Can a graph have an isolated vertex without edges?
Would this count as 1 graph or 2?
The definition of a graph is that it is just an ordered pair of a vertex set say V and an edge set say E, where E is a subset of VxV .
There is no restriction saying that every vertex should have atleast one edge.
Of course we can have local definitions to solve a particular problem, but generally what you drew is just a single graph with 2 connected components.
Related
I am looking back at some of my algorithms homework(exam soon haha), and I am having troubles understanding the solution to one of the questions.
The Question
Tutor Solution
I am having difficulties visualizing the solution, I understand that if you have an odd number of cycles than your graph cannot be bipartite. But as I stated, I don't understand the shortest path from s to u and v to s.
Let's say G is bipartite. Then the vertex set can be divided into V1 and V2 s.t. every edge of G includes a vertex from each set. Then the vertices of every path in G alternate between V1 and V2, so the parity of the length of every path between every pair of vertices is the same. I.e., if G is bipartite and v,w are two vertices of G, then the length of every path connecting v & w is either even or odd.
If there is an edge (u,v) connecting two vertices in the same layer then this is violated. The BFS path to v and u have the same length, so same parity, since v & u are in the same layer. The edge between v & u gives us a path longer by 1, so of a different parity. Contradiction.
The tutor's solution isn't as clear as it could be, since it talks about cycles, and the two paths don't necessarily form a cycle since they can share vertices. And the definition of bipartite graph is slightly wrong (or uses non-standard definitions of edges, cross-product etc. where the things aren't pairs but 2-element sets).
But instead of the definition as given, I'd just say that a graph is bipartite if the vertices can be coloured black or white, such that each edge goes between different-coloured vertices. (Equivalently you can simply say "the graph is 2-colourable").
From this definition, it follows that if there's an even length path between two vertices they must be the same colour, otherwise different colours. In the BFS on a bipartite graph, a vertex u is layer i has a path of length i from s to u, so all vertices in the same layer have the same colour. Thus there can be no edge between two vertices in the same layer.
I have a type of directed acyclic graph, with some constraints.
There is only one "entry" vertex
There can be multiple leaf vertices
Once a path splits, anything under that path cannot reach into the other path (this will become clearer with some examples below)
There can be any number of "split" vertices. They can be nested.
A "split" vertex can split into any number of paths. The examples below only show 2 paths for each, but it could be more.
My challenge is the following: for each "split" vertex (any vertex that has at least 2 outgoing edges), find the vertices where its paths reconnect - if such a vertex exists. The solution should be as efficient as possible.
Example A:
example a
In this example, vertex A is a "split" vertex, and its "reconnect vertex" is F.
Example B:
example b
Here, there are two split vertices: A and E. For both of them vertex G is the reconnect vertex.
Example C:
example c
Now there are three split vertices: A, D and E. The corresponding reconnect vertices are:
A -> K
D -> K
E -> J
Example D:
example d
Here we have three split vertices again: A, D and E. But this time, vertex E doesn't have a reconnect vertex because one of the paths terminates early.
Sounds like what you want is:
Connect each vertex with out-degree 0 to a single terminal vertex
Construct the dominator tree of the edge-reversed graph. The linked wikipedia article points to a couple algorithms for doing this.
The "reconnect vertex" for a split vertex is its immediate dominator in the edge-reversed graph, i.e., its parent in that dominator tree. This is called its "postdominator" in your original graph. If it's the terminal vertex that you added, then it doesn't have a reconnect vertex in your original graph.
This is the problem of identifying post-dominators in compilers and program analysis. This is often used in the context of calculating control dependences in control flow graphs. "Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation" is a good reference on these topics.
If the graph does not have cycles, then the solution (a) suggested by #matt-timmermans will work.
If the graph has cycles, then solution (a) can report spurious post-dominators. In such cases, a network-flow based approach works better. The algorithm to calculate non-termination sensitive control dependence in this paper using this approach. The basic idea is
at every split node, inject a unique token into the graph along each outgoing edge and
propagate the tokens thru the graph subject to this constraint: if node n is reachable from split node m, then tokens arriving at node m pass thru node n only if all tokens of node m have arrived at node n.
At the end, node n post-dominates node m if all tokens of node m have arrived at node n.
I've received a task to find an algorithm which divides a graph G(V,E) into pairs of neighboring edges (colors the graph, such that every pair of neighboring edges has the same color).
I've tried to tackle this problem by drawing out some random graphs and came to a few conclusions:
If a vertex is connected to 2(4,6,8...) vertices of degree 1, these make a pair of edges.
If a vertex of degree 1 is directly connected to a cycle, it doesn't matter which edge of the cycle is paired with the lone edge.
However, I couldn't come up with any other conclusions, so I tried a different approach. I thought about using DFS, finding articulation points and dividing graph into subgraphs with an even number of edges, because those should be dividable by this rule as well, and so on until I end up with only subgraphs of |E(G')| = 2.
Another thing I've come up with is to create a graph G', where E(G) = V(G') and V(G) = E(G'). That way I could get a graph, where I could remove pairs of vertices (former edges) either via DFS or always starting with leaf vertices along with their adjacent vertices.
The last technique is most appealing to me, but it seems to be the slowest one. Any feedback or tips on which of these methods would be the best is much appreciated.
EDIT: In other words, imagine the graph as a layout of a town. Vertices being crossroads, edges being the roads. We want to decorate (sweep, color) each road exactly once, but we can only decorate two connected roads at the same time. I hope this helps for clarification.
For example, having graph G with E={ab,bd,cd,ac,ae,be,bf,fd}, one of possible pair combinations is P={{ab,bf},{ac,cd},{ae,eb},{bd,df}}.
One approach is to construct a new graph G where:
A vertex in G corresponds to an edge in the original graph
An edge in G connects vertices a and b in G where a and b represent edges in the original graph that meet at a vertex in the original graph
Then, if I have understood the original problem correctly, the objective for G is to find the maximum matching, which can be done, for example, with the Blossom algorithm.
Suppose I have an undirected graph G with vertices v1...vn and edges. Right now it is in adjacency list representation.
For every time moment a have as input some subset of vertices that are "active" at this moment. And I need to find all connected components in this subset of vertices for that time moment.
Right now I've implemented this using union-find data structure like this:
initialize sets for every active vertex so that every vertex has itself as "representative" (also called "parent")
for every active vertex v
for all neighbours of v in G v_neighbour
if v_neighbour is active
union set of v and set of v_neighbour
It's should work ok, but I want to know if there is a more optimal approach to that?
And what is the running time of that algorithm? O(N*M)?
A BFS or DFS that restarts once a connected component is exhausted can easily find all connected components in undirected graph in O(V+E)
connectedComponentNumber= 0
While there is a node that was not discovered yet:
connectedComponentNumber= connectedComponentNumber+ 1
v = some vertex that was not discovered yet
vertices = BFS(v) //all vertices connected to v
set all nodes in vertices as belong to connected component connectedComponentNumber
I want to add one thing to the above reply that if you are finding active vertex in adjacency list representation it will increase V number of steps so running time time will increase to O(V^3).which can take constant time if we maintain another data structure for this.
Here is the full question:
Assume we have a directed graph G = (V,E), we want to find a graph G' = (V,E') that has the following properties:
G' has same connected components as G
G' has same component graph as G
E' is minimized. That is, E' is as small as possible.
Here is what I got:
First, run the strongly connected components algorithm. Now we have the strongly connected components. Now go to each strong connected component and within that SCC make a simple cycle; that is, a cycle where the only nodes that are repeated are the start/finish nodes. This will minimize the edges within each SCC.
Now, we need to minimize the edges between the SCCs. Alas, I can't think of a way of doing this.
My 2 questions are: (1) Does the algorithm prior to the part about minimizing edges between SCCs sound right? (2) How does one go about minimizing the edges between SCCs.
For (2), I know that this is equivalent to minimizing the number of edges in a DAG. (Think of the SCCs as the vertices). But this doesn't seem to help me.
The algorithm seems right, as long as you allow for closed walks (i.e. repeating vertices.) Proper cycles might not exist (e.g. in an "8" shaped component) and finding them is NP-hard.
It seems that it is sufficient to group the inter-component edges by ordered pairs of components they connect and leave only one edge in each group.
Regarding the step 2,minimize the edges between the SCCs, you could randomly select a vertex, and run DFS, only keeping the longest path for each pair of (root, end), while removing other paths. Store all the vertices searched in a list L.
Choose another vertex, if it exists in L, skip to the next vertex; if not, repeat the procedure above.