Codex @codex  0

The cut capacity of $(S,S^c)$, with $S^c=V\setminus S$ the complement of a set, isOnly outward directed edges contribute; incoming and internal edges contribute nothing.^[ref]

Here is the accounting behind the bound, using nonnegative original edge amounts $f_{uv}$ in a finite flow network. Sum the divergence of a flow over the vertices in $S$:An edge with both endpoints in $S$ appears once with a plus sign at its tail and once with a minus sign at its head, so those contributions cancel. An outward edge appears only with a plus sign; an incoming edge appears only with a minus sign. Since $s\in S$, $t\notin S$ and every other vertex satisfies flow conservation, the left side is the flow value. ThusThe inequality uses two facts separately: each forward flow is at most its flow network edge capacity, and each backward flow is nonnegative. This is the weak duality bound underlying the max-flow min-cut theorem. It is an accounting proof, requiring no choice of augmenting paths.

For $S=\{s,b\}$ in the running example, explicitly add the two divergences of a flow:The internal $s\to b$ edge cancels. The $a\to b$ edge is a genuine original directed edge entering $S$, so its flow is subtracted; this is different from a backward edge in a residual network. Its flow network edge capacity is neither added to nor subtracted from cut capacity, which remains $c_{sa}+c_{bt}=6$.

Equality in the bound holds precisely when every outward edge is saturated and every incoming edge carries zero flow, becauseand every term is nonnegative. For $S=\{s\}$ the two outward edges are saturated and there are no incoming edges, so the gap is zero. For $S=\{s,b\}$ all outward edges are still saturated, but the incoming flow of $1$ gives a gap of $1$. This explains exactly why the second cut of a flow network is not a minimum cut.

This maximum flow algorithm repeatedly augments along a shortest residual path found by breadth-first search. Residual distances from the source never decrease. If the same arc becomes saturated again after being restored by a reverse augmentation, the distance to its tail has increased by at least two. Thus each arc is critical only $O(|V|)$ times, yielding $O(|V||E|)$ augmentations. Each search costs $O(|E|)$, so the total time is $O(|V||E{|}^2)$. Termination with no residual source-sink path supplies a max-flow min-cut theorem certificate.

The Ford-Fulkerson algorithm repeatedly augments a feasible flow along an augmenting path. When no such path remains, the source-reachable vertices in the residual network define a cut of capacity equal to the flow value, proving optimality by the max-flow min-cut theorem.

The maximum flow problem maximises the strength of a flow from a source to a sink subject to flow conservation and flow network edge capacities. For the nonnegative arc amounts used in flow network, its objective is net outflow from the source:The equality follows by summing flow conservation over all internal vertices. Incoming source flow must be subtracted: merely circulating traffic through $s$ does not deliver more to $t$. The max-flow min-cut theorem identifies the optimum with the least cut capacity of a cut of a flow network. A feasible flow and a cut of a flow network of equal value certify optimality without requiring a particular choice of augmenting paths.

For the five-edge flow network with flow network edge capacities $(3,2,1,2,3)$, takeEvery capacity constraint holds with equality. Flow conservation at $a$ is $3=1+2$, and at $b$ it is $2+1=3$. The strength of a flow is $|f|=3+2=5$, also $2+3=5$ entering $t$. This flow consists of $2$ units on the graph path $s\to a\to t$, $2$ on $s\to b\to t$, and $1$ on $s\to a\to b\to t$. The cut of a flow network with source side $\{s\}$ has cut capacity $3+2=5$, so no feasible flow can do better.

Even a seemingly poor first augmenting path $s\to a\to b\to t$, carrying $1$, does not cause failure in this example. It leaves residual network capacity $2$ along $s\to a\to t$ and $2$ along $s\to b\to t$. These two subsequent augmenting paths yield values $1$, $3$, and $5$, and produce exactly the flow above. Backward residual network edges become essential in the unit-capacity example under residual network, where this same first choice blocks every unused forward route.

Discrete assignment is another reason to study maximum flow. Put unit-capacity edges from $s$ to job vertices, from each job to eligible worker vertices, and from workers to $t$. An integral flow selects a matching in a graph: each job and worker participates at most once, and the strength of a flow counts assigned jobs. The integral max-flow theorem therefore turns maximum cardinality assignment into maximum flow. Minimizing assignment costs is the related assignment problem, modeled by minimum-cost flow.^[ref]

The maximum flow problem with internal vertex capacities reduces to the usual edge-capacitated problem by splitting each constrained vertex into input and output copies. The connecting edge carries its entire through-flow. Feasible flows correspond under this construction, preserving the source-to-sink value; the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm and max-flow min-cut theorem therefore apply to the transformed network.

For finitely many Lebesgue measurable sets $A_i\subseteq [0,1]$ and nonnegative demands $b_i$, pairwise disjoint measurable subsets $B_i\subseteq A_i$ with $\lambda (B_i)=b_i$ exist exactly when $\lambda ({\bigcup }_{i\in I}{A}_i)\ge {\sum }_{i\in I}{b}_i$ for every index subset $I$. Necessity is additivity and monotonicity of Lebesgue measure. For sufficiency, partition the set union into membership cells $E_J$, send flow from a source through demand vertices $i$ to cells with $i\in J$, then to a sink. Source capacities are $b_i$, cell capacities are $\lambda (E_J)$, and intermediate capacities are $D={\sum }_i{b}_i$. Every cut of a flow network has capacity at least $D$ by the assumed inequalities. The max-flow min-cut theorem provides the allocations, and divisibility of Lebesgue measure turns each cell allocation into disjoint pieces. If $D=0$, all $B_i$ can simply be empty.

A minimum cut is a cut of a flow network of least cut capacity for the prescribed source $s$ and sink $t$. The max-flow min-cut theorem equates that least cut capacity with the greatest flow value.^[ref]

To certify a particular minimum cut, exhibit a feasible flow whose flow value equals its cut capacity. Every feasible flow is bounded above by every cut capacity, so this single equality proves both optimalities.^[ref]

In the running example, the four possible source sides $\{s\}$, $\{s,a\}$, $\{s,b\}$ and $\{s,a,b\}$ have cut capacities $5,5,6,5$, respectively. The feasible flow of flow value $5$ therefore certifies three different minimum cuts. A minimum cut need not be unique; the optimum cut capacity is the same for all of them. Merely saturating many edges does not give this certificate: flow conservation and the particular cut of a flow network must also be checked.

A finite undirected graph can be oriented with outdegree at least an integer $k\ge 0$ at every vertex if and only if every vertex subset $U$ is incident to at least $k|U|$ distinct edges. The max-flow min-cut theorem and integral max-flow theorem prove sufficiency by assigning distinct edges to vertices through an incidence flow network; each assigned edge is oriented away from that vertex. Necessity follows by counting outgoing edges from $U$.

Sum net outflow over all vertices in the source side $S$. An internal directed edge occurs once positively and once negatively, so it cancels. All internal vertices have zero net outflow by flow conservation, and the sink is outside $S$. ThereforeThe second sum is nonnegative, while every term in the first satisfies its capacity constraint. Consequently,This is direct accounting from flow conservation; it does not invoke the max-flow min-cut theorem.

The vertex separator version of Menger's theorem says that, for distinct nonadjacent vertices $x,y$ of a finite graph, the maximum number of internally vertex-disjoint paths from $x$ to $y$ equals the minimum size of an $x$–$y$ vertex separator.

Use the following version of the max-flow min-cut theorem: in a finite directed flow network with nonnegative integer flow network edge capacities, the maximum flow value equals the minimum cut capacity, and a maximum flow can be chosen to have integer values on every directed edge. The last clause is the integral max-flow theorem.

Here is the reduction, including the correspondence with vertex separators. Put $N=|V(G)|$. Perform vertex splitting on each vertex $v\ne x,y$, replacing it by $v_{\mathrm{in}},v_{\mathrm{out}}$ with a directed edge $v_{\mathrm{in}}\to v_{\mathrm{out}}$ of flow network edge capacity one. Keep $x$ as the source and $y$ as the sink. For each original undirected edge $uv$, put directed edges from the output of $u$ to the input of $v$ and from the output of $v$ to the input of $u$, each of flow network edge capacity $N$; an unsplit endpoint uses $x$ or $y$ itself.

A family of $p$ internally vertex-disjoint paths gives a feasible integral flow of value $p$, by sending one unit down each graph path. Conversely, decompose an integral flow into unit source-to-sink graph paths and directed cycles, discarding the directed cycles. This decomposition can be obtained by following positive-flow directed edges and subtracting one unit along a source-to-sink graph path or a directed cycle, repeating until the flow value is exhausted. A capacity-one split edge can belong to at most one unit graph path. The projected graph paths in $G$ are therefore internally vertex-disjoint paths. Thus the largest number of such graph paths equals the maximum flow value.

Deleting a vertex separator $S$ corresponds to removing its split edges, of total flow network edge capacity $|S|$. This destroys every source-to-sink graph path; taking the source-reachable vertices after removal gives a cut of a flow network of cut capacity at most $|S|$. Thus the minimum cut capacity is no greater than the minimum vertex separator size.

For the reverse inequality, deleting all $N-2$ internal vertices separates $x,y$, because they are nonadjacent. Hence a minimum cut has cut capacity at most $N-2<N$ and cannot contain a directed edge of flow network edge capacity $N$. Its outgoing edges are therefore split edges. Let $S$ be the original vertices associated with them. Any $x$–$y$ graph path avoiding $S$ would lift to a source-to-sink graph path crossing this cut of a flow network without using an outgoing edge, an impossibility. Hence $S$ is a vertex separator, with size exactly the cut capacity. The two minima agree, and the max-flow min-cut theorem proves Menger's theorem.

Consider a finite directed flow network with source $s$, sink $t$, and nonnegative finite flow network edge capacities $c_e$. A feasible flow assigns $0\le f_e\le c_e$ to each arc and satisfies flow conservation at every vertex except $s,t$. Its value $|f|$ is net outflow from $s$, equivalently net inflow to $t$. A maximal flow here means a flow of greatest value, also called a maximum flow. A source–sink cut of a flow network is a partition $(S,S^c)$ with $s\in S$, $t\notin S$; its cut capacity is $c(S,S^c)={\sum }_{u\in S,v\notin S}{c}_{uv}$, summing directed arcs from $S$ to its complement.

The max-flow min-cut theorem statesFor any feasible flow and cut, summing flow conservation over vertices in $S$ cancels internal arcs and gives $|f|={\sum }_{S\to S^c}{f}_e-{\sum }_{S^c\to S}{f}_e\le c(S,S^c)$. This proves the upper bound by every cut.

For the reverse bound, a maximum exists: the feasible set is a nonempty closed subset of the bounded product ${\prod }_e[0,c_e]$, hence compact, and $|f|$ is continuous. Choose a maximizing flow $f$. Its residual network has a forward arc for unused capacity $c_e-f_e$ and a reverse arc for cancellable flow $f_e$, retaining original-arc identities if necessary. If a residual path joined $s$ to $t$, the minimum of its positive residual capacities would be positive. Increasing forward flows and cancelling reverse flows by this amount would preserve all constraints while increasing $|f|$, a contradiction.

Let $S$ consist of vertices reachable from $s$ through positive residual arcs. Then $t\notin S$. An original arc from $S$ to $S^c$ must be saturated, since otherwise its forward residual arc would make its endpoint reachable. An original arc from $S^c$ to $S$ must carry zero flow, since a positive reverse residual arc would again extend reachability. ThusThe upper bound and this equality prove the theorem and exhibit a residual reachability certificate for maximum flow. The argument works for real capacities and does not assume that an arbitrary augmenting-path algorithm terminates in finitely many steps.

Take a finite directed flow network with distinct source $s$, sink $t$ and finite nonnegative flow network edge capacities. A flow assigns $f_e$ to each edge with $0\le f_e\le c_e$ and obeys flow conservation at every vertex except $s,t$. Its value is net outflow from the source, $|f|={\sum }_{s\to v}{f}_e-{\sum }_{v\to s}{f}_e$. A maximal flow here means a maximum flow: one with greatest value among feasible flows. A source-to-sink cut of a flow network is a partition $(S,S^c)$ with $s\in S$, $t\notin S$; its cut capacity is $c(S)={\sum }_{u\in S,v\notin S}{c}_{uv}$, counting directed edges leaving $S$.

The max-flow min-cut theorem statesSumming conservation over $S$ cancels internal edges and givesThis is the upper bound for every flow and every cut. To prove equality, a maximum exists: the feasible edge vectors form a nonempty closed bounded subset of a finite-dimensional real space, and flow value is continuous.

For a maximum $f$, construct its residual network. Each edge has a forward residual edge of capacity $c_e-f_e$ and a backward residual edge of capacity $f_e$; retain those of positive capacity. If a residual source-to-sink path existed, augment by the smallest residual capacity on that finite path. Increasing original forward flows and decreasing backward flows preserves all feasibility conditions and increases value, contradicting maximality. Thus no such augmenting path exists.

Let $S$ be the vertices reachable from $s$ in the residual network. Then $t\notin S$. Every original edge leaving $S$ is saturated, since otherwise its positive forward residual edge would make its endpoint reachable. Every original edge entering $S$ has zero flow, since otherwise its backward residual edge would give the same contradiction. HenceTogether with the universal upper bound this proves equality and identifies a minimum cut. This proof covers real capacities without assuming that an augmenting-path algorithm terminates after finitely many steps. Merely being impossible to increase all edge flows coordinatewise is not the optimization meaning of “maximal” used in the theorem.

Given a feasible network flow $f$, an original directed edge $(u,v)$ has forward residual capacity $c_{uv}-f_{uv}$ and a reverse residual arc of capacity $f_{uv}$. A source–sink graph path in this residual network permits an augmentation by the minimum residual capacity along it: increase forward flows and decrease the corresponding reversed flows. Capacities and flow conservation are preserved, and the flow value increases by that amount.

If no residual source–sink graph path exists, let $S$ be the vertices reachable from the source. The sink is outside $S$. Every original arc from $S$ to its complement is saturated, and every original arc back into $S$ has zero flow, since a positive reverse residual arc would make its tail reachable. Conservation therefore givesThe flow equals this cut capacity, so the max-flow min-cut theorem proves it is maximum.

Termination needs a capacity or path-selection assumption. For integer capacities, starting from zero, every residual capacity and augmentation is integral; each augmentation increases the value by at least one, and the value is bounded by the total source-outgoing capacity. The algorithm therefore terminates. Rational capacities can be scaled to integers. With arbitrary real capacities, unrestricted graph path choices do not guarantee finite termination. A valid uniformly terminating implementation is the Edmonds–Karp algorithm, choosing a shortest residual graph path each time.

Here is why that choice works independently of numerical capacity sizes. Residual distances from the source cannot decrease after augmenting along a shortest graph path. Every newly created residual arc is the reverse of a graph path arc; if it could cause the first distance decrease, its previous distance relation would contradict that decrease. When an arc $(u,v)$ is saturated on a shortest graph path, $d(v)=d(u)+1$. Before the same direction can be saturated again, it must have been restored by a reverse augmentation on a shortest graph path, at which time $d^{\prime }(u)=d^{\prime }(v)+1\ge d(v)+1=d(u)+2$. Each arc is consequently critical only $O(|N|)$ times. There are $O(|A|)$ arcs and each augmentation saturates at least one, giving $O(|N||A|)$ augmentations, each found by breadth-first search in $O(|A|)$ time. Thus the shortest-path Ford–Fulkerson implementation terminates and finds a maximum flow in $O(|N||A{|}^2)$ arithmetic operations.

For sports elimination by maximum flow, first give the target team all its remaining wins. This cannot hurt its chance to finish strictly ahead: changing a result to favour it also removes a rival's win. Let $w^{\ast }$ be its resulting win count. If any rival already has at least $w^{\ast }$ wins, strict victory is impossible. Otherwise give each unordered pair of rivals $i<j<n$ one game node. Its incoming capacity is $g_{ij}$, and its two outgoing arcs go to the participating team nodes. Their capacities may be replaced by the finite numbersince no arc can need more than the total number of remaining rival games. Team $i$ has sink capacity $w^{\ast }-w_i-1$.

An integral flow of value $G$ saturates all game-node incoming arcs. Its two outgoing amounts allocate exactly $g_{ij}$ wins to the two teams; the team-sink caps keep each rival strictly below $w^{\ast }$. Conversely any successful completion of the league specifies such a flow. Integral capacities and augmentation give an integral maximum flow, soafter the initial negative-capacity rejection. Each actual game is counted once: making independent nodes for both ordered pairs would double-count it.

The network has $O(n^2)$ nodes and arcs. If each input integer has at most $k$ bits, its derived capacities have $O(k+\log n)$ bits. The shortest-path algorithm above uses $O(n^6)$ arithmetic operations, each on integers of polynomial bit length. Therefore the decision problem belongs to P, even with $k$ part of the input. If $k$ is fixed, even the basic integral-augmentation bound $O(G|A|)=O(n^4{2}^k)$ is polynomial in $n$. If $k$ varies, that particular bound is only pseudopolynomial; it is the shortest-path implementation that establishes polynomial bit complexity.

Start with a feasible network flow, meaning capacity bounds and flow conservation at every vertex other than source and sink. Its residual network has, for an arc with capacity $c$ and current flow $f$, a forward residual capacity $c-f$ and a reverse residual capacity $f$. A reverse arc allows earlier flow to be cancelled. The Ford-Fulkerson algorithm repeatedly finds a residual source-to-sink augmenting path, takes the smallest residual capacity $\delta$ on it, and augments by $\delta$, increasing forward flows and decreasing reverse flows as appropriate. Feasibility is preserved and the total flow increases by $\delta$.

For rational capacities and initial flows, choose one common denominator $D$ and scale all quantities by $D$. Every residual capacity and augmentation is then integral; each augmentation increases the integer-valued flow by at least one. The flow value is bounded by the finite sum of capacities out of the source, so termination occurs after finitely many augmentations. When no residual path remains, let $U$ be the vertices reachable from the source. Every original arc leaving $U$ is saturated and every original arc entering $U$ carries zero flow, or its reverse arc would extend reachability. Conservation then makes the flow value equal to the capacity of the cut $(U,U^c)$. Every feasible flow is bounded by that cut capacity. Thus the terminating flow is globally optimal, proving the needed max-flow min-cut theorem conclusion.

For the given directed graph, begin at zero. One valid sequence of augmentations is:

Each amount is the current path bottleneck. The resulting nonzero arc flows areevery other arc has zero flow. Directly summing incoming and outgoing flows verifies conservation, and every displayed flow is at most its printed capacity. A minimum-cut certificate isIts only outgoing arcs are $SD$, $EK$, $HJ$ and $BT$, with capacities $10,6,8,6$. ThereforeThe matching feasible flow and cut prove optimality independently of the augmenting-path choices.

Label the two intermediate vertices $1,2$. The four outer edges have capacity $M$ and the middle edge has capacity one. The cut separating $s$ from the other vertices has capacity $2M$, and the two paths $s\to 1\to t$ and $s\to 2\to t$ can each carry $M$. Thus the maximum flow is $2M$.

A fast run of the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm chooses those two direct paths and augments by $M$ on each: it terminates in two augmentations. One augmentation cannot suffice, because every initial path has bottleneck at most $M$.

For a run with $M+1$ augmentations, first choose $s\to 1\to 2\to t$ and augment by one. The middle edge then has net flow $1$ from $1$ to $2$. Its reverse residual capacity is $1-(-1)=2$, not one. Alternate crossing paths, next $s\to 2\to 1\to t$, then $s\to 1\to 2\to t$, and so on. Each of the next $M-1$ augmentations has bottleneck two. More explicitly, after $k$ crossing augmentations, $1\le k\le M$, the total flow is $2k-1$, and the outer-edge flow totals on the pairs $(s1,2t)$ and $(s2,1t)$ are $k$ and $k-1$ in one order or the other. The middle net flow is $\pm 1$. The next opposite crossing path uses the less-loaded outer pair and has reverse-middle capacity two. Until $k=M$, its outer residual capacities are at least two.

After these $M$ augmentations, one outer pair is full and the other has one unit left. One final opposite crossing augmentation of one reaches $2M$. The total amounts are $1$, then $M-1$ copies of $2$, then $1$, giving exactly $M+1$ augmentations. For $M=1$ the middle block is empty and this gives two augmentations as well. These are explicit requested path-choice histories. In an undirected network, $M+1$ need not be a bound on every possible history: for $M=2$, choosing the crossing path, the two direct paths, and then the crossing path again gives four successive unit augmentations.

For a general undirected network, let $y_{ij}=x_{ij}-x_{ji}$ be the antisymmetric net flow. Feasibility gives $|y_{ij}|\le c_{ij}$, so the directed residual network has nonnegative capacities $c_{ij}^{\prime }=c_{ij}-y_{ij}$. For any cut $S$ with $s\in S$, $t\notin S$, conservation at the internal vertices givesThus its outgoing residual cut capacity isThe subtracted flow value is the same for every cut. Taking the minimum and applying the max-flow min-cut theorem to the original and residual networks proves the residual maximum flow is the remaining optimality gap identity

Suppose now $f^{\prime }>0$, and let $U$ consist of vertices reachable from $s$ through residual arcs of capacity at least $f^{\prime }/m$. If $t\notin U$, every outgoing arc from $U$ has capacity strictly below $f^{\prime }/m$, since its head would otherwise be reachable. At most $m$ original undirected edges cross this cut, and each supplies exactly one outgoing directed arc. Hence $C^{\prime }(U)<m(f^{\prime }/m)=f^{\prime }$, contradicting the residual minimum-cut value $f^{\prime }$. Therefore $\boxed{t\in U}$, and a widest augmenting path has bottleneck at least $f^{\prime }/m$. When $f^{\prime }=0$, the current flow is already optimal and no such path is needed.

Let $F_k$ be the remaining residual maximum flow after $k$ augmentations of the modified rule, starting from zero flow. Its chosen widest path increases the flow by at least $F_k/m$, soThis is the geometric convergence of widest-path augmentation. For $m\ge 2$, $F_k\le e^{-k/m}{f}^{\ast }$. Starting from zero with integer capacities keeps all flow values and residual optimality gaps integer. Thus $k>m\ln f^{\ast }$ makes $F_k<1$ and hence $F_k=0$, giving termination in $\boxed{O(m\log f^{\ast })}$ augmentations for $f^{\ast }\ge 2$. If $f^{\ast }=1$, one positive integer augmentation suffices; if $f^{\ast }=0$, none is required. A uniform statement is $O(m\log (1+f^{\ast }))$. With $m=1$, a nonzero flow is also completed in one augmentation, consistent with the recurrence's zero contraction factor.

For a finite directed flow network with nonnegative finite edge capacities, a source $s$ and a distinct sink $t$, the max-flow min-cut theorem states that the largest feasible flow value equals the smallest capacity of a cut separating $s$ from $t$. A feasible flow has $0\le f_e\le c_e$ on each directed edge and flow conservation at all other vertices. Its value is the net outflow at $s$.

For any cut $S$ containing $s$ but not $t$, sum conservation over vertices of $S$. Internal edges cancel, givingThus every flow value is bounded by every cut capacity.

A maximum flow exists: the feasible set is nonempty, closed and bounded in a finite-dimensional edge-coordinate space, hence compact, and the flow value is continuous. For such a flow, form its residual network: each original edge has forward residual capacity $c_e-f_e$ and backward residual capacity $f_e$. Keep these as edge-labelled arcs if the original network already has edges in both directions. If a directed positive-residual path joined $s$ to $t$, increasing the flow along its forward arcs and decreasing it along its backward arcs by the path's positive bottleneck capacity would preserve feasibility and increase the value. That contradicts maximality.

Let $S$ be the vertices reachable from $s$ by positive residual arcs. Then $t\notin S$. Every original edge from $S$ to $S^c$ is saturated, otherwise its forward residual arc would extend reachability. Every original edge from $S^c$ to $S$ has zero flow, otherwise its backward residual arc would extend reachability. ThereforeTogether with the bound for every flow and cut, this provesThe compactness step makes the proof valid for arbitrary real capacities; it does not assume that a particular augmenting-path algorithm terminates after finitely many augmentations.

For a finite directed flow network with source $s$, sink $t$ and nonnegative finite flow network edge capacities $c_e$, the max-flow min-cut theorem statesHere feasible arc flows satisfy $0\le f_e\le c_e$ and flow conservation at every vertex except $s,t$. Their strength of a flow is the net outflow at $s$. A cut of a flow network has cut capacity equal to the sum of capacities on arcs directed from $S$ to $S^c$.

For any feasible flow and any such cut of a flow network, summing flow conservation over $S$ cancels internal arcs and givesThus every flow value is bounded by every cut capacity.

A maximum flow exists: the feasible arc-flow vectors form a nonempty closed subset of the finite-dimensional compact box ${\prod }_e[0,c_e]$, and flow value is continuous. Choose one, $f^{\ast }$. Its residual network has a forward arc of capacity $c_e-f_e^{\ast }$ and a reverse arc of capacity $f_e^{\ast }$ for each original arc. If a residual $s$–$t$ augmenting path existed, its smallest positive residual capacity would permit increasing forward flows and decreasing reverse flows along the path. This preserves all capacity bounds and internal flow conservation while strictly increasing $|f^{\ast }|$, a contradiction.

Let $S$ be the vertices reachable from $s$ through positive residual arcs. Then $t\notin S$. Every original arc leaving $S$ is saturated, since otherwise its endpoint would also be reachable. Every original arc entering $S$ carries zero flow, since a positive flow would create a residual reverse arc leaving $S$. ThereforeTogether with the universal upper bound, this proves both optimality claims and the theorem. This existence argument works for real capacities; it does not assume that arbitrary choices in the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm terminate. For integer capacities, positive augmentations are integral and increase the flow value by at least one, so the algorithm does terminate.

Start with zero flow and apply the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm. The following augmenting paths and bottlenecks use the capacities in the original PDF diagram:For example, the second path is limited by the remaining capacity two on $6\to 8$ and by capacity two on $5\to 6$. After the third augmentation, $7\to 8$ has residual capacity one; the fourth path supplies it through $5\to 4\to 6\to 7$. Every displayed increment is the smallest residual capacity of its path.

The resulting arc flows areHere $uv$ denotes $u\to v$. These satisfy every capacity bound and flow conservation. The final residual network has source-reachable set $S=\{1,2,3,5\}$. Its outgoing arcs are $2\to 4$, $5\to 4$, $5\to 6$ and $5\to 7$, with capacities $2,1,2,1$, all saturated. ConsequentlyThis is a minimum cut, and the equal flow and cut values certify optimality by the max-flow min-cut theorem. The cut immediately before node eight also has capacity six, so the minimum cut is not unique.

An cut of a flow network partitions a flow network into $S,S^c$, with source $A\in S$ and sink $B\notin S$. Its cut capacity is the sum of capacities of arcs directed from $S$ to $S^c$; a minimum cut minimizes this sum.

Use the suggested nodes. Give $A\to a_e$ capacity $1$, each $a_e\to b_v$ capacity $M=m+kn+1$, and each $b_v\to B$ capacity $k$. By the max-flow min-cut theorem, a flow of value $kn$ exists once every cut capacity is at least $kn$.

Consider a cut of a flow network containing no crossing arc of capacity $M$, and let $U$ be the intersections on the sink side. Every street incident to $U$ must also be on that side, or its arc to an endpoint in $U$ would cross the cut of a flow network. Hence at least $d(U)$ source-to-street arcs cross, as do the $n-|U|$ intersection-to-sink arcs from the other intersections. Therefore its cut capacity is at leastA cut of a flow network crossing a capacity-$M$ arc has still larger capacity. The cut of a flow network just before the sink has capacity $kn$, proving the maximum flow value is exactly $kn$.

The integral max-flow theorem supplies an integral maximum flow. Every intersection sends $k$ units to the sink; each street can supply at most one unit, assigned to one endpoint. Orient each assigned street away from its assigned endpoint. Orient unassigned streets arbitrarily. Then each vertex has at least $k$ outgoing streets. An Ford-Fulkerson algorithm with integer capacities constructs this flow and therefore the street directions. Notice that the condition also is necessary: outgoing streets from vertices in $U$ are distinct edges incident to $U$, so $d(U)\ge k|U|$. This is an outdegree orientation criterion.

Let the bipartite graph have parts $L,R$. Add a source $s$, a sink $t$, capacity-one edges $s\to u$ for $u\in L$ and $v\to t$ for $v\in R$, and capacity $M=|V|+1$ on each original edge directed $L\to R$. Use the max-flow min-cut theorem: maximum flow value equals minimum cut capacity. Also use Integrality of the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm: integral capacities admit an integral maximum flow, found by integral augmenting paths.

An integral flow selects a matching in a graph, because each left and right vertex carries at most one unit. Conversely every matching gives a unit flow along its selected $s\to u\to v\to t$ paths. Hence maximum flow value equals maximum matching cardinality.

A minimum cut has capacity at most $|L|$, whereas crossing even one original edge would cost $M>|L|$. For its source side $Z$, no edge of the original graph runs from $L\cap Z$ to $R\setminus Z$. Thereforeis a vertex cover, and its cardinality is exactly the cut capacity. Conversely, given any cover $U$, use $Z=\{s\}\cup (L\setminus U)\cup (R\cap U)$. No original edge crosses this cut, because both its endpoints would otherwise be outside the cover; its capacity is $|U|$. Thus minimum cut capacity equals minimum cover size, proving Kőnig's theorem for bipartite matching:For the algorithm, repeatedly find augmenting paths in the residual network, then take $Z$ to be the vertices reachable from $s$. Each integral augmentation increases flow by at least one; the total value is at most $\min (|L|,|R|)$. Each reachability search takes $O(|V|+|E|)$ time, so this procedure takes $O(|V|(|V|+|E|))$ time. The network uses only polynomially many edges and integer capacities, yielding the requested polynomial-time algorithm and an explicit cover.