Today I encountered a question which I am not able to solve.
A frequent traveler collects all his travel tickets.
A ticket has only 2 attributes, Start Journey Location name and Destination Name. Example from Delhi to NY.
At the end of the year, the traveler gets all his tickets together and tries to map his journey across the year. Print his probable travel route in a readable format. He does not remember his start location. he can visit a location multiple times, and can also go back and forth a place several times.
Initially i thought that it could simply be solved by making a graph(ticket-A to B means a directed edge A->B) and using a simple Depth first traversal from a node with indegree 0(??). but then I realized that its not the correct way to get solution as it could print a random unconnected route.
Please suggest a correct way to proceed.
First you should check whether your graph has an Eulerian trail or an Eulerian cycle.
A directed graph has an Eulerian cycle if and only if every vertex has
equal in degree and out degree, and all of its vertices with nonzero
degree belong to a single strongly connected component. Equivalently,
a directed graph has an Eulerian cycle if and only if it can be
decomposed into edge-disjoint directed cycles and all of its vertices
with nonzero degree belong to a single strongly connected component.
A directed graph has an Eulerian trail if and only if at most one vertex
has (out-degree) − (in-degree) = 1, at most one vertex has (in-degree)
− (out-degree) = 1, every other vertex has equal in-degree and
out-degree, and all of its vertices with nonzero degree belong to a
single connected component of the underlying undirected graph.
If your graph has an Eulerian cycle, you can start your DFS from any arbitrary node and you can be sure that your path will be correct.
If your graph has an Eulerian trail, first find the node with (out-degree) − (in-degree) = 1 and call it source and find the node with (in-degree) − (out-degree) = 1 and call it sink. You should start your DFS from source and avoid going to sink as much as possible. It means whenever there is an option between going to node sink and some other node you should go the other node and use the sink node only when you have no other option (not exactly true but makes it simpler). This way you can be sure that you end up with the correct trail.
Related
Given an undirected graph, I want an algorithm (inO(|V|+|E|)) that will find me the heaviest edge in the graph that forms a cycle. For example, if my graph is as below, and I'll run DFS(A), then the heaviest edge in the graph will be BC.
(*) In this problem, I have at most 1 cycle.
I'm trying to write a modified DFS, that will return the desired heavy edge, but I'm having some trouble.
Because I have at most 1 cycle, I can save the edges in the cycle in an array, and find the maximum edge easily at the end of the run, but I think this answer seems a bit messy, and I'm sure there's a better recursive answer.
I think the easiest way to solve this is to use a union-find data structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint-set_data_structure) in a manner similar to Kruskal's MST algorithm:
Put each vertex in its own set
Iterate through the edges in order of weight. For each edge, merge the sets of the adjacent vertices if they're not already in the same set.
Remember the last edge for which you found that its adjacent vertices were already in the same set. That's the one you're looking for.
This works because the last and heaviest edge that you visit in any cycle must already have its adjacent vertices connected by edges you visited earlier.
Use Tarjan's Strongly Connected Components algorithm.
Once you have split your graph into many strongly connected graphs assign a COMP_ID to each node which specifies the component ID to which this node belongs (This can be done with a small edit on the algorithm. Define a global integer value which starts at 1. Every time you pop nodes from the stack they all correspond to the same component, save the value of this variable to the COMP_ID of these nodes. When the pop loop ends increment the value of this integer by one).
Now, iterate over all the edges. You have 2 possibilities:
If this edge links two nodes from two different components, then this edge can't be the answer, since it can't possibly be a part of a cycle.
If this edge links two nodes from the same component, then this edge is a part of some cycle. All you have left to do now is to choose the maximum edge among all the edges of type 2.
The described approach runs in a total complexity of O(|V| + |E|) because every node and edge corresponds to at most one strongly connected component.
In the graph example you provided COMP_ID will be as follows:
COMP_ID[A] = 1
COMP_ID[B] = 2
COMP_ID[C] = 2
COMP_ID[D] = 2
Edge 10 connects COMP_ID 1 with COMP_ID 2, thus it can't be the answer. The answer is the maximum among edges {2, 5, 8} since they all connect COMP_ID 1 with it self, thus the answer is 8
i have an undricted graph G=(V,E) and weight function w:E->R+. also, i have the MST T of G.
I have to build an algorithm that does the follow:
if we add a new edge e' that has the weight w(e') to E. suggest an algorithm that updates T in a way that it will be MST of the new graph G'=(V,EUe').
complexity: O(V).
what i suggested is:
1) Add e' to T. we get a new graph call it T' that include one cycle.
2) Run DFS on T' and mark every vertex that you visit. and in addition save
every vertex and every edge weight in stacks.
3) When we visit a vertex that we already visited we stop running.
4) and start withdrawing from the stack till we get to the vertex we stopped at.
5) while withdrawing we save the maximum edge weight we withdraw ed from the
stack.
6) if the maximum edge weight is bigger that w(e') we replace them.
7) otherwise we remain with the same T.
i hope it's clear.
i would be very grateful if anyone could till me if it works or give me other
solutions and suggestion.
Yes the solution you suggested is correct because a graph with the same number of edges and nodes (like T) consists of a simple cycle with trees rooted at some (maybe none) of the nodes of this cycle.
You need to delete exactly 1 edge from T such that the remaining graph is still connected. Obviously the best choice is to delete the largest edge. The only edges you can delete while keeping the graph connected are the ones in the cycle (the ones you are adding to the stack).
Another solution would be to find the bridges in the graph, then finding the maximum non-bridge edge and deleting it. However since this is a special graph the solution you mentioned would be much easier (the non-bridge edges are the ones on the cycle) .
I have seen ways to detect a cycle in a graph, but I still have not managed to find a way to detect a "bridge-like" cycle. So let's say we have found a cycle in a connected (and undirected) graph. How can we determine whether removing this cycle will disconnect the graph or not? By removing the cycle, I mean removing the edges in the cycle (so the vertices are unaffected).
One way to do it is clearly to count the number of components before and after the removal. I'm just curious to know if there's a better way.
If there happens to be an established algorithm for that, could anyone please point me to a related work/paper/publication?
Here's the naive algorithm, complexity wise I don't think there's a more efficient way of doing the check.
Start with your list of edges (cycleEdges)
Get the set of vertices within cycleEdges (cycleVertices)
If a vertex in cycleVertices only contains edges that are part of cycleEdges return FALSE
For Each vetex In cycleVertices
Recursively follow vertex's edges that are not in cycleEdges (avoid already visited vertices)
If a vertex is reached that is not in cycleVertices add it to te set outsideVertices (stop recursively searching this path)
If only vertices that are in cycleVertices have been reached Return FALSE
If outsideVertices contains 1 element Return TRUE
Choose a vertex in outsideVertices and remove it from outsideVertices
Recursively follow that vertex's edges that are not in cycleEdges (avoid already visited vertices) (favor choosing edges that contain a vertex in outsideVertices to improve running time for large graphs)
If a vertex is reached that is in outsideVertices remove it from outsideVertices
If outsideVertices is empty Return TRUE
Return FALSE
You can do it for E+V.
You can get all bridges in your graph for E+V by dfs + dynamic programming.
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/bridge-in-a-graph
Save them (just make boolean[E], and make true.
Then you can say for O(1) the edge is bridge or not.
You can just take all edges from your cycle and verify that it is bridge.
Vish's mentions articulation points which is definitely in the right direction. More can be said though. Articulation points can be found via a modified DFS algorithm that looks something like this:
Execute DFS, assigning each number with its DFS number (e.g. the number of nodes visited before it). When you encounter a vertex that has already been discovered compare its DFS number to the current vertex and you can store a LOW number associated with this vertex (e.g. the lowest DFS number that this node has "seen"). As you recurse back to the start vertex, you can compare the parent vertex with the child's LOW number. As you're recursing back, if a parent vertex ever sees a child's low number that is greater than or equal to its own DFS number, then that parent vertex is an articulation point.
I'm using "child" and "parent" here as descriptors a lot because in the DFS tree we have to consider a special case for the root. If it ever sees a child's low number that is greater than or equal to its own DFS number and it has two children in the tree, then the first vertex is an articulation.
Here's a useful art. point image
Another concept to be familiar with, especially for undirected graphs, is biconnected components, aka any subgraph whose vertices are in a cycle with all other vertices.
Here's a useful colored image with biconnected components
You can prove that any two biconnected components can only share one vertex max; two "shared" vertices would mean that the two are in a cycle, as well as with all the other vertices in the components so the two components are actually one large component. As you can see in the graph, any vertex shared by two components (has more than one color) is an articulation point. Removing the cycle that contains any articulation point will thus disconnect the graph.
Well, as in a cycle from any vertex x can be reached any other vertex y and vice-verse, then it's a strongly connected component, so we can contract a cycle into a single vertex that represents the cycle. The operation can be performed for O(n+m) using DFS. Now, we can apply DFS again in order to check whether the contracted cycles are articulation vertices, if they are, then removing them will disconnect a graph, else not. Total time is 2(n+m) = O(n+m)
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 set of nodes and set of directed edges between them. The edges have no weight.
How can I found minimal number of edges which has to be added to make the graph strongly connected (ie. there should be a path from every node to all others)? Does this problem have a name?
It's a really classical graph problem.
Run algorithm like Tarjan-SCC algorithm to find all SCCs. Consider
each SCC as a new vertice, link a edge between these new
vertices according to the origin graph, we can get a new graph.
Obviously, the new graph is a Directed Acyclic Graph(DAG).
In the DAG, find all vertices whose in-degree is 0, we define them
{X}; find all vertices whose out-degree is 0, we define
them {Y}.
If DAG has only one vertice, the answer is 0; otherwise, the answer
is max(|X|, |Y|).
Off the top of my head, it seems the simplest (fewest edges) way to make a directed graph strongly connected would be to just have a cycle involving all nodes; so the minimum number of edges would just be N where N is the number of nodes. If there are already edges, just do something like connect longest existing directed path to the next longest path that doesn't overlap with your current path, until you form a complete cycle (once your path contains all nodes, connect the ends to form the cycle.)
Not sure if there is a more formal definition of any of this, but is seems logical to me.
I would find all weakly connected components, and tie them up in a cycle.
EDIT:
To be more explicit, the idea is if you have WCCs W(1),...,W(n),
make all of W(i%n + 1) reachable from any node in W(i), for i=1 to n.