Exact Flow Sparsification Requires Unbounded Size

TL;DR

This paper proves that exact flow sparsifiers for networks with six or more terminals can require arbitrarily large size, resolving a long-standing open question and contrasting with the bounded size of cut sparsifiers.

Contribution

It demonstrates that exact flow sparsifiers cannot always be bounded in size, providing the first negative result for this problem and analyzing the demand polytope to establish lower bounds.

Findings

Existence of 6-terminal networks with arbitrarily large flow sparsifiers

Contrast with bounded cut sparsifiers of size at most exponential in k

New technique analyzing the demand polytope's facets for lower bounds

Abstract

Given a large edge-capacitated network $G$ and a subset of $k$ vertices called terminals, an (exact) flow sparsifier is a small network $G'$ that preserves (exactly) all multicommodity flows that can be routed between the terminals. Flow sparsifiers were introduced by Leighton and Moitra [STOC 2010], and have been studied and used in many algorithmic contexts. A fundamental question that remained open for over a decade, asks whether every $k$-terminal network admits an exact flow sparsifier whose size is bounded by some function $f(k)$ (regardless of the size of $G$ or its capacities). We resolve this question in the negative by proving that there exist $6$-terminal networks $G$ whose flow sparsifiers $G'$ must have arbitrarily large size. This unboundedness is perhaps surprising, since the analogous sparsification that preserves all terminal cuts (called exact cut sparsifier or mimicking network) admits sparsifiers of size $f_0(k)\leq 2^{2^k}$ [Hagerup, Katajainen, Nishimura, and Ragde, JCSS 1998]. We prove our results by analyzing the set of all feasible demands in the network, known as the demand polytope. We identify an invariant of this polytope, essentially the slope of certain facets, that can be made arbitrarily large even for $k=6$, and implies an explicit lower bound on the size of the network. We further use this technique to answer, again in the negative, an open question of Seymour [JCTB 2015] regarding flow-sparsification that uses only contractions and preserves the infeasibility of one demand vector.