Stoer–Wagner algorithm
Recursive algorithm in graph theory

In graph theory, the Stoer–Wagner algorithm is a recursive algorithm to solve the minimum cut problem in undirected weighted graphs with non-negative weights. It was proposed by Mechthild Stoer and Frank Wagner in 1995. The essential idea of this algorithm is to shrink the graph by merging the most intensive vertices, until the graph only contains two combined vertex sets. At each phase, the algorithm finds the minimum
s
{\displaystyle s}
-
t
{\displaystyle t}
cut for two vertices
s
{\displaystyle s}
and
t
{\displaystyle t}
chosen at its will. Then the algorithm shrinks the edge between
s
{\displaystyle s}
and
t
{\displaystyle t}
to search for non
s
{\displaystyle s}
-
t
{\displaystyle t}
cuts. The minimum cut found in all phases will be the minimum weighted cut of the graph.
A cut is a partition of the vertices of a graph into two non-empty, disjoint subsets. A minimum cut is a cut for which the size or weight of the cut is not larger than the size of any other cut. For an unweighted graph, the minimum cut would simply be the cut with the least edges. For a weighted graph, the sum of all edges' weight on the cut determines whether it is a minimum cut.
“Stoer–Wagner algorithm” enters the record as recursive algorithm in graph theory. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Stoer, Wagner and algorithm can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Stoer–Wagner algorithm” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Stoer, Wagner and algorithm provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 4, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q23808439. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1995.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Stoer–Wagner algorithm”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Stoer–Wagner algorithm primary sources, Stoer–Wagner algorithm archive and Stoer research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Stoer–Wagner algorithm”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Stoer–Wagner algorithm” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.