A few important papers about spectral sparsifiers and friends contain a technical idea that involves building many different sparsifiers that each "partially" solve the problem, and then combining them at the end. To give two examples:
- The original paper by Spielman and Teng works roughly by partitioning the graph into parts of good expansion and $\le |E|/2$ edges going between the parts, then building a sparsifier of each part, and then recursing on the "remainder" graph to depth $\log n$ to get the rest. Implicitly, one then combines these partial solutions at the end for a full solution.
- This paper by Jambulapati and Sidford builds spectral sketches, which are data structures (not subgraphs) that can approximate Laplacian quadratic forms $x^T L x$ with probability $\ge 2/3$ for any given $x$. As they mention, one can easily amplify this probability to $p$ by computing $\log (1/p)$ sketches and taking their median. This critically uses that they sketch with data structures, not graphs, and it raises the question of whether a similar probability amplification is possible for subgraphs with this property.
Formalizing the question, let $G = (V, E, w)$ be a graph and let $H_1, H_2$ be reweighted subgraphs such that, for some $X_1, X_2 \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ we have $$x^T L_{H_i} x \in (1 \pm \varepsilon) x^T L_G x \qquad \text{for all } x \in X_i.$$
- I imagine that this does not imply generally that one can reweight $H_1 \cup H_2$ so that the above equation holds for all $x \in X_1 \cup X_2$. Is this accurate, and is there a nice example that demonstrates this?
- Are there natural additional assumptions we can make about $G, H_1, H_2$ so that this combination of $H_1, H_2$ does work in general, e.g. to enable recursive computation techniques like in the first paper?