Testable algorithms for approximately counting edges and triangles in sublinear time and space

September 24, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Information Technology Convergence and Services

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Talya Eden, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Arsen Vasilyan arXiv ID 2509.20351 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 1 Venue Information Technology Convergence and Services Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
We consider the fundamental problems of approximately counting the numbers of edges and triangles in a graph in sublinear time. Previous algorithms for these tasks are significantly more efficient under a promise that the arboricity of the graph is bounded by some parameter $\overlineΞ±$. However, when this promise is violated, the estimates given by these algorithms are no longer guaranteed to be correct. For the triangle counting task, we give an algorithm that requires no promise on the input graph $G$, and computes a $(1\pm Ξ΅)$-approximation for the number of triangles $t$ in $G$ in time $O^*\left( \frac{m\cdot Ξ±(G)}{t} + \frac{m}{t^{2/3}} \right)$, where $Ξ±(G)$ is the arboricity of the graph. The algorithm can be used on any graph $G$ (no prior knowledge the arboricity $Ξ±(G)$ is required), and the algorithm adapts its run-time on the fly based on the graph $G$. We accomplish this by trying a sequence of candidate values $\tildeΞ±$ for $Ξ±(G)$ and using a novel algorithm in the framework of testable algorithms. This ensures that wrong candidates $\tildeΞ±$ cannot lead to incorrect estimates: as long as the advice is incorrect, the algorithm detects it and continues with a new candidate. Once the algorithm accepts the candidate, its output is guaranteed to be correct with high probability. We prove that this approach preserves - up to an additive overhead - the dramatic efficiency gains obtainable when good arboricity bounds are known in advance, while ensuring robustness against misleading advice. We further complement this result with a lower bound, showing that such an overhead is unavoidable whenever the advice may be faulty. We further demonstrate implications of our results for triangle counting in the streaming model.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted