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?
Related
So I have an exercise that I should prove or disprove that:
1) if e is a minimum weight edge in the connected graph G such that not all edges are necessarily distinct, then every minimum spanning tree of G contains e
2) Same as 1) but now all edge weights are distinct.
Ok so intuitively, I understand that for 1) since not all edge weights are distinct, then it's possible that a vertex has the path with edge e but also another edge e_1 such that if weight(e) = weight (e_1) then there is a spanning tree which does not contain the edge e since the graph is connected. Otherwise if both e_1 and e are in the minimum spanning tree, then there is a cycle
and for 2) since all edge weights are distinct, then of course the minimum spanning tree will contain the edge e since any algorithm will always choose the smaller path.
Any suggestions on how to prove these two though? induction? Not sure how to approach.
Actually in your first proof when you say that if both e and e_1 are in G, then there's a cycle, that's not true, because they're minimal edges, so there doesn't have to be a cycle, and you do need to include them both into the MST, because if |E| > 1 and |V| > 2 then they both have to be there.
Anyways, a counter example for the first one is a complete graph with all edges of the same weight as e, the MST will contain only |V|-1 edges, but you didn't include all the other edges of that same weight, hence you have a contradiction.
As for the second one, if all edges are distinct, then if you remove the minimum edge and want to reconstruct the MST, the only way to go about this is to add a an edge connecting the 2 disjoint sets that were broken up by that minimum-weight edge.
Now suppose that you didn't remove that minimum-weight edge, and added that other edge, now you've created a cycle, and since all edges are distinct the cycle-creating edge will be greater than all of them, hence if you remove any former MST edge from that cycle, it will only increase the size of the MST. Which means that pretty much all former MST edges are critical when all edges have distinct weights.
I have to solve this problem:
Given a weighted connected undirected graph G=(V,E) and vertex u in V.
Describe an algorithm that finds MST for G such that the degree of u
is minimal; the output T of the algorithm is MST and for each another
minimal spanning tree T' being the degree of u in T less than or
equal to the degree of u in T'.
I thought about this algorithm (after some googling I found this solution for similar problem here):
Temporarily delete vertex u.
For each of the resulting connected components C1,…,Cm find a MST using e.g. Kruskal's or Prim's algorithm.
Re-add vertex u and for each Ci add the cheapest edge between 1 and Ci.
EDIT:
I understood that this algorithm may get a wrong MST (see #AndyG comment) so I thought about another one:
let k be the minimal increment between each two weights in G and add 0 < x < k to each adjacent edge of u. (e.g. if all the weights are natural numbers so k=1 and x is fraction).
find a MST using Kruskal's algorithm.
This solution is based on the fact that Kruskal's algorithm iterate the edges
ordered by weigh, so the difference between all the MSTs of G is each edge was chosen from among all edges of the same weight. Therefore, if we increase the degree of the adjacent edges of u, the algorithm will choose the others edges in the same degree and not the adjacent of u unless this edge is necessary for the MST and the degree of u will be the minimal in all the MSTs of G.
I still don't know if it works and how to prove the correctness of this algorithm.
I will appreciate any help.
To summarize the suggested algorithm [with tightened requirements on epsilon (which you called x)]:
Pick a tiny epsilon (such that epsilon * deg(u) is less than d, the smallest non-zero weight difference between any pair of subgraphs). In the case all the original weights are natural numbers, epsilon = 1/(deg(u)+1) suffices.
Add the epsilon to the weights of all edges incident to u
Find a minimal spanning tree.
We'll prove that this procedure finds an MST of the original graph that minimizes the number of edges incident to u.
Let W be the weight of any minimal spanning tree in the original graph.
First, we'll show every MST of the new graph is an MST of the original graph. Any non-MST in the original graph must have weight at least W + d. Any MST in the new graph must have weight at most W + deg(u)*epsilon (since any MST in the original graph has at most this weight in the new graph). Since we chose epsilon such that deg(u)*epsilon < d, we conclude that any MST in the new graph is also an MST in the original graph.
Second, we'll show that the MST of the new graph is the MST of the original graph that minimizes the number of edges incident to u. An MST, T, of the original graph has weight W + k * epsilon in the new graph, where k is the number of edges of T incident to u. We've already shown that every MST of the new graph is also an MST of the original graph. Therefore, the MST of the new graph is the MST of the original graph that minimizes k (the number of edges incident to u).
I'm trying to find an efficient method of detecting whether a given graph G has two different minimal spanning trees. I'm also trying to find a method to check whether it has 3 different minimal spanning trees. The naive solution that I've though about is running Kruskal's algorithm once and finding the total weight of the minimal spanning tree. Later , removing an edge from the graph and running Kruskal's algorithm again and checking if the weight of the new tree is the weight of the original minimal spanning tree , and so for each edge in the graph. The runtime is O(|V||E|log|V|) which is not good at all, and I think there's a better way to do it.
Any suggestion would be helpful,
thanks in advance
You can modify Kruskal's algorithm to do this.
First, sort the edges by weight. Then, for each weight in ascending order, filter out all irrelevant edges. The relevant edges form a graph on the connected components of the minimum-spanning-forest-so-far. You can count the number of spanning trees in this graph. Take the product over all weights and you've counted the total number of minimum spanning trees in the graph.
You recover the same running time as Kruskal's algorithm if you only care about the one-tree, two-trees, and three-or-more-trees cases. I think you wind up doing a determinant calculation or something to enumerate spanning trees in general, so you likely wind up with an O(MM(n)) worst-case in general.
Suppose you have a MST T0 of a graph. Now, if we can get another MST T1, it must have at least one edge E different from the original MST. Throw away E from T1, now the graph is separated into two components. However, in T0, these two components must be connected, so there will be another edge across this two components that has exactly the same weight as E (or we could substitute the one with more weight with the other one and get a smaller ST). This means substitute this other edge with E will give you another MST.
What this implies is if there are more than one MSTs, we can always change just a single edge from a MST and get another MST. So if you are checking for each edge, try to substitute the edge with the ones with the same weight and if you get another ST it is a MST, you will get a faster algorithm.
Suppose G is a graph with n vertices and m edges; that the weight of any edge e is W(e); and that P is a minimal-weight spanning tree on G, weighing Cost(W,P).
Let δ = minimal positive difference between any two edge weights. (If all the edge weights are the same, then δ is indeterminate; but in this case, any ST is an MST so it doesn't matter.) Take ε such that δ > n·ε > 0.
Create a new weight function U() with U(e)=W(e)+ε when e is in P, else U(e)=W(e). Compute Q, an MST of G under U. If Cost(U,Q) < Cost(U,P) then Q≠P. But Cost(W,Q) = Cost(W,P) by construction of δ and ε. Hence P and Q are distinct MSTs of G under W. If Cost(U,Q) ≥ Cost(U,P) then Q=P and distinct MSTs of G under W do not exist.
The method above determines if there are at least two distinct MSTs, in time O(h(n,m)) if O(h(n,m)) bounds the time to find an MST of G.
I don't know if a similar method can treat whether three (or more) distinct MSTs exist; simple extensions of it fall to simple counterexamples.
Does the opposite of Kruskal's algorithm for minimum spanning tree work for it? I mean, choosing the max weight (edge) every step?
Any other idea to find maximum spanning tree?
Yes, it does.
One method for computing the maximum weight spanning tree of a network G –
due to Kruskal – can be summarized as follows.
Sort the edges of G into decreasing order by weight. Let T be the set of edges comprising the maximum weight spanning tree. Set T = ∅.
Add the first edge to T.
Add the next edge to T if and only if it does not form a cycle in T. If
there are no remaining edges exit and report G to be disconnected.
If T has n−1 edges (where n is the number of vertices in G) stop and
output T . Otherwise go to step 3.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20141114045919/http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~konis/Rcourse/exercise1.pdf.
From Maximum Spanning Tree at Wolfram MathWorld:
"A maximum spanning tree is a spanning tree of a weighted graph having maximum weight. It can be computed by negating the weights for each edge and applying Kruskal's algorithm (Pemmaraju and Skiena, 2003, p. 336)."
If you invert the weight on every edge and minimize, do you get the maximum spanning tree? If that works you can use the same algorithm. Zero weights will be a problem, of course.
Although this thread is too old, I have another approach for finding the maximum spanning tree (MST) in a graph G=(V,E)
We can apply some sort Prim's algorithm for finding the MST. For that I have to define Cut Property for the maximum weighted edge.
Cut property: Let say at any point we have a set S which contains the vertices that are in MST( for now assume it is calculated somehow ). Now consider the set S/V ( vertices not in MST ):
Claim: The edge from S to S/V which has the maximum weight will always be in every MST.
Proof: Let's say that at a point when we are adding the vertices to our set S the maximum weighted edge from S to S/V is e=(u,v) where u is in S and v is in S/V. Now consider an MST which does not contain e. Add the edge e to the MST. It will create a cycle in the original MST. Traverse the cycle and find the vertices u' in S and v' in S/V such that u' is the last vertex in S after which we enter S/V and v' is the first vertex in S/V on the path in cycle from u to v.
Remove the edge e'=(u',v') and the resultant graph is still connected but the weight of e is greater than e' [ as e is the maximum weighted edge from S to S/V at this point] so this results in an MST which has sum of weights greater than original MST. So this is a contradiction. This means that edge e must be in every MST.
Algorithm to find MST:
Start from S={s} //s is the start vertex
while S does not contain all vertices
do
{
for each vertex s in S
add a vertex v from S/V such that weight of edge e=(s,v) is maximum
}
end while
Implementation:
we can implement using Max Heap/Priority Queue where the key is the maximum weight of the edge from a vertex in S to a vertex in S/V and value is the vertex itself. Adding a vertex in S is equal to Extract_Max from the Heap and at every Extract_Max change the key of the vertices adjacent to the vertex just added.
So it takes m Change_Key operations and n Extract_Max operations.
Extract_Min and Change_Key both can be implemented in O(log n). n is the number of vertices.
So This takes O(m log n) time. m is the number of edges in the graph.
Let me provide an improvement algorithm:
first construct an arbitrary tree (using BFS or DFS)
then pick an edge outside the tree, add to the tree, it will form a cycle, drop the smallest weight edge in the cycle.
continue doing this util all the rest edges are considered
Thus, we'll get the maximum spanning tree.
This tree satisfies any edge outside the tree, if added will form a cycle and the edge outside <= any edge weights in the cycle
In fact, this is a necessary and sufficient condition for a spanning tree to be maximum spanning tree.
Pf.
Necessary: It's obvious that this is necessary, or we could swap edge to make a tree with a larger sum of edge weights.
Sufficient: Suppose tree T1 satisfies this condition, and T2 is the maximum spanning tree.
Then for the edges T1 ∪ T2, there're T1-only edges, T2-only edges, T1 ∩ T2 edges, if we add a T1-only edge(x1, xk) to T2, we know it will form a cycle, and we claim, in this cycle there must exist one T2-only edge that has the same edge weights as (x1, xk). Then we can exchange these edges will produce a tree with one more edge in common with T2 and has the same sum of edge weights, repeating doing this we'll get T2. so T1 is also a maximum spanning tree.
Prove the claim:
suppose it's not true, in the cycle we must have a T2-only edge since T1 is a tree. If none of the T2-only edges has a value equal to that of (x1, xk), then each of T2-only edges makes a loop with tree T1, then T1 has a loop leads to a contradiction.
This algorithm taken from UTD professor R. Chandrasekaran's notes. You can refer here: Single Commodity Multi-terminal Flows
Negate the weight of original graph and compute minimum spanning tree on the negated graph will give the right answer. Here is why: For the same spanning tree in both graphs, the weighted sum of one graph is the negation of the other. So the minimum spanning tree of the negated graph should give the maximum spanning tree of the original one.
Only reversing the sorting order, and choosing a heavy edge in a vertex cut does not guarantee a Maximum Spanning Forest (Kruskal's algorithm generates forest, not tree). In case all edges have negative weights, the Max Spanning Forest obtained from reverse of kruskal, would still be a negative weight path. However the ideal answer is a forest of disconnected vertices. i.e. a forest of |V| singleton trees, or |V| components having total weight of 0 (not the least negative).
Change the weight in a reserved order(You can achieve this by taking a negative weight value and add a large number, whose purpose is to ensure non-negative) Then run your family geedy-based algorithm on the minimum spanning tree.
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.