Related
Given an unoriented tree with weightless edges with N vertices and N-1 edges and a number K find K nodes so that every node from a tree is within S distance of at least one of the K nodes. Also, S has to be the smallest possible S, so that if there were S' < S at least one node would be unreachable in S' steps.
I tried solving this problem, however, I feel that my supposed solution is not very fast.
My solution:
set x=1
find nodes which are x distance from every node
let the node which has the most nodes in its distance be one of the K nodes.
recompute for every node whilst not counting already covered nodes.
do this till I find K number of K nodes. Then if every node is covered we are done else increase x.
This problem is called p-center, and you can find several papers online about it such as this. It is indeed NP for general graphs, but polynomial on trees, both weighted and unweighted.
For me it looks like a clustering problem. Try it with the k-Means (wikipedia) algorithm where k equals to your K. Since you have a tree and all vertices are connected, you can use as distance measurement the distance/number of edges between your vertices.
When the algorithm converts you get the K nodes which should be found. Then you can determine S by iterating through all k clusters. There you calculate the maximum distance for every node in the cluster to the center node. And the overall max should be S.
Update: But actually I see that the k-means algorithm does not produce a global optimum, so this algorithm wouldn't also produce the best result ...
You say N nodes and N-1 vertices so your graph is a tree. You are actually looking for a connected K-subset of nodes minimizing the longest edge.
A polynomial algorithm may be:
Sort all your edges increasing distance.
Then loop on edges:
if none of the 2 nodes are in a group, create a new group.
else if one node is in 1 existing goup, add the other to the group
else both nodes are in 2 different groups, then fuse the groups
When a group reach K, break the loop and you have your connected K-subset.
Nevertheless, you have to note that your group can contain more than K nodes. You can imagine the problem of having 4 nodes, closed two by two. There would be no exact 3-subset solution of your problem.
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.
I have a connected, non-directed, graph with N nodes and 2N-3 edges. You can consider the graph as it is built onto an existing initial graph, which has 3 nodes and 3 edges. Every node added onto the graph and has 2 connections with the existing nodes in the graph. When all nodes are added to the graph (N-3 nodes added in total), the final graph is constructed.
Originally I'm asked, what is the maximum number of nodes in this graph that can be visited exactly once (except for the initial node), i.e., what is the maximum number of nodes contained in the largest Hamiltonian path of the given graph? (Okay, saying largest Hamiltonian path is not a valid phrase, but considering the question's nature, I need to find a max. number of nodes that are visited once and the trip ends at the initial node. I thought it can be considered as a sub-graph which is Hamiltonian, and consists max. number of nodes, thus largest possible Hamiltonian path).
Since i'm not asked to find a path, I should check if a hamiltonian path exists for given number of nodes first. I know that planar graphs and cycle graphs (Cn) are hamiltonian graphs (I also know Ore's theorem for Hamiltonian graphs, but the graph I will be working on will not be a dense graph with a great probability, thus making Ore's theorem pretty much useless in my case). Therefore I need to find an algorithm for checking if the graph is cycle graph, i.e. does there exist a cycle which contains all the nodes of the given graph.
Since DFS is used for detecting cycles, I thought some minor manipulation to the DFS can help me detect what I am looking for, as in keeping track of explored nodes, and finally checking if the last node visited has a connection to the initial node. Unfortunately
I could not succeed with that approach.
Another approach I tried was excluding a node, and then try to reach to its adjacent node starting from its other adjacent node. That algorithm may not give correct results according to the chosen adjacent nodes.
I'm pretty much stuck here. Can you help me think of another algorithm to tell me if the graph is a cycle graph?
Edit
I realized by the help of the comment (thank you for it n.m.):
A cycle graph consists of a single cycle and has N edges and N vertices. If there exist a cycle which contains all the nodes of the given graph, that's a Hamiltonian cycle. – n.m.
that I am actually searching for a Hamiltonian path, which I did not intend to do so:)
On a second thought, I think checking the Hamiltonian property of the graph while building it will be more efficient, which is I'm also looking for: time efficiency.
After some thinking, I thought whatever the number of nodes will be, the graph seems to be Hamiltonian due to node addition criteria. The problem is I can't be sure and I can't prove it. Does adding nodes in that fashion, i.e. adding new nodes with 2 edges which connect the added node to the existing nodes, alter the Hamiltonian property of the graph? If it doesn't alter the Hamiltonian property, how so? If it does alter, again, how so? Thanks.
EDIT #2
I, again, realized that building the graph the way I described might alter the Hamiltonian property. Consider an input given as follows:
1 3
2 3
1 5
1 3
these input says that 4th node is connected to node 1 and node 3, 5th to node 2 and node 3 . . .
4th and 7th node are connected to the same nodes, thus lowering the maximum number of nodes that can be visited exactly once, by 1. If i detect these collisions (NOT including an input such as 3 3, which is an example that you suggested since the problem states that the newly added edges are connected to 2 other nodes) and lower the maximum number of nodes, starting from N, I believe I can get the right result.
See, I do not choose the connections, they are given to me and I have to find the max. number of nodes.
I think counting the same connections while building the graph and subtracting the number of same connections from N will give the right result? Can you confirm this or is there a flaw with this algorithm?
What we have in this problem is a connected, non-directed graph with N nodes and 2N-3 edges. Consider the graph given below,
A
/ \
B _ C
( )
D
The Graph does not have a Hamiltonian Cycle. But the Graph is constructed conforming to your rules of adding nodes. So searching for a Hamiltonian Cycle may not give you the solution. More over even if it is possible Hamiltonian Cycle detection is an NP-Complete problem with O(2N) complexity. So the approach may not be ideal.
What I suggest is to use a modified version of Floyd's Cycle Finding algorithm (Also called the Tortoise and Hare Algorithm).
The modified algorithm is,
1. Initialize a List CYC_LIST to ∅.
2. Add the root node to the list CYC_LIST and set it as unvisited.
3. Call the function Floyd() twice with the unvisited node in the list CYC_LIST for each of the two edges. Mark the node as visited.
4. Add all the previously unvisited vertices traversed by the Tortoise pointer to the list CYC_LIST.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until no more unvisited nodes remains in the list.
6. If the list CYC_LIST contains N nodes, then the Graph contains a Cycle involving all the nodes.
The algorithm calls Floyd's Cycle Finding Algorithm a maximum of 2N times. Floyd's Cycle Finding algorithm takes a linear time ( O(N) ). So the complexity of the modied algorithm is O(N2) which is much better than the exponential time taken by the Hamiltonian Cycle based approach.
One possible problem with this approach is that it will detect closed paths along with cycles unless stricter checking criteria are implemented.
Reply to Edit #2
Consider the Graph given below,
A------------\
/ \ \
B _ C \
|\ /| \
| D | F
\ / /
\ / /
E------------/
According to your algorithm this graph does not have a cycle containing all the nodes.
But there is a cycle in this graph containing all the nodes.
A-B-D-C-E-F-A
So I think there is some flaw with your approach. But suppose if your algorithm is correct, it is far better than my approach. Since mine takes O(n2) time, where as yours takes just O(n).
To add some clarification to this thread: finding a Hamiltonian Cycle is NP-complete, which implies that finding a longest cycle is also NP-complete because if we can find a longest cycle in any graph, we can find the Hamiltonian cycle of the subgraph induced by the vertices that lie on that cycle. (See also for example this paper regarding the longest cycle problem)
We can't use Dirac's criterion here: Dirac only tells us minimum degree >= n/2 -> Hamiltonian Cycle, that is the implication in the opposite direction of what we would need. The other way around is definitely wrong: take a cycle over n vertices, every vertex in it has exactly degree 2, no matter the size of the circle, but it has (is) an HC. What you can tell from Dirac is that no Hamiltonian Cycle -> minimum degree < n/2, which is of no use here since we don't know whether our graph has an HC or not, so we can't use the implication (nevertheless every graph we construct according to what OP described will have a vertex of degree 2, namely the last vertex added to the graph, so for arbitrary n, we have minimum degree 2).
The problem is that you can construct both graphs of arbitrary size that have an HC and graphs of arbitrary size that do not have an HC. For the first part: if the original triangle is A,B,C and the vertices added are numbered 1 to k, then connect the 1st added vertex to A and C and the k+1-th vertex to A and the k-th vertex for all k >= 1. The cycle is A,B,C,1,2,...,k,A. For the second part, connect both vertices 1 and 2 to A and B; that graph does not have an HC.
What is also important to note is that the property of having an HC can change from one vertex to the other during construction. You can both create and destroy the HC property when you add a vertex, so you would have to check for it every time you add a vertex. A simple example: take the graph after the 1st vertex was added, and add a second vertex along with edges to the same two vertices of the triangle that the 1st vertex was connected to. This constructs from a graph with an HC a graph without an HC. The other way around: add now a 3rd vertex and connect it to 1 and 2; this builds from a graph without an HC a graph with an HC.
Storing the last known HC during construction doesn't really help you because it may change completely. You could have an HC after the 20th vertex was added, then not have one for k in [21,2000], and have one again for the 2001st vertex added. Most likely the HC you had on 23 vertices will not help you a lot.
If you want to figure out how to solve this problem efficiently, you'll have to find criteria that work for all your graphs that can be checked for efficiently. Otherwise, your problem doesn't appear to me to be simpler than the Hamiltonian Cycle problem is in the general case, so you might be able to adjust one of the algorithms used for that problem to your variant of it.
Below I have added three extra nodes (3,4,5) in the original graph and it does seem like I can keep adding new nodes indefinitely while keeping the property of Hamiltonian cycle. For the below graph the cycle would be 0-1-3-5-4-2-0
1---3---5
/ \ / \ /
0---2---4
As there were no extra restrictions about how you can add a new node with two edges, I think by construction you can have a graph that holds the property of hamiltonian cycle.
I have a disconnected bipartite undirected graph. I want to completely disconnect the graph. Only operation that I can perform is to remove a node. Removing a node will automatically delete its edges. Task is to minimize the number of nodes to be removed. Each node in the graph has atmost 4 edges.
By completely disconnecting a graph, I mean that no two nodes should be connected through a link. Basically an empty edge set.
I think, you cannot prove your algorithm is optimal because, in fact, it is not optimal.
To completely disconnect your graph minimizing the number of nodes to be removed, you have to remove all the nodes belonging to the minimal vertex cover of your graph. Searching the minimal vertex cover is usually NP-complete, but for bipartite graphs there is a polynomial-time solution.
Find maximum matching in the graph (probably with Hopcroft–Karp algorithm). Then use König's theorem to get the minimal vertex cover:
Consider a bipartite graph where the vertices are partitioned into left (L) and right (R) sets. Suppose there is a maximum matching which partitions the edges into those used in the matching (E_m) and those not (E_0). Let T consist of all unmatched vertices from L, as well as all vertices reachable from those by going left-to-right along edges from E_0 and right-to-left along edges from E_m. This essentially means that for each unmatched vertex in L, we add into T all vertices that occur in a path alternating between edges from E_0 and E_m.
Then (L \ T) OR (R AND T) is a minimum vertex cover.
Here's a counter-example to your suggested algorithm.
The best solution is to remove both nodes A and B, even though they are different colors.
Since all the edges are from one set to another, find these two sets using say BFS and coloring using 2 colours. Then remove the nodes in smaller set.
Since there are no edges among themselves the rest of the nodes are disconnected as well.
[As a pre-processing step you can leave out nodes with 0 edges first.]
I have thought of an algorithm for it but am not able to prove if its optimal.
My algorithm: On each disconnected subgraph, I run a BFS and color it accordingly. Then I identify the number of nodes colored with each color and take the minimum of the two and store. I repeat the procedure for each subgraph and add up to get the required minimum. Help me prove the algorithm if it's correct.
EDIT: The above algorithm is not optimal. The accepted answer has been verified to be correct.
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.