I have a complete, weighted, undirected graph. The edge weights are the cost of a connection between two nodes, so the minimum spanning tree is the subset of the edges with the lowest total cost such that the graph remains connected.
The MST must be connected at all times, but unfortunately the connections aren't very reliable, so I would like to add redundancy to this graph/network.
Is it possible to compute a subset of edges such that the total edge cost is minimised and edge-connectivity is over a certain minimum?
I can see how it would be possible by bruteforcing, but I was looking for something more practical. I haven't been able to find much about this problem, I think mainly because I don't posses the vocabulary necessary to search.
My current idea is:
Compute the MST
While the it is still below a certain connectivity
Find a node most below that connectivity
Activate that node's edge with the lowest weight
The reason I don't find all the nodes below a certain connectivity all at once is because activating an edge may give another one enough connectivity.
I'm pretty sure this does not yield 100% provably optimal networks, because with this method, it is possible to over-connect nodes (e.g. you activate k edges for a node, then another node activates more shared edges, making some of those k redundant). I hope that makes sense.
Any tips would be much appreciated!
The Wikipedia article on edge connected graphs ends with, A related problem: finding the minimum k-edge-connected spanning subgraph of G (that is: select as few as possible edges in G that your selection is k-edge-connected) is NP-hard for k >= 2. They then cite a 1979 paper that shows it.
Therefore I'd suggest taking a greedy approach, and tip-toeing away.
Related
I have a non-directed graph that represents the connectivity between regions of a map. I'd like to identify groups of nodes (regions) that could be removed without creating graph partitions.
What I have tried:
Walking the tree (BFS, DFS...), storing the depths and selecting the nodes with the higher depth (O(n)). Once calculated, I can update the depths in O(~1) on each removal-addition by checking the depth of neighbour nodes (connectivity does not exceed a certain threshold)
Is there a cheaper way to do this? Also finding graph literature is also very hard if you don't know the academical term for the problem. My graphs are between 200 and 500 nodes.
The problem you are solving can be reduced to bridge finding problem in graph.
Algorithm :-
calculate all bridges in the graph using tarjan's method.
then remove a node which does not have bridge as a edge.
Then re-evaluate the bridges in subgraph of the removed node partitioned by bridges.
Continue doing 2 & 3 until there is no node to remove.
You want to find nodes which are not articulation points. Cf. this Wikipedia page for some algorithms allowing to solve the problem of detecting articulation points. See also this page. Finally, note some of these algorithms are already implemented in tools such as igraph.
PS: this is very similar to the problem identified by Vikram, but not exactly the same thing, since the focus is on nodes, and not links.
Okay, so I found this a bit tricky.
Basically, you have a directed graph (let's call it the base graph), that has some leaves and a node with 0 indegree that is called root. It may contain cycles.
From that base graph, a tree has been made, that contains the root and all leaves, and some connection between them. The nodes and edges that are not needed to connect the root to the leaves are left out.
Now imagine one or more edges in the tree "break", and can no longer be used. The problem now is to
a) If possible, find an alternative route(s) to the disconnected node(s), introducing as few previously unused edges from the base graph as possible.
b) If not possible, select which edges to "repair", repairing as few edges as possible to get all leaves connected again.
This is supposed to represent an electrical grid, and the breaks are power outages.
If just one edge is broken, it is easy enough. But say you have a graph with 100 leaves, 500 edges, and 50 edges break. Now to find which combination of adding previously unused edges from the base graph, and if necessary repairing some edges, to connect all leaves, seems like a very hard problem.
I imagined one could do some sort of brute force, where ALL combinations of unused edges, from using 1 to all of them, are tested. Or if repairs are needed, testing ALL combinations of repairs with all combinations of new edges. When the amount of edges get high, this seems to me very very inefficient.
My question is, does anyone have any smart ideas to how this could be done in a more efficient way? I hope I explained it well enough.
This is an NP-hard problem, and I'll explain why. Imagine that you have three layers of nodes: the root node, a layer of intermediate connecting nodes, and then a layer of leaf nodes. Edges go from root to intermediate nodes, and from an intermediate node to some subset of leaf nodes. Suppose you have some choice of intermediate nodes and edges to leaf nodes that gives you a connected tree graph, where each intermediate node has an edge to only one leaf node. Now imagine all edges in the reduced graph are removed. Then to find the minimum number of edges needed to add to repair the graph, this is equivalent to finding the minimum number of remaining intermediate nodes whose edges cover all of the leaf nodes. This is equivalent to the set cover problem for the leaf nodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_cover_problem and is NP-hard. Thus there is almost certainly no fast algorithm for your problem in the worst case (unless P = NP). Maybe if you bound the number of edges that are removed, you can come up with a polynomial time algorithm where the exponent in the polynomial depends (hopefully weakly) on how many edges were removed.
Seems like the start to a good efficient heuristic/solution would be to weight the edges. A couple simple approaches (not the most space efficient) as to how you could weight the edges based on the total number of edges are listed below.
If using any number of undamaged edges is better than using a single alternative edge and using any number of alternative edges is better than a single damaged edge.
Undamaged edge: 1
Alternative edge: E
Damaged edge: E^2
In the case of 100 vertices and 500 edges, alternative edges would be weighted as 500, while damaged edges would be weighted as 250000.
If using any number of undamaged edges is better than using a single alternative edge or a single damaged edge.
Undamaged edge: 1
Alternative/damaged edge: E
In the case of 100 vertices and 500 edges, alternative/damaged edges would be weighted as 500.
It seems like you then try a number of approaches to find either the exact solution or a heuristic result. The main suggestion I have for an algorithm is below.
Find the directed minimium spanning tree. If you use the weighting listed above, then I believe the result is optimum if I'm understanding things correctly.
Although, if you have intermediate nodes (nodes that are neither the root or a leaf), then this is likely to result in an overestimating heuristic. In which case, you might be able to get around it by running all pairs all shortest paths first and use the path costs for that as input for the directed minimium spanning tree algorithm, but that's probably a heuristic as well.
What is the minimum cost to make an undirected weighted(positive weight) graph disconnected.
i mean i have to find out those edges which removal disconnect the graph and their cost is minimized.
I have following ideas...
1.find out all the bridges of the graph . then the bridge edge of minimum weight wiil be the ans.
2.if there is no bridge that means all the nodes are in a cycle(i'm not sure about it). then i sort the edge according to their weight and the sum of the two minimum edge weight will be the ans.
The graph has no self loop.
Is this algo correct?
This question looks to be the same question answered by the study of "minimum cuts" in graphs. I would recommend the following reading here and here to learn more about why it works from a graph theoretic point of view - the link provides some pseudocode as well.
Regarding your proposed algorithm, finding the bridges in a graph may get tricky.. you would have to inspect both endpoints and their local structure to confirm the existence of a bridge.. using edge contraction perhaps would be simpler to implement.
I have Graph with N nodes and edges with cost. (graph may be Complete but also can contain zero edges).
I want to find K trees in the graph (K < N) to ensure every node is visited and cost is the lowest possible.
Any recommendations what the best approach could be?
I tried to modify the problem to finding just single minimal spanning tree, but didn't succeeded.
Thank you for any hint!
EDIT
little detail, which can be significant. To cost is not related to crossing the edge. The cost is the price to BUILD such edge. Once edge is built, you can traverse it forward and backwards with no cost. The problem is not to "ride along all nodes", the problem is about "creating a net among all nodes". I am sorry for previous explanation
The story
Here is the story i have heard and trying to solve.
There is a city, without connection to electricity. Electrical company is able to connect just K houses with electricity. The other houses can be connected by dropping cables from already connected houses. But dropping this cable cost something. The goal is to choose which K houses will be connected directly to power plant and which houses will be connected with separate cables to ensure minimal cable cost and all houses coverage :)
As others have mentioned, this is NP hard. However, if you're willing to accept a good solution, you could use simulated annealing. For example, the traveling salesman problem is NP hard, yet near-optimal solutions can be found using simulated annealing, e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/26758/Simulated-Annealing-Solving-the-Travelling-Salesma
You are describing something like a cardinality constrained path cover. It's in the Traveling Salesman/ Vehicle routing family of problems and is NP-Hard. To create an algorithm you should ask
Are you only going to run it on small graphs.
Are you only going to run it on special cases of graphs which do have exact algorithms.
Can you live with a heuristic that solves the problem approximately.
Assume you can find a minimum spanning tree in O(V^2) using prim's algorithm.
For each vertex, find the minimum spanning tree with that vertex as the root.
This will be O(V^3) as you run the algorithm V times.
Sort these by total mass (sum of weights of their vertices) of the graph. This is O(V^2 lg V) which is consumed by the O(V^3) so essentially free in terms of order complexity.
Take the X least massive graphs - the roots of these are your "anchors" that are connected directly to the grid, as they are mostly likely to have the shortest paths. To determine which route it takes, you simply follow the path to root in each node in each tree and wire up whatever is the shortest. (This may be further optimized by sorting all paths to root and using only the shortest ones first. This will allow for optimizations on the next iterations. Finding path to root is O(V). Finding it for all V X times is O(V^2 * X). Because you would be doing this for every V, you're looking at O(V^3 * X). This is more than your biggest complexity, but I think the average case on these will be small, even if their worst case is large).
I cannot prove that this is the optimal solution. In fact, I am certain it is not. But when you consider an electrical grid of 100,000 homes, you can not consider (with any practical application) an NP hard solution. This gives you a very good solution in O(V^3 * X), which I imagine is going to give you a solution very close to optimal.
Looking at your story, I think that what you call a path can be a tree, which means that we don't have to worry about Hamiltonian circuits.
Looking at the proof of correctness of Prim's algorithm at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prim%27s_algorithm, consider taking a minimum spanning tree and removing the most expensive X-1 links. I think the proof there shows that the result has the same cost as the best possible answer to your problem: the only difference is that when you compare edges, you may find that the new edge join two separated components, but in this case you can maintain the number of separated components by removing an edge with cost at most that of the new edge.
So I think an answer for your problem is to take a minimum spanning tree and remove the X-1 most expensive links. This is certainly the case for X=1!
Here is attempt at solving this...
For X=1 I can calculate minimal spanning tree (MST) with Prim's algorithm from each node (this node is the only one connected to the grid) and select the one with the lowest overall cost
For X=2 I create extra node (Power plant node) beside my graph. I connect it with random node (eg. N0) by edge with cost of 0. I am now sure I have one power plant plug right (the random node will definitely be in one of the tree, so whole tree will be connected). Now the iterative part. I take other node (eg. N1) and again connected with PP with 0 cost edge. Now I calculate MST. Then repeat this process with replacing N1 with N2, N3 ...
So I will test every pair [N0, NX]. The lowest cost MST wins.
For X>2 is it really the same as for X=2, but I have to test connect to PP every (x-1)-tuple and calculate MST
with x^2 for MST I have complexity about (N over X-1) * x^2... Pretty complex, but I think it will give me THE OPTIMAL solution
what do you think?
edit by random node I mean random but FIXED node
attempt to visualize for x=2 (each description belongs to image above it)
Let this be our city, nodes A - F are houses, edges are candidates to future cables (each has some cost to build)
Just for image, this could be the solution
Let the green one be the power plant, this is how can look connection to one tree
But this different connection is really the same (connection to power plant(pp) cost the same, cables remains untouched). That is why we can set one of the nodes as fixed point of contact to the pp. We can be sure, that the node will be in one of the trees, and it does not matter where in the tree is.
So let this be our fixed situation with G as PP. Edge (B,G) with zero cost is added.
Now I am trying to connect second connection with PP (A,G, cost 0)
Now I calculate MST from the PP. Because red edges are the cheapest (the can actually have even negative cost), is it sure, that both of them will be in MST.
So when running MST I get something like this. Imagine detaching PP and two MINIMAL COST trees left. This is the best solution for A and B are the connections to PP. I store the cost and move on.
Now I do the same for B and C connections
I could get something like this, so compare cost to previous one and choose the better one.
This way I have to try all the connection pairs (B,A) (B,C) (B,D) (B,E) (B,F) and the cheapest one is the winner.
For X=3 I would just test other tuples with one fixed again. (A,B,C) (A,B,D) ... (A,C,D) ... (A,E,F)
I just came up with the easy solution as follows:
N - node count
C - direct connections to the grid
E - available edges
1, Sort all edges by cost
2, Repeat (N-C) times:
Take the cheapest edge available
Check if adding this edge will not caused circles in already added edge
If not, add this edge
3, That is all... You will end up with C disjoint sets of edges, connect every set to the grid
Sounds like the famous Traveling Salesman problem. The problem known to be NP-hard. Take a look at the Wikipedia as your starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
I have a graph that starts off with a single, root node. Nodes are added one by one to the graph. At node creation time, they have to be linked either to the root node, or to another node, by a single edge. Edges can also be created and deleted (one by one, between any two nodes). Nodes can be deleted one at a time. Node and edge creation, deletion operations can happen in any arbitrary order.
OK, so here's my question: When an edge is deleted, is it possible do determine, in constant time (i.e. with an O(1) algorithm), if doing this will divide the graph into two disjoint subgraphs? If it will, then which side of the edge will the root node belong?
I'm willing to maintain, within reasonable limits, any additional data structure that can facilitate the derivation of this information.
Maybe it is not possible to do it in O(1), if so any pointers to literature will be appreciated.
Edit: The graph is a directed graph.
Edit 2: OK, maybe I can restrict the case to deletion of edges from the root node. [Edit 3: not, actually] Also, no edge lands into the root node.
To speed things up a little over the obvious O(|V|+|E|) solution, you could keep a spanning tree which is fairly easy to update as the graph is changed.
If an edge not in the spanning tree is deleted, then the graph isn't disconnected and do nothing. If an edge in the spanning tree is deleted, then you must try to find a new path between those two vertices (if you find one, use it to update the spanning tree, otherwise the graph is disconnected).
So, best case O(1), worst-case O(|V|+|E|), but fairly simple to implement anyway.
Is this a directed graph? The below assumes undirected.
What you are looking for is whether the given edge is a Bridge in the graph. I believe this can be found using a traversal looking for cycles containing that edge and would be O(|V| + |E|).
O(1) is too much to ask.
You might find that looking to maintain 2-edge connected components in dynamic graphs could be useful to you.
Eppstein et al have a paper on this: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/EppGalIta-TR-93-20.pdf
which can maintain 2-edge connected components, in a graph of n nodes where edge insertions and deletions are allowed. It has O(sqrt(n)) time per update and O(log n) time per query.
So any time you delete, you can query in O(logn) to determine if the number of 2-edge connected components has changed. I suppose it can also tell you which component a specific node is in.
This paper is more general and applies to other graph problems, not only 2 edge connected components.
I suggest you look for bridges and dynamic 2-edge connectivity to get you started.
Hope that helps.
as said by Moron just before, you are actually looking for a Bridge in your graph.
Now a Bridge is an edge that has the described attribute and also originates and ends up in Cut Vertexes. Cut vertex is exactly what a Bridge is, but in a vertex (node) edition.
So the only way (though quite bending the initial data structure hypothesis) I can think of, to get a O(1) complexity for this, is if you first check every node in your graph if it is a Cut Vertex and then simply in constant time checking if the edge you want to delete is a attached to one of those two.
Finding if a node in a graph is a Cut Vertex takes O(m+n) where m = # edges and n= # nodes.
Cheers