Related
Given undirected, connected graph G={V,E}, a vertex in V(G), label him v, and a weight function f:E->R+(Positive real numbers), I need to find a MST such that v's degree is minimal. I've already noticed that if all the edges has unique weight, the MST is unique, so I believe it has something to do with repetitive weights on edges. I though about running Kruskal's algorithm, but when sorting the edges, I'll always consider edges that occur on v last. For example, if (a,b),(c,d),(v,e) are the only edges of weight k, so the possible permutations of these edges in the sorted edges array are: {(a,b),(c,d),(v,e)} or {(c,d),(a,b),(v,e)}. I've ran this variation over several graphs and it seems to work, but I couldn't prove it. Does anyone know how to prove the algorithm's correct (Meaning proving v's degree is minimal), or give a contrary example of the algorithm failing?
First note that Kruskal's algorithm can be applied to any weighted graph, whether or not it is connected. In general it results in a minimum-weight spanning forest (MSF), with one MST for each connected component. To prove that your modification of Kruskal's algorithm succeeds in finding the MST for which v has minimal degree, it helps to prove the slightly stronger result that if you apply your algorithm to a possibly disconnected graph then it succeeds in finding the MSF where the degree of v is minimized.
The proof is by induction on the number, k, of distinct weights.
Basis Case (k = 1). In this case weights can be ignored and we are trying to find a spanning forest in which the degree of v is minimized. In this case, your algorithm can be described as follows: pick edges for as long as possible according to the following two rules:
1) No selected edge forms a cycle with previously selected edges
2) An edge involving v isn't selected unless any edge which doesn't
involve v violates rule 1.
Let G' denote the graph from which v and all incident edges have been removed from G. It is easy to see that the algorithm in this special case works as follows. It starts by creating a spanning forest for G'. Then it takes those trees in the forest that are contained in v's connected component in the original graph G and connects each component to v by a single edge. Since the components connected to v in the second stage can be connected to each other in no other way (since if any connecting edge not involving v exists it would have been selected by rule 2) it is easy to see that the degree of v is minimal.
Inductive Case: Suppose that the result is true for k and G is a weighted graph with k+1 distinct weights and v is a specified vertex in G. Sort the distinct weights in increasing order (so that weight k+1 is the longest of the distinct weights -- say w_{k+1}). Let G' be the sub-graph of G with the same vertex set but with all edges of weight w_{k+1} removed. Since the edges are sorted in the order of increasing weight, note that the modified Kruskal's algorithm in effect starts by applying itself to G'. Thus -- by the induction hypothesis prior to considering edges of weight w_{k+1}, the algorithm has succeeded in constructing an MSF F' of G' for which the degree, d' of v in G' is minimized.
As a final step, modified Kruskal's applied to the overall graph G will merge certain of the trees in F' together by adding edges of weight w_{k+1}. One way to conceptualize the final step is the think of F' as a graph where two trees are connected exactly when there is an edge of weight w_{k+1} from some node in the first tree to some node in the second tree. We have (almost) the basis case with F'. Modified Kruskal's will add edged of weight w_{k+1} until it can't do so anymore -- and won't add an edge connecting to v unless there is no other way to connect to trees in F' that need to be connected to get a spanning forest for the original graph G.
The final degree of v in the resulting MSF is d = d'+d" where d" is the number of edges of weight w_{k+1} added at the final step. Neither d' nor d" can be made any smaller, hence it follows that d can't be made any smaller (since the degree of v in any spanning forest can be written as the sum of the number of edges whose weight is less than w_{k+1} coming into v and the number off edges of weight w_{k+1} coming into v).
QED.
There is still an element of hand-waving in this, especially with the final step -- but Stack Overflow isn't a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, the overall logic should be clear enough.
One final remark -- it seems fairly clear that Prim's algorithm can be similarly modified for this problem. Have you looked into that?
What is the exact difference between Dijkstra's and Prim's algorithms? I know Prim's will give a MST but the tree generated by Dijkstra will also be a MST. Then what is the exact difference?
Prim's algorithm constructs a minimum spanning tree for the graph, which is a tree that connects all nodes in the graph and has the least total cost among all trees that connect all the nodes. However, the length of a path between any two nodes in the MST might not be the shortest path between those two nodes in the original graph. MSTs are useful, for example, if you wanted to physically wire up the nodes in the graph to provide electricity to them at the least total cost. It doesn't matter that the path length between two nodes might not be optimal, since all you care about is the fact that they're connected.
Dijkstra's algorithm constructs a shortest path tree starting from some source node. A shortest path tree is a tree that connects all nodes in the graph back to the source node and has the property that the length of any path from the source node to any other node in the graph is minimized. This is useful, for example, if you wanted to build a road network that made it as efficient as possible for everyone to get to some major important landmark. However, the shortest path tree is not guaranteed to be a minimum spanning tree, and the sum of the costs on the edges of a shortest-path tree can be much larger than the cost of an MST.
Another important difference concerns what types of graphs the algorithms work on. Prim's algorithm works on undirected graphs only, since the concept of an MST assumes that graphs are inherently undirected. (There is something called a "minimum spanning arborescence" for directed graphs, but algorithms to find them are much more complicated). Dijkstra's algorithm will work fine on directed graphs, since shortest path trees can indeed be directed. Additionally, Dijkstra's algorithm does not necessarily yield the correct solution in graphs containing negative edge weights, while Prim's algorithm can handle this.
Dijkstra's algorithm doesn't create a MST, it finds the shortest path.
Consider this graph
5 5
s *-----*-----* t
\ /
-------
9
The shortest path is 9, while the MST is a different 'path' at 10.
Prim and Dijkstra algorithms are almost the same, except for the "relax function".
Prim:
MST-PRIM (G, w, r) {
for each key ∈ G.V
u.key = ∞
u.parent = NIL
r.key = 0
Q = G.V
while (Q ≠ ø)
u = Extract-Min(Q)
for each v ∈ G.Adj[u]
if (v ∈ Q)
alt = w(u,v) <== relax function, Pay attention here
if alt < v.key
v.parent = u
v.key = alt
}
Dijkstra:
Dijkstra (G, w, r) {
for each key ∈ G.V
u.key = ∞
u.parent = NIL
r.key = 0
Q = G.V
while (Q ≠ ø)
u = Extract-Min(Q)
for each v ∈ G.Adj[u]
if (v ∈ Q)
alt = w(u,v) + u.key <== relax function, Pay attention here
if alt < v.key
v.parent = u
v.key = alt
}
The only difference is pointed out by the arrow, which is the relax function.
The Prim, which searches for the minimum spanning tree, only cares about the minimum of the total edges cover all the vertices. The relax function is alt = w(u,v)
The Dijkstra, which searches for the minimum path length, so it cares about the edge accumulation. The relax function is alt = w(u,v) + u.key
Dijsktra's algorithm finds the minimum distance from node i to all nodes (you specify i). So in return you get the minimum distance tree from node i.
Prims algorithm gets you the minimum spaning tree for a given graph. A tree that connects all nodes while the sum of all costs is the minimum possible.
So with Dijkstra you can go from the selected node to any other with the minimum cost, you don't get this with Prim's
The only difference I see is that Prim's algorithm stores a minimum cost edge whereas Dijkstra's algorithm stores the total cost from a source vertex to the current vertex.
Dijkstra gives you a way from the source node to the destination node such that the cost is minimum. However Prim's algorithm gives you a minimum spanning tree such that all nodes are connected and the total cost is minimum.
In simple words:
So, if you want to deploy a train to connecte several cities, you would use Prim's algo. But if you want to go from one city to other saving as much time as possible, you'd use Dijkstra's algo.
Both can be implemented using exactly same generic algorithm as follows:
Inputs:
G: Graph
s: Starting vertex (any for Prim, source for Dijkstra)
f: a function that takes vertices u and v, returns a number
Generic(G, s, f)
Q = Enqueue all V with key = infinity, parent = null
s.key = 0
While Q is not empty
u = dequeue Q
For each v in adj(u)
if v is in Q and v.key > f(u,v)
v.key = f(u,v)
v.parent = u
For Prim, pass f = w(u, v) and for Dijkstra pass f = u.key + w(u, v).
Another interesting thing is that above Generic can also implement Breadth First Search (BFS) although it would be overkill because expensive priority queue is not really required. To turn above Generic algorithm in to BFS, pass f = u.key + 1 which is same as enforcing all weights to 1 (i.e. BFS gives minimum number of edges required to traverse from point A to B).
Intuition
Here's one good way to think about above generic algorithm: We start with two buckets A and B. Initially, put all your vertices in B so the bucket A is empty. Then we move one vertex from B to A. Now look at all the edges from vertices in A that crosses over to the vertices in B. We chose the one edge using some criteria from these cross-over edges and move corresponding vertex from B to A. Repeat this process until B is empty.
A brute force way to implement this idea would be to maintain a priority queue of the edges for the vertices in A that crosses over to B. Obviously that would be troublesome if graph was not sparse. So question would be can we instead maintain priority queue of vertices? This in fact we can as our decision finally is which vertex to pick from B.
Historical Context
It's interesting that the generic version of the technique behind both algorithms is conceptually as old as 1930 even when electronic computers weren't around.
The story starts with Otakar Borůvka who needed an algorithm for a family friend trying to figure out how to connect cities in the country of Moravia (now part of the Czech Republic) with minimal cost electric lines. He published his algorithm in 1926 in a mathematics related journal, as Computer Science didn't existed then. This came to the attention to Vojtěch Jarník who thought of an improvement on Borůvka's algorithm and published it in 1930. He in fact discovered the same algorithm that we now know as Prim's algorithm who re-discovered it in 1957.
Independent of all these, in 1956 Dijkstra needed to write a program to demonstrate the capabilities of a new computer his institute had developed. He thought it would be cool to have computer find connections to travel between two cities of the Netherlands. He designed the algorithm in 20 minutes. He created a graph of 64 cities with some simplifications (because his computer was 6-bit) and wrote code for this 1956 computer. However he didn't published his algorithm because primarily there were no computer science journals and he thought this may not be very important. The next year he learned about the problem of connecting terminals of new computers such that the length of wires was minimized. He thought about this problem and re-discovered Jarník/Prim's algorithm which again uses the same technique as the shortest path algorithm he had discovered a year before. He mentioned that both of his algorithms were designed without using pen or paper. In 1959 he published both algorithms in a paper that is just 2 and a half page long.
Dijkstra finds the shortest path between it's beginning node
and every other node. So in return you get the minimum distance tree from beginning node i.e. you can reach every other node as efficiently as possible.
Prims algorithm gets you the MST for a given graph i.e. a tree that connects all nodes while the sum of all costs is the minimum possible.
To make a story short with a realistic example:
Dijkstra wants to know the shortest path to each destination point by saving traveling time and fuel.
Prim wants to know how to efficiently deploy a train rail system i.e. saving material costs.
Directly from Dijkstra's Algorithm's wikipedia article:
The process that underlies Dijkstra's algorithm is similar to the greedy process used in Prim's algorithm. Prim's purpose is to find a minimum spanning tree that connects all nodes in the graph; Dijkstra is concerned with only two nodes. Prim's does not evaluate the total weight of the path from the starting node, only the individual path.
Here's what clicked for me: think about which vertex the algorithm takes next:
Prim's algorithm takes next the vertex that's closest to the tree, i.e. closest to some vertex anywhere on the tree.
Dijkstra's algorithm takes next the vertex that is closest to the source.
Source: R. Sedgewick's lecture on Dijkstra's algorithm, Algorithms, Part II: https://coursera.org/share/a551af98e24292b6445c82a2a5f16b18
I was bothered with the same question lately, and I think I might share my understanding...
I think the key difference between these two algorithms (Dijkstra and Prim) roots in the problem they are designed to solve, namely, shortest path between two nodes and minimal spanning tree (MST). The formal is to find the shortest path between say, node s and t, and a rational requirement is to visit each edge of the graph at most once. However, it does NOT require us to visit all the node. The latter (MST) is to get us visit ALL the node (at most once), and with the same rational requirement of visiting each edge at most once too.
That being said, Dijkstra allows us to "take shortcut" so long I can get from s to t, without worrying the consequence - once I get to t, I am done! Although there is also a path from s to t in the MST, but this s-t path is created with considerations of all the rest nodes, therefore, this path can be longer than the s-t path found by the Dijstra's algorithm. Below is a quick example with 3 nodes:
2 2
(s) o ----- o ----- o (t)
| |
-----------------
3
Let's say each of the top edges has the cost of 2, and the bottom edge has cost of 3, then Dijktra will tell us to the take the bottom path, since we don't care about the middle node. On the other hand, Prim will return us a MST with the top 2 edges, discarding the bottom edge.
Such difference is also reflected from the subtle difference in the implementations: in Dijkstra's algorithm, one needs to have a book keeping step (for every node) to update the shortest path from s, after absorbing a new node, whereas in Prim's algorithm, there is no such need.
The simplest explanation is in Prims you don't specify the Starting Node, but in dijsktra you (Need to have a starting node) have to find shortest path from the given node to all other nodes.
The key difference between the basic algorithms lies in their different edge-selection criteria. Generally, they both use a priority queue for selecting next nodes, but have different criteria to select the adjacent nodes of current processing nodes: Prim's Algorithm requires the next adjacent nodes must be also kept in the queue, while Dijkstra's Algorithm does not:
def dijkstra(g, s):
q <- make_priority_queue(VERTEX.distance)
for each vertex v in g.vertex:
v.distance <- infinite
v.predecessor ~> nil
q.add(v)
s.distance <- 0
while not q.is_empty:
u <- q.extract_min()
for each adjacent vertex v of u:
...
def prim(g, s):
q <- make_priority_queue(VERTEX.distance)
for each vertex v in g.vertex:
v.distance <- infinite
v.predecessor ~> nil
q.add(v)
s.distance <- 0
while not q.is_empty:
u <- q.extract_min()
for each adjacent vertex v of u:
if v in q and weight(u, v) < v.distance:// <-------selection--------
...
The calculations of vertex.distance are the second different point.
Dijkstras algorithm is used only to find shortest path.
In Minimum Spanning tree(Prim's or Kruskal's algorithm) you get minimum egdes with minimum edge value.
For example:- Consider a situation where you wan't to create a huge network for which u will be requiring a large number of wires so these counting of wire can be done using Minimum Spanning Tree(Prim's or Kruskal's algorithm) (i.e it will give you minimum number of wires to create huge wired network connection with minimum cost).
Whereas "Dijkstras algorithm" will be used to get the shortest path between two nodes while connecting any nodes with each other.
Dijkstra's algorithm is a single source shortest path problem between node i and j, but Prim's algorithm a minimal spanning tree problem. These algorithm use programming concept named 'greedy algorithm'
If you check these notion, please visit
Greedy algorithm lecture note : http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/notes/07-greedy.pdf
Minimum spanning tree : http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/notes/20-mst.pdf
Single source shortest path : http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/notes/21-sssp.pdf
#templatetypedef has covered difference between MST and shortest path. I've covered the algorithm difference in another So answer by demonstrating that both can be implemented using same generic algorithm that takes one more parameter as input: function f(u,v). The difference between Prim and Dijkstra's algorithm is simply which f(u,v) you use.
At the code level, the other difference is the API.
You initialize Prim with a source vertex, s, i.e., Prim.new(s); s can be any vertex, and regardless of s, the end result, which are the edges of the minimum spanning tree (MST) are the same. To get the MST edges, we call the method edges().
You initialize Dijkstra with a source vertex, s, i.e., Dijkstra.new(s) that you want to get shortest path/distance to all other vertices. The end results, which are the shortest path/distance from s to all other vertices; are different depending on the s. To get the shortest paths/distances from s to any vertex, v, we call the methods distanceTo(v) and pathTo(v) respectively.
They both create trees with the greedy method.
With Prim's algorithm we find minimum cost spanning tree. The goal is to find minimum cost to cover all nodes.
with Dijkstra we find Single Source Shortest Path. The goal is find the shortest path from the source to every other node
Prim’s algorithm works exactly as Dijkstra’s, except
It does not keep track of the distance from the source.
Storing the edge that connected the front of the visited vertices to the next closest vertex.
The vertex used as “source” for Prim’s algorithm is
going to be the root of the MST.
Here is an excise
Suppose we are given the minimum spanning tree T of a given graph G
(with n vertices and m edges) and a new edge e = (u, v) of weight w
that we will add to G. Give an efficient algorithm to find the minimum
spanning tree of the graph G + e. Your algorithm should run in O(n)
time to receive full credit.
I have this idea:
In the MST, just find out the path between u and v. Then find the edge (along the path) with maximum weight; if the maximum weight is bigger than w, then remove that edge from the MST and add the new edge to the MST.
The tricky part is how to do this in O(n) time and it is also I get stuck.
The question is that how the MST is stored. In normal Prim's algorithm, the MST is stored as a parent array, i.e., each element is the parent of the according vertex.
So suppose the excise give me a parent array indicating the MST, how can I release the above algorithm in O(n)?
First, how can I identify the path between u and v from the parent array? I can have two ancestor arrays for u and v, then check on the common ancestor, then I can get the path, although in backwards. I think for this part, to find the common ancestor, at least I have to do it in O(n^2), right?
Then, we have the path. But we still need to find the weight of each edge along the path. Since I suppose the graph will use adjacency-list for Prim's algorithm, we have to do O(m) (m is the number of edges) to locate each weight of the edge.
...
So I don't see it is possible to do the algorithm in O(n). Am I wrong?
The idea you have is right. Note that, finding the path between u and v is O(n). I'll assume you have a parent array identifying the MST. tracking the path (for max edge) from u to v or u to root vertex should take only O(n). If you reach root vertex, just track the path from v to u or root vertex.
Now that you have the path from u -> u1 ... -> max_path_vert1 -> max_path_vert2 -> ... -> v, remove the edge max_path_vert1->max_path_vert2 (assuming this is greater than the added edge) and reverse the parents for u->...->max_path_vert1 and mark parent[u] = v.
Edit: More explanation for clarity
Note that, in MST there will be exactly one path between any pair of vertices. So, if you can trace from u->y and v->y, you have only traced through atmost n vertices. If you traced more than n vertices that means you visited a vertex twice, which will not happen in an MST. Ok, now hopefully you're convinced it's O(n) to track from u->y and v->y. Once you have these paths, you have established a path from u->v. Do you see how? I'm assuming this is an undirected graph, since finding MST for directed graph is a different concept in itself. For undirected graph, when you have a path from x->y you have a path from y-x. So, u->y->v exist. You don't even need to trace back from y->v, since weights for v->y will be same as that of y->v. Just find the edge with the maximum weight when you trace from u->y and v->y.
Now for finding edge weights in O(1); how are you storing your current weights? Adjacency list or adjacency matrix? For O(1) access, store it the way parent vertex array is stored. So, weight[v] = weight(v, parent[v]). So, you'll have O(1) access. Hope this helps.
Well - your solution is correct.
But regarding implementation, I dont see why you are using G instead of T to find the path between u and v. Using any search traversal in T for the path between u and v, will give you O(n). - That is, you can assume that v is the root and performs a Depth-First Search algorithm [in this case, you will have to assume all neighbors of v as children] - and stop the DFS once you find u - then, the nodes in the stack corresponds to the path between u and v.
It is easy afterward to find the cost of each edge in the path (O(n)), and it is easy as well to delete/add edges. In total O(n).
Does that help somehow ?
Or maybe you are getting O(n^2) - according to my understanding - because you access the children of a vertex v in T in O(n) -- Here, you have to present your data structure as a mapped array so that the cost is reduced to O(1). [for instace, {a,b,c,u,w}(vertices) -> {0,1,2,3,4}(indices of vertices).
I have an unweighted, connected graph. I want to find a connected subgraph that definitely includes a certain set of nodes, and as few extras as possible. How could this be accomplished?
Just in case, I'll restate the question using more precise language. Let G(V,E) be an unweighted, undirected, connected graph. Let N be some subset of V. What's the best way to find the smallest connected subgraph G'(V',E') of G(V,E) such that N is a subset of V'?
Approximations are fine.
This is exactly the well-known NP-hard Steiner Tree problem. Without more details on what your instances look like, it's hard to give advice on an appropriate algorithm.
I can't think of an efficient algorithm to find the optimal solution, but assuming that your input graph is dense, the following might work well enough:
Convert your input graph G(V, E) to a weighted graph G'(N, D), where N is the subset of vertices you want to cover and D is distances (path lengths) between corresponding vertices in the original graph. This will "collapse" all vertices you don't need into edges.
Compute the minimum spanning tree for G'.
"Expand" the minimum spanning tree by the following procedure: for every edge d in the minimum spanning tree, take the corresponding path in graph G and add all vertices (including endpoints) on the path to the result set V' and all edges in the path to the result set E'.
This algorithm is easy to trip up to give suboptimal solutions. Example case: equilateral triangle where there are vertices at the corners, in midpoints of sides and in the middle of the triangle, and edges along the sides and from the corners to the middle of the triangle. To cover the corners it's enough to pick the single middle point of the triangle, but this algorithm might choose the sides. Nonetheless, if the graph is dense, it should work OK.
The easiest solutions will be the following:
a) based on mst:
- initially, all nodes of V are in V'
- build a minimum spanning tree of the graph G(V,E) - call it T.
- loop: for every leaf v in T that is not in N, delete v from V'.
- repeat loop until all leaves in T are in N.
b) another solution is the following - based on shortest paths tree.
- pick any node in N, call it v, let v be a root of a tree T = {v}.
- remove v from N.
loop:
1) select the shortest path from any node in T and any node in N. the shortest path p: {v, ... , u} where v is in T and u is in N.
2) every node in p is added to V'.
3) every node in p and in N is deleted from N.
--- repeat loop until N is empty.
At the beginning of the algorithm: compute all shortest paths in G using any known efficient algorithm.
Personally, I used this algorithm in one of my papers, but it is more suitable for distributed enviroments.
Let N be the set of nodes that we need to interconnect. We want to build a minimum connected dominating set of the graph G, and we want to give priority for nodes in N.
We give each node u a unique identifier id(u). We let w(u) = 0 if u is in N, otherwise w(1).
We create pair (w(u), id(u)) for each node u.
each node u builds a multiset relay node. That is, a set M(u) of 1-hop neigbhors such that each 2-hop neighbor is a neighbor to at least one node in M(u). [the minimum M(u), the better is the solution].
u is in V' if and only if:
u has the smallest pair (w(u), id(u)) among all its neighbors.
or u is selected in the M(v), where v is a 1-hop neighbor of u with the smallest (w(u),id(u)).
-- the trick when you execute this algorithm in a centralized manner is to be efficient in computing 2-hop neighbors. The best I could get from O(n^3) is to O(n^2.37) by matrix multiplication.
-- I really wish to know what is the approximation ration of this last solution.
I like this reference for heuristics of steiner tree:
The Steiner tree problem, Hwang Frank ; Richards Dana 1955- Winter Pawel 1952
You could try to do the following:
Creating a minimal vertex-cover for the desired nodes N.
Collapse these, possibly unconnected, sub-graphs into "large" nodes. That is, for each sub-graph, remove it from the graph, and replace it with a new node. Call this set of nodes N'.
Do a minimal vertex-cover of the nodes in N'.
"Unpack" the nodes in N'.
Not sure whether or not it gives you an approximation within some specific bound or so. You could perhaps even trick the algorithm to make some really stupid decisions.
As already pointed out, this is the Steiner tree problem in graphs. However, an important detail is that all edges should have weight 1. Because |V'| = |E'| + 1 for any Steiner tree (V',E'), this achieves exactly what you want.
For solving it, I would suggest the following Steiner tree solver (to be transparent: I am one of the developers):
https://scipjack.zib.de/
For graphs with a few thousand edges, you will usually get an optimal solution in less than 0.1 seconds.
I need to check if a directed graph is strongly connected, or, in other words, if all nodes can be reached by any other node (not necessarily through direct edge).
One way of doing this is running a DFS and BFS on every node and see all others are still reachable.
Is there a better approach to do that?
Consider the following algorithm.
Start at a random vertex v of the graph G, and run a DFS(G, v).
If DFS(G, v) fails to reach every other vertex in the graph G, then there is some vertex u, such that there is no directed path from v to u, and thus G is not strongly connected.
If it does reach every vertex, then there is a directed path from v to every other vertex in the graph G.
Reverse the direction of all edges in the directed graph G.
Again run a DFS starting at v.
If the DFS fails to reach every vertex, then there is some vertex u, such that in the original graph there is no directed path from u to v.
On the other hand, if it does reach every vertex, then in the original graph there is a directed path from every vertex u to v.
Thus, if G "passes" both DFSs, it is strongly connected. Furthermore, since a DFS runs in O(n + m) time, this algorithm runs in O(2(n + m)) = O(n + m) time, since it requires 2 DFS traversals.
Tarjan's strongly connected components algorithm (or Gabow's variation) will of course suffice; if there's only one strongly connected component, then the graph is strongly connected.
Both are linear time.
As with a normal depth first search, you track the status of each node: new, seen but still open (it's in the call stack), and seen and finished. In addition, you store the depth when you first reached a node, and the lowest such depth that is reachable from the node (you know this after you finish a node). A node is the root of a strongly connected component if the lowest reachable depth is equal to its own depth. This works even if the depth by which you reach a node from the root isn't the minimum possible.
To check just for whether the whole graph is a single SCC, initiate the dfs from any single node, and when you've finished, if the lowest reachable depth is 0, and every node was visited, then the whole graph is strongly connected.
To check if every node has both paths to and from every other node in a given graph:
1. DFS/BFS from all nodes:
Tarjan's algorithm supposes every node has a depth d[i]. Initially, the root has the smallest depth. And we do the post-order DFS updates d[i] = min(d[j]) for any neighbor j of i. Actually BFS also works fine with the reduction rule d[i] = min(d[j]) here.
function dfs(i)
d[i] = i
mark i as visited
for each neighbor j of i:
if j is not visited then dfs(j)
d[i] = min(d[i], d[j])
If there is a forwarding path from u to v, then d[u] <= d[v]. In the SCC, d[v] <= d[u] <= d[v], thus, all the nodes in SCC will have the same depth. To tell if a graph is a SCC, we check whether all nodes have the same d[i].
2. Two DFS/BFS from the single node:
It is a simplified version of the Kosaraju’s algorithm. Starting from the root, we check if every node can be reached by DFS/BFS. Then, reverse the direction of every edge. We check if every node can be reached from the same root again. See C++ code.
You can calculate the All-Pairs Shortest Path and see if any is infinite.
Tarjan's Algorithm has been already mentioned. But I usually find Kosaraju's Algorithm easier to follow even though it needs two traversals of the graph. IIRC, it is also pretty well explained in CLRS.
test-connected(G)
{
choose a vertex x
make a list L of vertices reachable from x,
and another list K of vertices to be explored.
initially, L = K = x.
while K is nonempty
find and remove some vertex y in K
for each edge (y, z)
if (z is not in L)
add z to both L and K
if L has fewer than n items
return disconnected
else return connected
}
You can use Kosaraju’s DFS based simple algorithm that does two DFS traversals of graph:
The idea is, if every node can be reached from a vertex v, and every node can reach v, then the graph is strongly connected.
In step 2 of the algorithm, we check if all vertices are reachable from v. In step 4, we check if all vertices can reach v (In reversed graph, if all vertices are reachable from v, then all vertices can reach v in original graph).
Algorithm :
1) Initialize all vertices as not visited.
2) Do a DFS traversal of graph starting from any arbitrary vertex v. If DFS traversal doesn’t visit all vertices, then return false.
3) Reverse all arcs (or find transpose or reverse of graph)
4) Mark all vertices as not-visited in reversed graph.
5) Do a DFS traversal of reversed graph starting from same vertex v (Same as step 2). If DFS traversal doesn’t visit all vertices, then return false. Otherwise return true.
Time Complexity: Time complexity of above implementation is same as Depth First Search which is O(V+E) if the graph is represented using adjacency list representation.
One way of doing this would be to generate the Laplacian matrix for the graph, then calculate the eigenvalues, and finally count the number of zeros. The graph is strongly connection if there exists only one zero eigenvalue.
Note: Pay attention to the slightly different method for creating the Laplacian matrix for directed graphs.
The algorithm to check if a graph is strongly connected is quite straightforward. But why does the below algorithm work?
Algorithm: suppose there is a graph with vertices [A, B, C......Z]
Choose any random node, say J, and perform DFS from it. If all the nodes are reachable then continue to step 2.
Reverse the directions of the edges of the graph by doing transpose.
Again run DFS from node J and check if all the nodes are visited. If yes then the graph is strongly connected and return true.
Performing step 1 makes sense because we have to check if we can reach all the nodes from that node. After this, next logical step could be
i) Now do this for all other nodes
ii) or try to reach node J from every other node. Because once you reach node J, you are sure that you can reach every other node because of step 1.
This is what we are trying to do in steps 2 & 3. If in a transposed graph node J is able to reach all other nodes then this implies that in original graph all other nodes can reach J.