⊆ E such that
|E 0 |
|ΓG (E 0 )|

|E 0 |
|ΓG (E 0 )|

> q, for some

value of q. For every set E 0 ⊆ E, we have
∈ { ab : a ∈ {1, . . . , m}, b ∈ {1, . . . , n}}. We
a
could thus test all values b − , for a ∈ {1, . . . , m}, b ∈ {1, . . . , n} and a small enough , in order
to identify the desired set (or use a binary search to speed up the process). Since computing a
min-cut can be done in polynomial time, we obtain the following theorem:
Theorem A.2. Algorithm Min-Exp can be implemented in polynomial time.

B

An LP-based algorithm for Minimum Expansion

We use hypergraph notation in this section. So the goal is to find a set E 0 ⊆ E which minimizes
| ∪e∈Ee0 e|/|E 0 | over all choices of E 0 (so there is no requirement that |E 0 | = p).
We use the following LP relaxation, which is a straightforward adaptation of Charikar’s [8]
algorithm for graphs.
LP = min

X

xi

i∈V

s.t.

X

ye = 1

e∈E

x i ≥ ye

∀e ∈ E, i ∈ e

xi ≥ 0

∀i ∈ V

ye ≥ 0

∀e ∈ E

Consider the following simple rounding algorithm:
• Pick r ∈R [0, 1] uniformly at random.
• Let E 0 = {e ∈ E | xe ≥ r}.
S
• Let V 0 = e∈EALG e.
19

Clearly, for every vertex e ∈ E we have
Prob[e ∈ E 0 ] = ye .
Also, for every vertex i ∈ V we have
Prob[i ∈ V 0 ] = max ye ≤ xi .
e3i

Therefore, by linearity of expectation, we have
E[LP · |E 0 | − |V 0 |] ≥ LP · 1 − LP = 0,
and this is obviously still true when we condition the expectation on |E 0 | > 0 (a positiveSprobability
event), so with positive probability, we get a pair (V0 , E0 ) such that E0 6= ∅, V0 = e∈E0 e and
|V0 |/|E0 | ≤ LP. The rounding is trivially derandomized by trying r = ye for every vertex e ∈ E.

20

