Etwork LOW: Lecture Slides by Kevin Wayne

7.
N ETWORK F LOW I
‣ max-flow and min-cut problems

‣ Ford-Fulkerson algorithm
‣ max-flow min-cut theorem
‣ capacity-scaling algorithm
‣ shortest augmenting paths
‣ blocking-flow algorithm
‣ unit-capacity simple networks
Lecture slides by Kevin Wayne
Copyright © 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~wayne/kleinberg-tardos
Last updated on Apr 21, 2013 7:35 PM

7. N ETWORK F LOW I

SECTION 7.1
Flow network
・Abstraction for material flowing through the edges.

・Digraph G = (V, E) with source s ∈ V and sink t ∈ V.
・Nonnegative integer capacity c(e) for each e ∈ E. no parallel edges
no edge enters s
no edge leaves t
capacity
4 15 15 10
10
s 5 8 10 t
15
4 6 15 10
16
3
Minimum cut problem
Def. A st-cut (cut) is a partition (A, B) of the vertices with s ∈ A and t ∈ B.
Def. Its capacity is the sum of the capacities of the edges from A to B.
cap( A, B) = ∑ c(e)
e out of A
10
s 5 t
15
capacity = 10 + 5 + 15 = 30
4
Minimum cut problem
cap( A, B) = ∑ c(e)
e out of A
10
s 8 t
don't count edges

from B to A
16
capacity = 10 + 8 + 16 = 34
5
Minimum cut problem
cap( A, B) = ∑ c(e)
e out of A
Min-cut problem. Find a cut of minimum capacity.

€
10
s 8 t
10
capacity = 10 + 8 + 10 = 28
6
Maximum flow problem
Def. An st-flow (flow) f is a function that satisfies:

・For each e ∈ E : 0 ≤ f (e) ≤ c(e) [capacity]
・For each v ∈ V – {s, t} : ∑ f (e) = ∑ f (e)
e in to v e out of v
[flow conservation]
€
flow capacity
inflow at v = 5 + 5 + 0 = 10
5/9 outflow at v = 10 + 0 = 10
5 5
10 0/4 /1 0 / 15 /
10
/ 5
10
s 5/5 5/8 v 10 / 10 t
10
/ 0 0 / 15 10
15 0/4 /6 /
10
10 / 16
7

[flow conservation]
Def. The value of a€flow f is:v(val(

f ) f=) = ∑ f (e) .
e out of s
€
€
5/9
5 5
10 0/4 /1 0 / 15 /
10
/ 5
10
s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t
10
/ 0 0 / 15 10
15 0/4 /6 /
10
value = 5 + 10 + 10 = 25
10 / 16
8

[flow conservation]
Def. The value of a€flow f is:v(val(

f ) f=) = ∑ f (e) .
e out of s
€
Max-flow problem. Find a flow of maximum value.
€
8/9
2 8
10 0/4 /1 0 / 15 /
10
/ 5
10
s 5/5 8/8 10 / 10 t
13
/ 3 0 / 15 10
15 0/4 /6 /
10
value = 8 + 10 + 10 = 28
13 / 16
9
7. N ETWORK F LOW I

SECTION 7.1
Towards a max-flow algorithm
Greedy algorithm.
・Start with f (e) = 0 for all edge e ∈ E.
・Find an s↝t path P where each edge has f (e) < c(e).
・Augment flow along path P.
・Repeat until you get stuck.
flow capacity
network G 0/4
0
0 /
10 0/2 /8 0/6 10
/
0 value of flow
s 0 / 10 0/9 0 / 10 t 0
11
Greedy algorithm.
network G 0/4
8
— 0
0 /
8 10 0/2 /8 0/6 10
/
—0
8
s 0 / 10 0/9 —
0 / 10 t 0 +8=8
12
Greedy algorithm.
network G 0/4
0
0 2 —
0/2 8 0/6 /
10 / 1 /8 10
—8
2 2
s 0 / 10 —
0/9 —
8 / 10 t 8 + 2 = 10
13
Greedy algorithm.
network G 0/4
6
0—
10 2/2 8
/8 6 —
0/6 /
/ 10
10
6 8
s 0 / 10
— 2/9
— 10 / 10 t 10 + 6 = 16
14
Greedy algorithm.
ending flow value = 16
network G 0/4
6
10 2/2 8
/8 6/6 /
/ 10
10
s 6 / 10 8/9 10 / 10 t 16
15
Greedy algorithm.
but max-flow value = 19
network G 3/4
9
10 0/2 7
/8 6/6 /
/ 10
10
s 9 / 10 9/9 10 / 10 t 19
16
Residual graph
Original edge: e = (u, v) ∈ E. original graph G

・Flow f (e). u 6 / 17 v
・Capacity c(e).
flow capacity
Residual edge.
・"Undo" flow sent.
・e = (u, v) and eR = (v, u). residual graph Gf residual
・Residual capacity: capacity
u 11 v
⎧c(e) − f (e) if e ∈ E 6
c f (e) = ⎨
⎩ f (e) if e R ∈ E
Residual graph: Gf = (V, Ef ).

・Residual edges with positive residual capacity. where flow on a reverse edge
€
negates flow on a forward edge
・Ef = {e : f (e) < c(e)} ∪ {eR : f (e) > 0}.
・Key property: f ' is a flow in Gf iff f + f ' is a flow in G.
17
Augmenting path
Def. An augmenting path is a simple s↝t path P in the residual graph Gf .
Def. The bottleneck capacity of an augmenting P is the minimum

residual capacity of any edge in P.
Key property. Let f be a flow and let P be an augmenting path in Gf .

Then f ' is a flow and val( f ' ) = val( f ) + bottleneck(Gf, P).
AUGMENT (f, c, P)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b ← bottleneck capacity of path P.

FOREACH edge e ∈ P
IF (e ∈ E ) f (e) ← f (e) + b.
ELSE f (eR) ← f (eR) – b.
RETURN f.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18
Ford-Fulkerson algorithm
Ford-Fulkerson augmenting path algorithm.

・Find an augmenting path P in the residual graph Gf .
FORD-FULKERSON (G, s, t, c)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOREACH edge e ∈ E : f (e) ← 0.

Gf ← residual graph.
WHILE (there exists an augmenting path P in Gf )
f ← AUGMENT (f, c, P).
Update Gf.
RETURN f.
}
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19
Ford-Fulkerson algorithm demo
network G flow capacity
0/4
0
0 /
10 0/2 /8 0/6 10
/
0 value of flow
s 0 / 10 0/9 0 / 10 t 0
residual graph Gf
4
residual capacity
8 10
2 6
10
s 10 9 10 t
20
network G
0/4
8
— 0
0 /
8 10 0/2 /8 0/6 10
/
—0
8
s 0 / 10 0/9 —
0 / 10 t 0 +8=8
residual graph Gf
4
8 10
2 6
10
s 10 9 10 t
21
network G
0/4
0
0 2 —
0/2 8 0/6 /
10 / 1 /8 10
—8
2 2
s 0 / 10 —
0/9 —
8 / 10 t 8 + 2 = 10
residual graph Gf
4
8 10
2 8 6
2
s 10 9 2 t
8 22
network G
0/4
6
—
0
10 2/2 8
/8 6 —
0/6 /
/ 10
10
6 8
s —
0 / 10 —
2/9 10 / 10 t 10 + 6 = 16
residual graph Gf
4
8 10
2 6
10
s 10 7 10 t
2 23
network G
2
—
0/4
8
—
6
10 0 —
2/2 8
/8 6/6 /
/ 10
10
8
s —
6 / 10 8/9 10 / 10 t 16 + 2 = 18
residual graph Gf
4
8 4
2 6
10
s 4 1 10 t
6 8 24
network G
3
—
2/4
9
7 —
8
10 0/2
—
8
/8 6/6 /
/ 10
10
9 9
s —
8 / 10 —
8/9 10 / 10 t 18 + 1 = 19
2
residual graph Gf
2
8 2
2 6
10
s 2 1 10 t
8 8 25
network G
3/4
9
10 0/2 7
/8 6/6 /
/ 10 max flow
min cut
10
s 9 / 10 9/9 10 / 10 t 19
3
residual graph Gf
1
nodes reachable from s 7 1

2 6
10
1
s 1 9 10 t
9 26
7. N ETWORK F LOW I

SECTION 7.2
Relationship between flows and cuts
Flow value lemma. Let f be any flow and let (A, B) be any cut. Then, the net
flow across (A, B) equals the value of f.
∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e) = v( f )
e out of A e in to A
€ net flow across cut = 5 + 10 + 10 = 25
5/9
5 5
10 0/4 /1 0 / 15 /
10
/ 5
10
s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t value of flow = 25
10
/ 0 0 / 15 10
15 0/4 /6 /
10
10 / 16
28
∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e) = v( f )
€ net flow across cut = 10 + 5 + 10 = 25
5/9
5 5
10 0/4 /1 0 / 15 /
10
/ 5
10
s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t value of flow = 25
10
/ 0 0 / 15 10
15 0/4 /6 /
10
10 / 16
29
∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e) = v( f )
€ net flow across cut = (10 + 10 + 5 + 10 + 0 + 0) – (5 + 5 + 0 + 0) = 25
5/9
edges from B to A
5 5
10 0/4 /1 0 / 15 /
10
/ 5
10
s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t value of flow = 25
10
/ 0 0 / 15 10
15 0/4 /6 /
10
10 / 16
30
∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e) = v( f )
Pf. € v( f ) = ∑ f (e)
v( f ) = ∑of ssf (e)
ee out
out of
e out of s
by flow conservation, all terms

⎛ ⎞
= ⎛
∑ ⎜ ∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e) ⎞⎟
except v = s are 0 = vv ∑
∈A
∈ ∑of vv
⎜ee out
A ⎝ out of
f (e) − f (e)
∑to vv ⎟⎠
ee in
in to
⎝
v ∈ A e out of v e in to v ⎠
= ∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e).
= ee out
out of
∑to AAf (e). ▪
∑of AAf (e) − ee in
in to
€
€
31
Weak duality. Let f be any flow and (A, B) be any cut. Then, v( f ) ≤ cap(A, B).
Pf. v(
v( ff )) =
= ∑
∑ ff (e)
(e) −
− ∑
∑ ff (e)
(e)
v(
v( ff )) =
= e out∑ ∑ f (e) −
of Af (e) − e in∑ ∑ to Aff (e)
(e)
ee out
out of
of A
A ee in
in to
to A
A
≤
≤ ∑
∑ f (e)
f (e)
flow-value ≤
≤ e out∑∑ of Aff (e)
(e)
ee out of A
lemma e out
out of
of A
A
≤
≤ ∑
∑ c(e)
c(e)
≤
≤ ∑
e out∑ c(e)
c(e)
of A
ee out
out of
of A
A
e out of A
= cap(A,
cap(A, B)
=
=
= cap(A, B)
cap(A, B)
B) ▪
8/9
€
€
€
€ 2 8
/1 /
10 0/4 5 0 / 15 10
/ 10
10
s 5/5 7/8 9 / 10 t s 5 t
12
/ 2
15 0/4 /6 0 / 15 10 15
/
10
12 / 16
value of flow = 27 ≤ capacity of cut = 30 32

Max-flow min-cut theorem
Augmenting path theorem. A flow f is a max-flow iff no augmenting paths.

Max-flow min-cut theorem. Value of the max-flow = capacity of min-cut.
Pf. The following three conditions are equivalent for any flow f :
i. There exists a cut (A, B) such that cap(A, B) = val(f ).
ii. f is a max-flow.
iii. There is no augmenting path with respect to f.
[i ii ]
・Suppose that (A, B) is a cut such that cap(A, B) = val(f ).
・Then, for any flow f ', val(f ') ≤ cap(A, B) = val(f ).
・Thus, f is a max-flow. ▪
weak duality by assumption
33
Augmenting path theorem. A flow f is a max-flow iff no augmenting paths.

Max-flow min-cut theorem. Value of the max-flow = capacity of min-cut.
Pf. The following three conditions are equivalent for any flow f :
i. There exists a cut (A, B) such that cap(A, B) = val(f ).
ii. f is a max-flow.
iii. There is no augmenting path with respect to f.
[ ii iii ] We prove contrapositive: ~iii ~ii.

・Suppose that there is an augmenting path with respect to f.
・Can improve flow f by sending flow along this path.
・Thus, f is not a max-flow. ▪
34
[ iii i]
・Let f be a flow with no augmenting paths.
・Let A be set of nodes reachable from s in residual graph Gf.
・By definition of cut A, s ∈ A.
・By definition of flow f, t ∉ A. edge e = (v, w) with v ∈ B, w ∈ A
must have f(e) = 0
original network G
v( f ) = ∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e)
v( f ) = e out∑of Af (e) − e in∑to Af (e) A B
v( f ) = e out∑of Af (e) − e in∑to Af (e)
flow-value
= e out∑of Ac(e) e in to A
= e out∑of Ac(e) t
lemma = e out∑of Ac(e)
= cap(A,
e out of A B)
= cap(A, B)
= cap(A, B)
s
€
€
€
edge e = (v, w) with v ∈ A, w ∈ B

must have f(e) = c(e)
35
7. N ETWORK F LOW I

SECTION 7.3
Running time
Assumption. Capacities are integers between 1 and C.
Integrality invariant. Throughout the algorithm, the flow values f (e)

and the residual capacities cf (e) are integers.
Theorem. The algorithm terminates in at most val (f *) ≤ n C iterations.

Pf. Each augmentation increases the value by at least 1. ▪
Corollary. The running time of Ford-Fulkerson is O(m n C).

Corollary. If C = 1, the running time of Ford-Fulkerson is O(m n).
Integrality theorem. Then exists a max-flow f * for which every

flow value f *(e) is an integer.
Pf. Since algorithm terminates, theorem follows from invariant. ▪
37
Bad case for Ford-Fulkerson
Q. Is generic Ford-Fulkerson algorithm poly-time in input size?

m, n, and log C
A. No. If max capacity is C, then algorithm can take ≥ C iterations.

・s→v→w→t
・s→w→v→t each augmenting path
sends only 1 unit of flow
・s→v→w→t (# augmenting paths = 2C)
・s→w→v→t
・…
・s→v→w→t v C t
・s→w→v→t
C 1 C
s C w
38
Choosing good augmenting paths
Use care when selecting augmenting paths.

・Some choices lead to exponential algorithms.
・Clever choices lead to polynomial algorithms.
・If capacities are irrational, algorithm not guaranteed to terminate!
Goal. Choose augmenting paths so that:

・Can find augmenting paths efficiently.
・Few iterations.
39
Choosing good augmenting paths
Choose augmenting paths with:

・Max bottleneck capacity.
・Sufficiently large bottleneck capacity.
・Fewest number of edges.
Theoretical Improvements in Algorithmic Efficiency

for Network Flow Problems
JACK EDMONDS
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

AND
RICHARD M. K A R P
University of California, Berkeley, California
ABSTRACT. This paper presents new algorithms for t h e m a x i m u m flow problem, the Hitchcock
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem, and t h e general m i n i m u m - c o s t flow problem. U p p e r bounds on the
numbers of steps in these algorithms are derived, and are shown to compale favorably with
upper bounds on t h e numbers of steps required by earlier algorithms.
First, the paper states the m a x i m u m flow problem, gives the F o r d - F u l k e r s o n labeling method
for its solution, and points out t h a t an improper choice of flow a u g m e n t i n g p a t h s can lead to
Edmonds-Karp 1972 (USA)

severe c o m p u t a t i o n a l difficulties. T h e n rules of choice t h a t avoid these difficulties are given.
We show t h a t , if each flow a u g m e n t a t i o n is made along an a u g m e n t i n g p a t h h a v i n g a minimum Dinic 1970 (Soviet Union)
n u m b e r of arcs, t h e n a m a x i m u m flow in an n-node network will be o b t a i n e d a f t e r no more t h a n
~(n a - n) a u g m e n t a t i o n s ; and t h e n we show t h a t if each flow change is chosen to produce a
m a x i m u m increase in the flow value then, provided the capacities are integral, a m a x i m u m flow
will be d e t e r m i n e d within at most 1 + logM/(M--1) if(t, S) a u g m e n t a t i o n s , wheref*(t, s) is the
value of the maximum flow and M is the m a x i m u m n u m b e r of arcs across a cut.
Next a new algorithm is given for the m i n i m u m - c o s t flow problem, in which all s h o r t e s t - p a t h
c o m p u t a t i o n s are performed on networks with all weights nonnegative. In particular, this
a l g o r i t h m solves the n X n assigmnent problem in O(n3) steps. Following t h a t we explore a
" s c a l i n g " technique for solving a minimum-cost flow problem by t r e a t i n g a sequence of derived
problems w i t h "scaled d o w n " capacities. It is shown t h a t , using this technique, the solution of
a I i i t c h c o c k t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem w i t h m sources and n sinks, m ~ n, and m a x i m u m flow B,
requires at most (n + 2) log2 (B/n) flow a u g m e n t a t i o n s . Similar results are also given for the
general minimum-cost flow problem. 40
An a b s t r a c t s t a t i n g the main results of the present paper was presented at the Calgary
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on C o m b i n a t o r i a l Structures and T h e i r Applications, J u n e 1969.
In a paper b y l)inic (1970) a result closely related to the main result of Section 1.2 is obtained.
Capacity-scaling algorithm
Intuition. Choose augmenting path with highest bottleneck capacity:

it increases flow by max possible amount in given iteration.
・Don't worry about finding exact highest bottleneck path.
・Maintain scaling parameter Δ.
・Let Gf (Δ) be the subgraph of the residual graph consisting only of
arcs with capacity ≥ Δ.
s s
0
0
10
10
11
11
2
2
0
0
12
12
17
17
2
2
t t
Gf Gf (Δ), Δ = 100 41
Capacity-scaling algorithm
CAPACITY-SCALING(G, s, t, c)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOREACH edge e ∈ E : f (e) ← 0.

Δ ← largest power of 2 ≤ C.
WHILE (Δ ≥ 1)
Gf (Δ) ← Δ-residual graph.
WHILE (there exists an augmenting path P in Gf (Δ))
Update Gf (Δ).
Δ ← Δ / 2.
RETURN f.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
42
Capacity-scaling algorithm: proof of correctness
Assumption. All edge capacities are integers between 1 and C.
Integrality invariant. All flow and residual capacity values are integral.
Theorem. If capacity-scaling algorithm terminates, then f is a max-flow.

Pf.
・By integrality invariant, when Δ = 1 ⇒ Gf (Δ) = Gf .
・Upon termination of Δ = 1 phase, there are no augmenting paths. ▪
43
Capacity-scaling algorithm: analysis of running time
Lemma 1. The outer while loop repeats 1 + ⎡log2 C⎤ times.

Pf. Initially C / 2 < Δ ≤ C; Δ decreases by a factor of 2 in each iteration. ▪
Lemma 2. Let f be the flow at the end of a Δ-scaling phase. Then,

the value of the max-flow ≤ val( f ) + m Δ. proof on next slide
Lemma 3. There are at most 2m augmentations per scaling phase.

Pf.
・Let f be the flow at the end of the previous scaling phase.
・LEMMA 2 ⇒ val( f *) ≤ val( f ) + 2 m Δ .
・Each augmentation in a Δ-phase increases val( f ) by at least Δ. ▪
Theorem. The scaling max-flow algorithm finds a max flow in O(m log C)
augmentations. It can be implemented to run in O(m2 log C) time.
Pf. Follows from LEMMA 1 and LEMMA 3. ▪
44
Capacity-scaling algorithm: analysis of running time
Lemma 2. Let f be the flow at the end of a Δ-scaling phase. Then,

the value of the max-flow ≤ val( f ) + m Δ.
Pf.
・We show there exists a cut (A, B) such that cap(A, B) ≤ val( f ) + m Δ.
・Choose A to be the set of nodes reachable from s in Gf (Δ).
・By definition of cut A, s ∈ A.
・By definition of flow f, t ∉ A. edge e = (v, w) with v ∈ B, w ∈ A
must have f(e) ≤ Δ
original network
val(
v( ff )) = ∑ f (e) − ∑ f (e) A B
v( f ) = e out∑of A f (e) − e in∑ to A f (e)
v( f ) =
≥ e out∑
∑of A f (e) − e in∑
(c(e) − Δ) to A f (e)
− ∑ Δ
v( f ) = e out∑of A f (e) − e in∑ to A f (e)
of A(c(e) − Δ) − e in∑ t
≥ e out∑
to A Δ
≥ e out∑of A(c(e) − Δ) − e in∑ to A Δ
= ∑ c(e) − ∑ Δ − ∑Δ
≥ e out∑of A(c(e) − Δ) − e in∑ to A Δ
= e out∑of Ac(e) − e out∑of AΔe in−toeAin∑to AΔ
e out of A
= e out∑of Ac(e) − e out∑of AΔ − e in∑to AΔ
≥
= cap(A, B)
c(e) -
− mΔ ∑of AΔ − e in∑to AΔ s
e out∑of A e out
≥ cap(A,
e out of A
B) - mΔ
≥ cap(A, B) - mΔ
≥ cap(A, B) - mΔ
edge e = (v, w) with v ∈ A, w ∈ B
must have f(e) ≥ c(e) – Δ
45
7. N ETWORK F LOW I

SECTION 17.2
Shortest augmenting path
Q. Which augmenting path?

A. The one with the fewest number of edges.
can find via BFS
SHORTEST-AUGMENTING-PATH(G, s, t, c)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOREACH e ∈ E : f (e) ← 0.
Gf ← residual graph.
WHILE (there exists an augmenting path in Gf )
P ← BREADTH-FIRST-SEARCH (Gf, s, t).
Update Gf.
RETURN f.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
47
Shortest augmenting path: overview of analysis
L1. Throughout the algorithm, length of the shortest path never decreases.
L2. After at most m shortest path augmentations, the length of the shortest
augmenting path strictly increases.
Theorem. The shortest augmenting path algorithm runs in O(m2 n) time.

Pf.
・O(m + n) time to find shortest augmenting path via BFS.
・O(m) augmentations for paths of length k.
・If there is an augmenting path, there is a simple one.
⇒ 1 ≤k < n
⇒ O(m n) augmentations. ▪
48
Shortest augmenting path: analysis
Def. Given a digraph G = (V, E) with source s, its level graph is defined by:
・ℓ(v) = number of edges in shortest path from s to v.
・LG = (V, EG) is the subgraph of G that contains only those edges (v,w) ∈ E
with ℓ(w) = ℓ(v) + 1.
graph G
s t
level graph LG
s t
ℓ= 0 ℓ= 1 ℓ= 2 ℓ= 3
49
Def. Given a digraph G = (V, E) with source s, its level graph is defined by:
・ℓ(v) = number of edges in shortest path from s to v.
・LG = (V, EG) is the subgraph of G that contains only those edges (v,w) ∈ E
with ℓ(w) = ℓ(v) + 1.
Property. Can compute level graph in O(m + n) time.

Pf. Run BFS; delete back and side edges.
Key property. P is a shortest s↝v path in G iff P is an s↝v path LG.
level graph LG
s t
ℓ= 0 ℓ= 1 ℓ= 2 ℓ= 3
50
・Let f and f ' be flow before and after a shortest path augmentation.
・Let L and L' be level graphs of Gf and Gf ' .
・Only back edges added to Gf '
(any path with a back edge is longer than previous length) ▪
level graph L
s t
ℓ= 0 ℓ= 1 ℓ= 2 ℓ= 3
level graph L'
s t
51
・The bottleneck edge(s) is deleted from L after each augmentation.
・No new edge added to L until length of shortest path strictly increases. ▪
level graph L
s t
ℓ= 0 ℓ= 1 ℓ= 2 ℓ= 3
level graph L'
s t
52
Shortest augmenting path: review of analysis
Theorem. The shortest augmenting path algorithm runs in O(m2 n) time.

Pf.
・O(m + n) time to find shortest augmenting path via BFS.
・O(m) augmentations for paths of exactly k edges.
・O(m n) augmentations. ▪
53
Shortest augmenting path: improving the running time
Note. Θ(m n) augmentations necessary on some networks.

・Try to decrease time per augmentation instead.
・Simple idea ⇒ O(m n2 )

[Dinic 1970]
・Dynamic trees ⇒ O(m n log n) [Sleator-Tarjan 1983]
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND SYSTEM SCIENCES 26, 362-391 (1983)
A Data Structure for Dynamic Trees
DANIEL D. SLEATOR AND ROBERT ENDRE TARJAN
Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
Received May 8, 1982; revised October 18, 1982
A data structure is proposed to maintain a collection of vertex-disjoint trees under a

sequence of two kinds of operations: a link operation that combines two trees into one by
adding an edge, and a cut operation that divides one tree into two by deleting an edge. Each
operation requires O(log n) time. Using this data structure, new fast algorithms are obtained
for the following problems:
(1) Computing nearest common ancestors.

(2) Solving various network flow problems including finding maximum flows, blocking
flows, and acyclic flows.
(3) Computing certain kinds of constrained minimum spanning trees.
(4) Implementing the network simplex algorithm for minimum-cost flows.
The most significant application is (2); an O(mn log n)-time algorithm is obtained to find a
maximum flow in a network of n vertices and m edges, beating by a factor of log n the fastest
algorithm previously known for sparse graphs.
1. INTR~DIJCTI~N 54
In this paper we consider the following problem: We are given a collection of

7. N ETWORK F LOW I

SECTION 18.1
Blocking-flow algorithm
Two types of augmentations.

・Normal: length of shortest path does not change.
・Special: length of shortest path strictly increases.
Phase of normal augmentations.
・Explicitly maintain level graph LG.
・Start at s, advance along an edge in LG until reach t or get stuck.
・If reach t, augment and and update LG.
・If get stuck, delete node from LG and go to previous node.
s t
level graph LG
56

advance
s t
level graph LG
57

augment
s t
level graph LG
58

advance
s t
level graph LG
59

retreat
s t
level graph LG
60

advance
s t
level graph LG
61

augment
s t
level graph LG
62

advance
s t
level graph LG
63

retreat
s t
level graph LG
64

retreat
s t
level graph LG
65

end of phase
s t
level graph LG
66
INITIALIZE(G, s, t, f, c) ADVANCE(v)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LG ← level-graph of Gf. IF (v = t)
P ← ∅. AUGMENT(P).
GOTO ADVANCE(s). Remove saturated edges from LG.
P ← ∅.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GOTO ADVANCE(s).
RETREAT(v) IF (there exists edge (v, w) ∈ LG)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IF (v = s) STOP. Add edge (v, w) to P.

ELSE GOTO ADVANCE(w).
Delete v (and all incident edges) from LG.
Remove last edge (u, v) from P. ELSE GOTO RETREAT(v).
GOTO ADVANCE(u).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
67
Blocking-flow algorithm: analysis
Lemma. A phase can be implemented in O(m n) time.

Pf.
・Initialization happens once per phase. O(m) using BFS
・At most m augmentations per phase. O(mn) per phase
(because an augmentation deletes at least one edge from LG)

・At most n retreats per phase. O(m + n) per phase
(because a retreat deletes one node from LG)

・At most m n advances per phase. O(mn) per phase
(because at most n advances before retreat or augmentation) ▪
Theorem. [Dinic 1970] The blocking-flow algorithm runs in O(mn2) time.

Pf.
・By lemma, O(mn) time per phase.
・At most n phases (as in shortest augment path analysis). ▪
68
Choosing good augmenting paths: summary
Assumption. Integer capacities between 1 and C.
method # augmentations running time
augmenting path nC O(m n C)
fattest augmenting path m log (mC) O(m2 log n log (mC))
capacity scaling m log C O(m2 log C)
improved capacity scaling m log C O(m n log C)
shortest augmenting path mn O(m2 n)
improved shortest augmenting path mn O(m n2 )
dynamic trees mn O(m n log n )
69
Maximum flow algorithms: theory
year method worst case discovered by
1951 simplex O(m3 C) Dantzig
1955 augmenting path O(m2 C) Ford-Fulkerson
1970 shortest augmenting path O(m3) Dinic, Edmonds-Karp
1970 fattest augmenting path O(m2 log m log( m C )) Dinic, Edmonds-Karp
1977 blocking flow O(m 5/2) Cherkasky
1978 blocking flow O(m 7/3) Galil
1983 dynamic trees O(m2 log m) Sleator-Tarjan
1985 capacity scaling O(m2 log C) Gabow
1997 length function O(m3/2 log m log C) Goldberg-Rao
2012 compact network O(m2 / log m) Orlin
? ? O(m) ?
max-flow algorithms for sparse digraphs with m edges, integer capacities between 1 and C
70
Maximum flow algorithms: practice
Push-relabel algorithm (SECTION 7.4). [Goldberg-Tarjan 1988]

Increases flow one edge at a time instead of one augmenting path at a time.
A New Approach to the Maximum-Flow Problem
ANDREW V. GOLDBERG
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
AND
ROBERT E. TARJAN
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, and AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey
Abstract. All previously known efftcient maximum-flow algorithms work by finding augmenting paths,
either one path at a time (as in the original Ford and Fulkerson algorithm) or all shortest-length
augmenting paths at once (using the layered network approach of Dinic). An alternative method based
on the preflow concept of Karzanov is introduced. A preflow is like a flow, except that the total amount
flowing into a vertex is allowed to exceed the total amount flowing out. The method maintains a preflow
in the original network and pushes local flow excess toward the sink along what are estimated to be
shortest paths. The algorithm and its analysis are simple and intuitive, yet the algorithm runs as fast as
any other known method on dense.graphs, achieving an O(n)) time bound on an n-vertex graph. By
incorporating the dynamic tree data structure of Sleator and Tarjan, we obtain a version of the algorithm
running in O(nm log(n’/m)) time on an n-vertex, m-edge graph. This is as fast as any known method
for any graph density and faster on graphs of moderate density. The algorithm also admits efticient
distributed and parallel implementations. A parallel implementation running in O(n’log n) time using
n processors and O(m) space is obtained. This time bound matches that of the Shiloach-Vishkin
algorithm, which also uses n processors but requires O(n’) space.
Categories and Subject Descriptors: F.2.2 [Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity]: Non-
numerical Algorithms and Problems; G.2.2 [Discrete Mathematics]: Graph Theory-graph algorithms; 71
network problems
General Terms: Algorithms, Design, Theory, Verification
Warning. Worst-case running time is generally not useful for predicting or

comparing max-flow algorithm performance in practice.
Best in practice. Push-relabel method with gap relabeling: O(m 3/2).
On I m p l e m e n t i n g P u s h - R e l a b e l M e t h o d
for the M a x i m u m Flow P r o b l e m
EUROPEAN
JOURNAL
OF OPERATIONAL
Boris V. Cherkassky 1 and Andrew V. Goldberg 2 RESEARCH
ELSEVIER European Journal of Operational Research 97 (1997) 509-542
1 Central Institute for Economics and Mathematics,
Krasikova St. 32, 117418, Moscow, Russia
cher@eemi.msk.su
2 Computer Science Department, Stanford University Theory and Methodology
Stanford, CA 94305, USA
goldberg~cs. stanford, edu Computational investigations of maximum flow algorithms
Ravindra K . A h u j a a, M u r a l i K o d i a l a m b, A j a y K . M i s h r a c, J a m e s B . O r l i n d,.
A b s t r a c t . We study efficient implementations of the push-relabel method a Department t~'lndustrial and Management Engineering. Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur, 208 016, India
for the maximum flow problem. The resulting codes are faster than the b AT& T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ 07733, USA
c KA'F-ZGraduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
previous codes, and much faster on some problem families. The speedup d Sloun School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge. MA 02139. USA
is due to the combination of heuristics used in our implementations. We
also exhibit a family of problems for which the running time of all known Received 30 August 1995; accepted 27 June 1996
methods seem to have a roughly quadratic growth rate.
Abstract
1 Introduction The maximum flow algorithm is distinguished by the long line of successive contributions researchers have made in
obtaining algorithms with incrementally better worst-case complexity. Some, but not all, of these theoretical improvements
The rnaximum flow problem is a classical combinatorial problem that comes up have produced improvements in practice. The purpose of this paper is to test some of the major algorithmic ideas developed
in a wide variety of applications. In this paper we study implementations of the in the recent years and to assess their utility on the empirical front. However, our study differs from previous studies in
several ways. Whereas previous studies focus primarily on CPU time analysis, our analysis goes further and provides 72
push-rdabel [13, 17] method for the problem.
detailed insight into algorithmic behavior. It not only observes how algorithms behave but also tries to explain why
The basic methods for the maximum flow problem include the network sim- algorithms behave that way. We have limited our study to the best previous maximum flow algorithms and some of the
plex method of Dantzig [6, 7], the augmenting path method of Ford and F~lker- recent algorithms that are likely to be efficient in practice. Our study encompasses ten maximum flow algorithms and five
Computer vision. Different algorithms work better for some dense

problems that arise in applications to computer vision.
In IEEE Transactions on PAMI, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 1124-1137, Sept. 2004 p.1
An Experimental Comparison of VERMA, BATRA: MAXFLOW REVISITED 1
Min-Cut/Max-Flow Algorithms for

Energy Minimization in Vision MaxFlow Revisited:
Yuri Boykov and Vladimir Kolmogorov ∗
An Empirical Comparison of Maxflow
Algorithms for Dense Vision Problems
Abstract
After [15, 31, 19, 8, 25, 5] minimum cut/maximum flow algorithms on graphs emerged as Tanmay Verma IIIT-Delhi
an increasingly useful tool for exact or approximate energy minimization in low-level vision. tanmay08054@iiitd.ac.in Delhi, India
The combinatorial optimization literature provides many min-cut/max-flow algorithms with
Dhruv Batra TTI-Chicago
dbatra@ttic.edu Chicago, USA
different polynomial time complexity. Their practical efficiency, however, has to date been
studied mainly outside the scope of computer vision. The goal of this paper is to provide an
experimental comparison of the efficiency of min-cut/max flow algorithms for applications
in vision. We compare the running times of several standard algorithms, as well as a

Abstract
new algorithm that we have recently developed. The algorithms we study include both Algorithms for finding the maximum amount of flow possible in a network (or max-
Goldberg-Tarjan style “push-relabel” methods and algorithms based on Ford-Fulkerson flow) play a central role in computer vision problems. We present an empirical compari-
son of different max-flow algorithms on modern problems. Our problem instances arise
style “augmenting paths”. We benchmark these algorithms on a number of typical graphs
from energy minimization problems in Object Category Segmentation, Image Deconvo-
in the contexts of image restoration, stereo, and segmentation. In many cases our new lution, Super Resolution, Texture Restoration, Character Completion and 3D Segmen-
algorithm works several times faster than any of the other methods making near real-time tation. We compare 14 different implementations and find that the most popularly used
implementation of Kolmogorov [5] is no longer the fastest algorithm available, especially
performance possible. An implementation of our max-flow/min-cut algorithm is available
for dense graphs.
upon request for research purposes.
Index Terms — Energy minimization, graph algorithms, minimum cut, maximum
flow, image restoration, segmentation, stereo, multi-camera scene reconstruction. 1 Introduction

∗
Yuri Boykov is with the Computer Science Department at the University of Western Ontario, Canada,
yuri@csd.uwo.ca. Vladimir Kolmogorov is with Microsoft Research, Cambridge, England, vnk@microsoft.com. Over the past two decades, algorithms for finding the maximum amount of flow possible in
This work was mainly done while the authors were with Siemens Corp. Research, Princeton, NJ.
a network (or max-flow) have become the workhorses of modern computer vision and ma- 73
chine learning – from optimal (or provably-approximate) inference in sophisticated discrete
models [6, 11, 27, 30, 32] to enabling real-time image processing [38, 39].
7. N ETWORK F LOW I

Bipartite matching
Q. Which max-flow algorithm to use for bipartite matching?

・Generic augmenting path: O( m | f * | ) = O(m n).
・Capacity scaling: O(m2 log U) = O(m2).
・Shortest augmenting path: O(m n2).
Q. Suggests "more clever" algorithms are not as good as we first thought?
A. No, just need more clever analysis!
Next. We prove that shortest augmenting path algorithm can be

implemented inJ. CoMavx.
SIAM O(m n1/2) time.
Vol. 4, No. 4, December 1975
NETWORK FLOW AND TESTING GRAPH CONNECTIVITY*

SHIMON EVEN" AND R. ENDRE TARJAN:I:
Abstract. An algorithm of Dinic for finding the maximum flow in a network is described. It is
then shown that if the vertex capacities are all equal to one, the algorithm requires at most O(IV[ 1/2 IEI)
time, and if the edge capacities are all equal to one, the algorithm requires at most O(I VI 2/3. IEI) time.
Also, these bounds are tight for Dinic’s algorithm.
These results are used to test the vertex connectivity of a graph in O(IVI 1/z. IEI 2) time and the
edge connectivity in O(I V[ 5/3. IEI) time.
Key words. Dinic’s algorithm, maximum flow, connectivity, vertex connectivity, edge connec- 75
tivity
flow. Let be a
Unit-capacity simple networks
Def. A network is a unit-capacity simple network if:

・Every edge capacity is 1.
・Every node (other than s or t) has either (i) at most one entering edge
or (ii) at most one leaving edge.
Property. Let G be a simple unit-capacity network and let f be a 0-1 flow,

then Gf is a unit-capacity simple network.
Ex. Bipartite matching.

1
1 1
76
Shortest augmenting path algorithm.

・Normal augmentation: length of shortest path does not change.
・Special augmentation: length of shortest path strictly increases.
Theorem. [Even-Tarjan 1975] In unit-capacity simple networks, the shortest
augmenting path algorithm computes a maximum flow in O(m n1/2) time.
Pf.
・L1. Each phase of normal augmentations takes O(m) time.
・L2. After at most n1/2 phases, | f | ≥ | f *| – n1/2.
・L3. After at most n1/2 additional augmentations, flow is optimal. ▪
77

・If reach t, augment and and update LG. delete all edges in augmenting path from L G
advance
level graph LG
78

augment
level graph LG
79

advance
level graph LG
80

retreat
level graph LG
81

advance
level graph LG
82

augment
level graph LG
83

end of phase
level graph LG
84
Unit-capacity simple networks: analysis

LEMMA 1. A phase of normal augmentations takes O(m) time.
Pf.
・O(m) to create level graph LG.
・O(1) per edge since each edge traversed and deleted at most once.
・O(1) per node since each node deleted at most once. ▪
85
LEMMA 2. After at most n1/2 phases, | f | ≥ | f *| – n1/2.

・After n1/2 phases, length of shortest augmenting path is > n1/2.
・Level graph has more than n1/2 levels.
・Let 1 ≤ h ≤ n1/2 be layer with min number of nodes: | Vh | ≤ n1/2.
level graph LG for flow f
V0 V1 Vh Vn1/2
86
LEMMA 2. After at most n1/2 phases, | f | ≥ | f *| – n1/2.

・After n1/2 phases, length of shortest augmenting path is > n1/2.
・Level graph has more than n1/2 levels.
・Let 1 ≤ h ≤ n1/2 be layer with min number of nodes: | Vh | ≤ n1/2.
・Let A = {v : ℓ(v) < h} ∪ {v : ℓ(v) = h and v has ≤ 1 outgoing residual edge}.
・capf (A, B) ≤ | Vh | ≤ n1/2 ⇒ | f | ≥ | f *| – n1/2. ▪
residual graph Gf residual edges
V0 V1 Vh Vn1/2
87

Etwork LOW: Lecture Slides by Kevin Wayne

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etwork LOW: Lecture Slides by Kevin Wayne

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7.

‣ max-flow and min-cut problems

Last updated on Apr 21, 2013 7:35 PM

‣ max-flow and min-cut problems

・Abstraction for material flowing through the edges.

Def. A st-cut (cut) is a partition (A, B) of the vertices with s ∈ A and t ∈ B.

Def. A st-cut (cut) is a partition (A, B) of the vertices with s ∈ A and t ∈ B.

don't count edges

Def. A st-cut (cut) is a partition (A, B) of the vertices with s ∈ A and t ∈ B.

Min-cut problem. Find a cut of minimum capacity.

Def. An st-flow (flow) f is a function that satisfies:

Def. An st-flow (flow) f is a function that satisfies:

Def. The value of a€flow f is:v(val(

Def. An st-flow (flow) f is a function that satisfies:

Def. The value of a€flow f is:v(val(

‣ max-flow and min-cut problems

ending flow value = 16

but max-flow value = 19

Original edge: e = (u, v) ∈ E. original graph G

Residual graph: Gf = (V, Ef ).

Def. An augmenting path is a simple s↝t path P in the residual graph Gf .

Def. The bottleneck capacity of an augmenting P is the minimum

Key property. Let f be a flow and let P be an augmenting path in Gf .

b ← bottleneck capacity of path P.

Ford-Fulkerson augmenting path algorithm.

FOREACH edge e ∈ E : f (e) ← 0.

network G flow capacity

nodes reachable from s 7 1

‣ max-flow and min-cut problems

€ net flow across cut = 5 + 10 + 10 = 25

s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t value of flow = 25

€ net flow across cut = 10 + 5 + 10 = 25

s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t value of flow = 25

€ net flow across cut = (10 + 10 + 5 + 10 + 0 + 0) – (5 + 5 + 0 + 0) = 25

s 5/5 5/8 10 / 10 t value of flow = 25

by flow conservation, all terms

value of flow = 27 ≤ capacity of cut = 30 32

Augmenting path theorem. A flow f is a max-flow iff no augmenting paths.

Augmenting path theorem. A flow f is a max-flow iff no augmenting paths.

[ ii iii ] We prove contrapositive: ~iii ~ii.

edge e = (v, w) with v ∈ A, w ∈ B

‣ max-flow and min-cut problems

Assumption. Capacities are integers between 1 and C.

Integrality invariant. Throughout the algorithm, the flow values f (e)

Theorem. The algorithm terminates in at most val (f *) ≤ n C iterations.

Corollary. The running time of Ford-Fulkerson is O(m n C).

Integrality theorem. Then exists a max-flow f * for which every

Q. Is generic Ford-Fulkerson algorithm poly-time in input size?

A. No. If max capacity is C, then algorithm can take ≥ C iterations.

Use care when selecting augmenting paths.

Goal. Choose augmenting paths so that:

Choose augmenting paths with:

Theoretical Improvements in Algorithmic Efficiency

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

University of California, Berkeley, California

Edmonds-Karp 1972 (USA)

Intuition. Choose augmenting path with highest bottleneck capacity:

FOREACH edge e ∈ E : f (e) ← 0.

Assumption. All edge capacities are integers between 1 and C.

Theorem. If capacity-scaling algorithm terminates, then f is a max-flow.

Lemma 1. The outer while loop repeats 1 + ⎡log2 C⎤ times.

Lemma 2. Let f be the flow at the end of a Δ-scaling phase. Then,

Lemma 3. There are at most 2m augmentations per scaling phase.