I have the following algorithm to find the minimum vertex cover of a tree. That is a minimal sized set S of vertices such that for every edge (v,u) in G either v is in S or u is in S.
I have been told the algorithm has linear time complexity, however I don't understand how this is the case, since isn't the number of edges incident to u of the order O(n) and so the complexity would be O(n^2)?
Let T = <V, E> be a Tree. That is, the vertex set is V, the edge set is E. Also suppose the cover set = C. The algorithm can be described as follows:
while V != [] do
Identify a leaf vertex v
Locate u = parent(v), the parent vertex of v.
Add u to C
Remove all the edges incident to u
return C.
In a tree, |E| = |V| - 1, so there are O(n) edges to deal with in total.
Related
I am trying to design an algorithm where, given a connected weighted graph G = (V, E) and a subset of vertices U that is in V, will construct a minimum spanning tree such that all vertices in U are leaves (other vertices may also be leaves), or returns that no such tree exists (False).
This is all I got, adapting Prim's algorithm (fair warning, its really bad; don't even know if it works/is efficient or what data structures to use, I will accept literally any other correct algorithm instead):
Let x be an arbitrary node in G
Set S = {x}
While S != V:
Let (u,v) be the cheapest edge with u in S and v not in S
Add (u,v) to tree T if u is not in U, add v to S
If all u in U is in the tree T:
return T
Else:
return False
I also have a picture of what I think it would do to this graph I drew:
pic here
A proof that the algorithm is correct would also give me some peace of mind.
If all vertices u ∈ U are to be leaves in a solution, no u can be used in that solution to connect two other vertices. All vertices not in U must be connected by edges not incident to any u.
Remove U and all edges incident to U. Find the minimum spanning tree, then connect each u to the tree by the smallest-weighted edge available from those we removed.
I am studying algorithms, and I have seen an exercise like this
I can overcome this problem with exponential time but. I don't know how to prove this linear time O(E+V)
I will appreciate any help.
Let G be the graph where the minimum spanning tree T is embedded; let A and B be the two trees remaining after (u,v) is removed from T.
Premise P: Select minimum weight edge (x,y) from G - (u,v) that reconnects A and B. Then T' = A + B + (x,y) is a MST of G - (u,v).
Proof of P: It's obvious that T' is a tree. Suppose it were not minimum. Then there would be a MST - call it M - of smaller weight. And either M contains (x,y), or it doesn't.
If M contains (x,y), then it must have the form A' + B' + (x,y) where A' and B' are minimum weight trees that span the same vertices as A and B. These can't have weight smaller than A and B, otherwise T would not have been an MST. So M is not smaller than T' after all, a contradiction; M can't exist.
If M does not contain (x,y), then there is some other path P from x to y in M. One or more edges of P pass from a vertex in A to another in B. Call such an edge c. Now, c has weight at least that of (x,y), else we would have picked it instead of (x,y) to form T'. Note P+(x,y) is a cycle. Consequently, M - c + (x,y) is also a spanning tree. If c were of greater weight than (x,y) then this new tree would have smaller weight than M. This contradicts the assumption that M is a MST. Again M can't exist.
Since in either case, M can't exist, T' must be a MST. QED
Algorithm
Traverse A and color all its vertices Red. Similarly label B's vertices Blue. Now traverse the edge list of G - (u,v) to find a minimum weight edge connecting a Red vertex with a Blue. The new MST is this edge plus A and B.
When you remove one of the edges then the MST breaks into two parts, lets call them a and b, so what you can do is iterate over all vertices from the part a and look for all adjacent edges, if any of the edges forms a link between the part a and part b you have found the new MST.
Pseudocode :
for(all vertices in part a){
u = current vertex;
for(all adjacent edges of u){
v = adjacent vertex of u for the current edge
if(u and v belong to different part of the MST) found new MST;
}
}
Complexity is O(V + E)
Note : You can keep a simple array to check if vertex is in part a of the MST or part b.
Also note that in order to get the O(V + E) complexity, you need to have an adjacency list representation of the graph.
Let's say you have graph G' after removing the edge. G' consists have two connected components.
Let each node in the graph have a componentID. Set the componentID for all the nodes based on which component they belong to. This can be done with a simple BFS for example on G'. This is an O(V) operation as G' only has V nodes and V-2 edges.
Once all the nodes have been flagged, iterate over all unused edges and find the one with the least weight that connects the two components (componentIDs of the two nodes will be different). This is an O(E) operation.
Thus the total runtime is O(V+E).
Love some guidance on this problem:
G is a directed acyclic graph. You want to move from vertex c to vertex z. Some edges reduce your profit and some increase your profit. How do you get from c to z while maximizing your profit. What is the time complexity?
Thanks!
The problem has an optimal substructure. To find the longest path from vertex c to vertex z, we first need to find the longest path from c to all the predecessors of z. Each problem of these is another smaller subproblem (longest path from c to a specific predecessor).
Lets denote the predecessors of z as u1,u2,...,uk and dist[z] to be the longest path from c to z then dist[z]=max(dist[ui]+w(ui,z))..
Here is an illustration with 3 predecessors omitting the edge set weights:
So to find the longest path to z we first need to find the longest path to its predecessors and take the maximum over (their values plus their edges weights to z).
This requires whenever we visit a vertex u, all of u's predecessors must have been analyzed and computed.
So the question is: for any vertex u, how to make sure that once we set dist[u], dist[u] will never be changed later on? Put it in another way: how to make sure that we have considered all paths from c to u before considering any edge originating at u?
Since the graph is acyclic, we can guarantee this condition by finding a topological sort over the graph. topological sort is like a chain of vertices where all edges point left to right. So if we are at vertex vi then we have considered all paths leading to vi and have the final value of dist[vi].
The time complexity: topological sort takes O(V+E). In the worst case where z is a leaf and all other vertices point to it, we will visit all the graph edges which gives O(V+E).
Let f(u) be the maximum profit you can get going from c to u in your DAG. Then you want to compute f(z). This can be easily computed in linear time using dynamic programming/topological sorting.
Initialize f(u) = -infinity for every u other than c, and f(c) = 0. Then, proceed computing the values of f in some topological order of your DAG. Thus, as the order is topological, for every incoming edge of the node being computed, the other endpoints are calculated, so just pick the maximum possible value for this node, i.e. f(u) = max(f(v) + cost(v, u)) for each incoming edge (v, u).
Its better to use Topological Sorting instead of Bellman Ford since its DAG.
Source:- http://www.utdallas.edu/~sizheng/CS4349.d/l-notes.d/L17.pdf
EDIT:-
G is a DAG with negative edges.
Some edges reduce your profit and some increase your profit
Edges - increase profit - positive value
Edges - decrease profit -
negative value
After TS, for each vertex U in TS order - relax each outgoing edge.
dist[] = {-INF, -INF, ….}
dist[c] = 0 // source
for every vertex u in topological order
if (u == z) break; // dest vertex
for every adjacent vertex v of u
if (dist[v] < (dist[u] + weight(u, v))) // < for longest path = max profit
dist[v] = dist[u] + weight(u, v)
ans = dist[z];
Dominating Set (DS) := given an undirected graph G = (V;E), a set of
vertices S V is a dominating set if for every vertex in V , there is a vertex in
S that is adjacent to v. Entire vertex set V is a trivial dominating set in
any graph.
Find minimum size dominating set for a tree.
I'll attempt to prove this in a more formal way.
OUTLINE
To prove your greedy algorithm is correct, you need to prove two things:
First, that your greedy choice is valid and can always be used in the formation of an optimal solution, and
second, that your problem has an optimal substructure property, that is, you can form an optimal solution from optimal solutions to subproblems of your own problem.
Greedy Choice: In your tree T = (V, E), find a vertex v in the tree with the highest number of leaves. Add it to your dominant set.
Optimal Substructure
T' = (V', E') such that:
V' = V \ ({a : a ϵ V, a is adjacent to v, and a's degree ≤ 2} ∪ {v})
E' = E - any edge involving any of the removed vertices
In other words
Look for a vertex with the highest number of leaves, remove any of its adjacent vertices with degree less than or equal to 2, then remove v itself, and add it to your dominant set. Repeat this until you have no vertices left.
PROOF
Greedy choice proof
For any leaf l, it must be that either itself or its parent is in the dominant set. In our case, the vertex v we would have chosen is in this situation.
Let A = {v1 , v2 , ... , vk} be a minimum dominant set of T. If A already has v as member, we are done. If it does not, we see two situations:
v has some neighbouring leaf l. Then, l must be part of the dominant set, otherwise our set is not dominating the entire tree. We can simply thus form A' = {A - {l} + {v}} and still be a dominant set. Since |A'| = |A|, A' is still optimal.
v does not have any neighbouring leaves l. Then, because v was chosen such that it has the highest number of leaves, then no vertex in T have any leaves. Then T is not a tree. Contradiction.
Thus, we will always be able to form an optimal solution with our greedy choice.
Optimal Substructure proof
Suppose that A is a minimum dominant set for T = (V, E), but that A' = A \ {v} is not a minimum dominant set for T' as defined above.
Make a minimum dominant set for T', call it B. As aforementioned, |B| < |A'|. It can be shown that B' = B ∪ {v} is a dominating set for T. Then, since |A'| = |A| - 1, |B'| = |B| + 1, we get |B'| < |A|. This is contradictory, since we assumed that A is an minimum independent set. Thus it must be that A' is also a minimum independent set of T'.
Proving B' = B ∪ {v} is a dominating set for T:
v may have had adjacent vertices adjacent not in T'. We will show that any vertices that were not considered in T' will be dominated by vertices in B' (This means that we picked our set optimally): Let y be some vertex adjacent to v and not in T'. By definition of T', y can only have degree 1 or 2. Now, y is dominated by v. If y is a leaf, then we are done. However, if y is of degree 2, then y is connected another node which is necessarily in the dominant set of B. This is because, when we removed v to make T', the degree of y became 1, meaning that y or its parent was necessarily added to the dominant set. Hence, B' is a dominant set for T.
1- Always start from leafs
2- Add their parent to DS and cut the children
3- Mark parent's of selected parent as already dominated
4- After completing process , check whether those marked nodes has a children that is not
dominated and add them to DS
Good luck
Time complexity of Prim's MST algorithm is O(|V|^2) if you use adjacency matrix representation.
I am trying to implement Prim's algorithm using adjacency matrix. I am using this
as a reference.
V = {1,2...,n}
U = {1}
T = NULL
while V != U:
/*
Now this implementation means that
I find lowest cost edge in O(n).
How do I do that using adjacency list?
*/
let (u, v) be the lowest cost edge
such that u is in U and v is in V - U;
T = T + {(u,v)}
U = U + {v}
EDIT:
I understand Prim's algorithm very well.
I know how to implement it efficiently using heaps and priority queues.
I also know about better algorithms.
I want to use adjacency matrix representation of graph and get O(|V|^2) implementation.
I WANT THE INEFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION
Finding the lowest cost edge (u,v), such that u is in U and v is in V-U, is done with a priority queue. More precisely, the priority queue contains each node v from V-U together with the lowest cost edge from v into the current tree U. In other words, the queue contains exactly |V-U| elements.
After adding a new node u to U, you have to update the priority queue by checking whether the neighboring nodes of u can now be reached by an edge of lower cost than previously.
The choice of priority queue determines the time complexity. You will get O(|V|^2) by implementing the priority queue as a simply array cheapest_edges[1..|V|]. That's because finding minimum in this queue takes O(|V|) time, and you repeat that |V| times.
In pseudo-code:
V = {2...,n}
U = {1}
T = NULL
P = array, for each v set P[v] = (1,v)
while V != U
(u,v) = P[v] with v such that length P[v] is minimal
T = T + {(u,v)}
U = U + {v}
for each w adjacent to v
if length (v,w) < length P[w] then
P[w] = (v,w)
You do it like in Dijkstra's algorithm, by selecting the node that is connected to your current partial tree with the minimum cost edge (that doesn't generate a cycle). I think wikipedia explains Prim better than that pseudocode you have. Give it a look and let me know if you have more questions.
You can sort the edges by the cost and then iterate the edges in the order of the cost, and if that edge joins two distinct subgraphs use that edge.
I have a implementation here. It reads the number of verticles (N), the number of edges (M) and the edges in order (A, B, Cost) and then outputs the edges. This is the Kruskal algorithm.
A implementation of the Prim's algorithm with a heap, using the same input can be found here.