I am looking for an algorithm that finds minimal subset of vertices such that by removing this subset (and edges connecting these vertices) from graph all other vertices become unconnected (i.e. the graph won't have any edges).
Is there such algorithm?
If not: Could you recommend some kind of heuristics to designate the vertices.
I have a basic knowledge of graph theory so please excuse any incorrectness.
IIUC, this is the classic Minimum Vertex Cover problem, which is, unfortunately, NP Complete.
Fortunately, the most intuitive and greedy possible algorithm is as good as it gets in this case.
The greedy algorithm is a 2-approximation for vertex cover, which in theory, under the Unique Games Conjecture, is as good as it gets. In practice, solving a formulation of vertex cover as an integer program will most likely yield much better results. The program is
min sum_{v in V} x(v)
s.t.
forall {u, v} in E, x(u) + x(v) >= 1
forall v in V, x(v) in {0, 1}.
Try this way:
Define a variable to count number of vertexes, starting by 0;
Create a Max-Heap of vertexes sorted by the length of the adjacent list of each vertex;
Remove all edges from the first vertex of the Heap (the one with biggest number of edges) and remove it from the Heap, adding 1 to the count;
Reorder the Heap now that number of edges of the vertexes changed, repeating the previous step until the length of the adjacent list from the first vertex is 0;
Heap Q
int count = 0
while(1){
Q = Create_Heap(G)
Vertex first = Q.pop
if(first.adjacents.size() == 0) {
break
}
for( Vertex v : first.adjacent ){
RemoveEdge(first, v)
RemoveEdge(v, first) /* depends on the implementation */
}
count = count + 1
}
return count
Related
Having a directed graph G with edges having positive weights, we define the cost of a path the difference between the edge with minimum weight and maximum weight. The goal is to find a path with maximum cost among other paths. We don't need to return the path itself just the maximum cost.
If x is the number of vertices and y is the number of edges then x < 10^5 and y < min(x^2,10^5). The time limit is 1 second.
Based on the bounds I think this problem has to be solved in O(x+y) time.
So based on the problems properties ans some studying of other algorithms I thought that on possible answer may contain multiple DFS's (like the SCC problem). I also find a similar problem with Dijkstra's algorithm that can be modified for this problem but I'm not very sure that the complexity would be OK. Also there are some other questions similar to mine however the answers were of O(m^2) or higher which were not very efficient.
Other than what was mentioned above I have no idea to solve the problem and some insight would be very helpful. Thanks
Solution:
Due to the fact that our graph can have cycles, this complicates things for us. Let's build a new graph in which we "compress" all the components of a strong connection into a single vertex, so new graph will be acyclic. During this process let's memorize maximum(maximumWeight[v]) and minimum(minimumWeigh[v]) weights of the edges for each strongly connected components.
We spent O(|V| + |E|) time for it, where |V| is count of vertexes and |E| is count if edges.
After that let's make a topological sorting of given graph in O(|V|+|E|) time complexity. Then let's calculate simple DP.
dpMax[v] - the maximum weight of the edge to which there is a path from this vertex.
dpMin[v] - the minimum weight of the edge to which there is a path from this vertex.
Default value:
If vertex v is strongly connected component, then maximum and minimum weights already calculates in maximumWeight[v] and minimumWeigh[v], so dpMax[v] = maximumWeight[v] and dpMin[v] = minimumWeight[v].
Otherwise maximumWeight[v] = -Infinity and minimumWeigh[v] = Infinity.
In topological order let's improve our DP for each vertex:
int answer = -Infinity;
for(auto v : vertexesInTopologicalOrder) {
int newMinDp = dpMin[v], newMaxDp = dpMax[v];
for(auto e : v.outgoingEdges) {
int l = dpMin[v];
int r = dpMax[v];
l = min(l, e.weight);
r = max(r, e.weight);
l = min(l, dpMin[e.target]);
r = max(r, dpMax[e.target]);
answer = max(answer, e.weight - l);
answer = max(answer, r - e.weight);
newMinDp = min(newMinDp, l);
newMaxDp = max(newMaxDp, r);
}
dpMin[v] = newMinDp;
dpMax[v] = newMaxDp;
}
Since we calculating DP in topological order, the DP at achievable vertexes have already been calculated.
For a better understanding, let's look at an example.
Let's say we have such an initial graph.
After compression, the graph will look something like this.
After topological sorting, we get this order of vertices. (Green numbers)
Sequentially calculate all DP values, along with updating the answer.
Final answer 6 will be achieved during calculating top vertex DP.
I hope it turned out to be quite detailed and clear. Final time complexity is O(|V|+|E|).
In an undirected graph with V vertices and E edges how would you count the number of triangles in O(|V||E|)? I see the algorithm here but I'm not exactly sure how that would be implemented to achieve that complexity. Here's the code presented in that post:
for each edge (u, v):
for each vertex w:
if (v, w) is an edge and (w, u) is an edge:
return true
return false
Would you use an adjacency list representation of the graph to traverse all edges in the outer loop and then an adjacency matrix to check for the existence of the 2 edges in the inner loop?
Also, I saw a another solution presented as O(|V||E|) which involves performing a depth-first search on the graph and when you encounter a backedge (u,v) from the vertex u you're visiting check if the grandparent of the vertex u is vertex v. If it is then you have found a triangle. Is this algorithm correct? If so, wouldn't this be O(|V|+|E|)? In the post I linked to there is a counterexample for the breadth-first search solution offered up but based on the examples I came up with it seems like the depth-first search method I outlined above works.
Firstly, note that the algorithm does not so much count the number of triangles, but rather returns whether one exists at all.
For the first algorithm, the analysis becomes simple if we assume that we can do the lookup of (a, b) is an edge in constant time. (Since we loop over all vertices for all edges, and only do something with constant time we get O(|V||E|*1). ) Telling whether something is a member of a set in constant time can be done using for example a hashtable/set. We could also, as you said, do this by the use of the adjacency matrix, which we could create beforehand by looping over all the edges, not changing our total complexity.
An adjacency list representation for looping over the edges could perhaps be used, but traversing this may be O(|V|+|E|), giving us the total complexity O(|V||V| + |V||E|) which may be more than we wanted. If that is the case, we should instead loop over this first, and add all our edges to a normal collection (like a list).
For your proposed DFS algorithm, the problem is that we cannot be sure to encounter a certain edge as a backedge at the correct moment, as is illustrated by the following counterexample:
A -- B --- C -- D
\ / |
E ----- F
Here if we look from A-B-C-E, and then find the backedge E-B, we correctly find the triangle; but if we instead go A-B-C-D-F-E, the backedges E-B, and E-C, do no longer satisfy our condition.
This is a naive approach to count the number of cycles.
We need the input in the form of an adjacency matrix.
public int countTricycles(int [][] adj){
int n = adj.length;
int count = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < n ;i++){
for(int j = 0; j < n; j++){
if(adj[i][j] != 0){
for(int k = 0; k < n; k++){
if(k!=i && adj[j][k] != 0 && adj[i][k] != 0 ){
count++;
}
}
}
}
}
return count/6;
}
The complexity would be O(n^3).
This is essentially the problem of connecting n destinations with the minimal amount of road possible.
The input is a set of vertices (a,b, ... , n)
The weight of an edge between two vertices is easily calculated (example the cartesian distance between the two vertices)
I would like an algorithm that given a set of vertices in euclidian space, returns a set of edges that would constitute a connected graph and whose total weight of edges is as small as it could be.
In graph language, this is the Minimum Spanning Tree of a Connected Graph.
With brute force I would have:
Define all possible edges between all vertices - say you have n
vertices, then you have n(n-1)/2 edges in the complete graph
A possible edge can be on or off (2 states)
Go through all possible edge on/off
combinations: 2^(n(n-1)/2)!
Ignore all those that would not connect the
graph
From the remaining combinations, find the one whose sum of
edge weights is the smallest of all
I understand this is an NP-Hard problem. However, realistically for my application, I will have a maximum of 11 vertices. I would like to be able to solve this on a typical modern smart phone, or at the very least on a small server size.
As a second variation, I would like to obtain the same goal, with the restriction that each vertex is connected to a maximum of one other vertex. Essentially obtaining a single trace, starting from any point, and finishing at any other point, as long as the graph is connected. There is no need to go back to where you started. In graph language, this is the Open Euclidian Traveling Salesman Problem.
Some pseudocode algorithms would be much helpful.
Ok for the first problem you have to build a Minimum Spanning Tree. There are several algorithms to do so, Prim and Kruskal. But take a look also in the first link to the treatment for complete graphs that it is your case.
For the second problem, it becomes a little more complicated. The problem becomes an Open Traveling Salesman Problem (oTSP). Reading the previous link maybe focused on Euclidean and Asymmetric.
Regards
Maybee you could try a greedy algorithm:
1. Create a list sortedList that stores each pair of nodes i and j and is sorted by the
weight w(i,j).
2. Create a HashSet connectedNodes that is empty at the beginning
3. while (connectedNodes.size() < n)
element := first element of sortedList
if (connectedNodes.isEmpty())
connectedNodes.put(element.nodeI);
connectedNodes.put(element.nodeJ);
delete element from sortedList
else
for(element in sortedList) //start again with the first
if(connectedNodes.get(element.nodeI) || connectedNodes.get(element.nodeJ))
if(!(connectedNodes.get(element.nodeI) && connectedNodes.get(element.nodeJ)))
//so it does not include already both nodes
connectedNodes.put(element.nodeI);
connectedNodes.put(element.nodeJ);
delete element from sortedList
break;
else
continue;
So I explain step 3 a little bit:
You add as long nodes till all nodes are connected to one other. It is sure that the graph is connected, because you just add a node, if he has a connection to an other one already in the connectedNodes list.
So this algorithm is greedy what means, it does not make sure, that the solution is optimal. But it is a quite good approximation, because it always takes the shortest edge (because sortedList is sorted by the weight of the edge).
Yo don't get duplicates in connectedNodes, because it is a HashSet, which also make the runtime faster.
All in all the runtime should be O(n^2) for the sorting at the beginning and below its around O(n^3), because in worst case you run in every step through the whole list that has size of n^2 and you do it n times, because you add one element in each step.
But more likely is, that you find an element much faster than O(n^2), i think in most cases it is O(n).
You can solve the travelsalesman problem and the hamilton path problem with the optimap tsp solver fron gebweb or a linear program solver. But the first question seems to ask for a minimum spanning tree maybe the question tag is wrong?
For the first problem, there is an O(n^2 * 2^n) time algorithm. Basically, you can use dynamic programming to reduce the search space. Let's say the set of all vertices is V, so the state space consists of all subsets of V, and the objective function f(S) is the minimum sum of weights of the edges connecting vertices in S. For each state S, you may enumerate over all edges (u, v) where u is in S and v is in V - S, and update f(S + {v}). After checking all possible states, the optimal answer is then f(V).
Below is the sample code to illustrate the idea, but it is implemented in a backward approach.
const int n = 11;
int weight[n][n];
int f[1 << n];
for (int state = 0; state < (1 << n); ++state)
{
int res = INF;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
if ((state & (1 << i)) == 0) continue;
for (int j = 0; j < n; ++j)
{
if (j == i || (state & (1 << j)) == 0) continue;
if (res > f[state - (1 << j)] + weight[i][j])
{
res = f[state - (1 << j)] + weight[i][j];
}
}
}
f[state] = res;
}
printf("%d\n", f[(1 << n) - 1]);
For the second problem, sorry I don't quite understand it. Maybe you should provide some examples?
Suppose we have a DIRECTED, WEIGHTED and CYCLIC graph.
Suppose we are only interested in paths with a total weight of less than MAX_WEIGHT
What is the most appropriate (or any) algorithm to find the number of distinct paths between two nodes A and B that have a total weight of less than MAX_WEIGHT?
P.S: It's not my homework. Just personal, non-commercial project.
If the number of nodes and MAX_WEIGHT aren't too large (and all weights are integers), you can use dynamic programming
unsigned long long int num_of_paths[MAX_WEIGHT+1][num_nodes];
initialize to 0, except num_of_paths[0][start] = 1;.
for(w = 0; w < MAX_WEIGHT; ++w){
for(n = 0; n < num_nodes; ++n){
if (num_of_paths[w][n] > 0){
/* for each child c of node n
* if w + weight(n->c) <= MAX_WEIGHT
* num_of_paths[w+weight(n->c)][c] += num_of_paths[w][n];
*/
}
}
}
solution is sum of num_of_paths[w][target], 0 <= w <= MAX_WEIGHT .
Simple recursion. You have it in exponential time. Obviously, no zero-weight cycles allowed.
function noe(node N, limit weight W)
no. of path is zero if all outgoing edges have weight > W
otherwise no. of path is sum of numbers of path obtained by sum(noe(C1,W-W1),noe(C2,W-W2),... noe(Cn,W-Wn)) where C1 ... Cn are the nodes connected to N for which W-Wi is not negative where Wi is weight of the connecting edge, written in your favorite language.
More eficient solution should exist, along the lines of Dijkstra's algorithm, but I think this is enough for homework.
Your problem is more general case of K-Disjoint Path In directed planar graphs, with not fixed K.
K disjoint paths problem for directed planar graphs is as this:
given: a directed planar graph G = (V;E) and k pairs (r1; s1); .... ; (rk; sk) of vertices of G;
find: k pairwise vertex-disjoint directed paths P1; ... ; Pk in G, where Pi runs from ri to si (i = 1; .... ; k).
In k-disjoint path you can draw arc from all si to B, and Also arc from A to all ri by this way you create graph G' from G.
Now if you can solve your problem in G' in P you can solve k-disjoint Path in G, So P=NP.
But if you read the paper linked it gives some idea for general graph (solving k-disjoint path with fixed k) and you can use it to have some good approximation.
Also there is more complicated algorithm which solves this problem in P (for fixed k) in general graphs. but in all it's not easy (it's by Seymour ).
So your best choice currently is to use brute force algorithms.
Edit: Because MAXWEIGHT is independent to your input size (your graph size) It doesn't affect to this problem, Also because it's NP-Hard for undirected unweighted graph, still you simply can conclude it's NP-Hard.
Find the shortest path through a graph in efficient time, with the additional constraint that the path must contain exactly n nodes.
We have a directed, weighted graph. It may, or may not contain a loop. We can easily find the shortest path using Dijkstra's algorithm, but Dijkstra's makes no guarantee about the number of edges.
The best we could come up with was to keep a list of the best n paths to a node, but this uses a huge amount of memory over vanilla Dijkstra's.
It is a simple dynamic programming algorithm.
Let us assume that we want to go from vertex x to vertex y.
Make a table D[.,.], where D[v,k] is the cost of the shortest path of length k from the starting vertex x to the vertex v.
Initially D[x,1] = 0. Set D[v,1] = infinity for all v != x.
For k=2 to n:
D[v,k] = min_u D[u,k-1] + wt(u,v), where we assume that wt(u,v) is infinite for missing edges.
P[v,k] = the u that gave us the above minimum.
The length of the shortest path will then be stored in D[y,n].
If we have a graph with fewer edges (sparse graph), we can do this efficiently by only searching over the u that v is connected to. This can be done optimally with an array of adjacency lists.
To recover the shortest path:
Path = empty list
v = y
For k= n downto 1:
Path.append(v)
v = P[v,k]
Path.append(x)
Path.reverse()
The last node is y. The node before that is P[y,n]. We can keep following backwards, and we will eventually arrive at P[v,2] = x for some v.
The alternative that comes to my mind is a depth first search (as opposed to Dijkstra's breadth first search), modified as follows:
stop "depth"-ing if the required vertex count is exceeded
record the shortest found (thus far) path having the correct number of nodes.
Run time may be abysmal, but it should come up with the correct result while using a very reasonable amount of memory.
Interesting problem. Did you discuss using a heuristic graph search (such as A*), adding a penalty for going over or under the node count? This may or may not be admissible, but if it did work, it may be more efficient than keeping a list of all the potential paths.
In fact, you may be able to use backtracking to limit the amount of memory being used for the Dijkstra variation you discussed.
A rough idea of an algorithm:
Let A be the start node, and let S be a set of nodes (plus a path). The invariant is that at the end of step n, S will all nodes that are exactly n steps from A and the paths will be the shortest paths of that length. When n is 0, that set is {A (empty path)}. Given such a set at step n - 1, you get to step n by starting with an empty set S1 and
for each (node X, path P) in S
for each edge E from X to Y in S,
If Y is not in S1, add (Y, P + Y) to S1
If (Y, P1) is in S1, set the path to the shorter of P1 and P + Y
There are only n steps, and each step should take less than max(N, E), which makes the
entire algorithm O(n^3) for a dense graph and O(n^2) for a sparse graph.
This algorith was taken from looking at Dijkstra's, although it is a different algorithm.
let say we want shortest distance from node x to y of k step
simple dp solution would be
A[k][x][y] = min over { A[1][i][k] + A[t-1][k][y] }
k varies from 0 to n-1
A[1][i][j] = r[i][j]; p[1][i][j]=j;
for(t=2; t<=n; t++)
for(i=0; i<n; i++) for(j=0; j<n; j++)
{
A[t][i][j]=BG; p[t][i][j]=-1;
for(k=0; k<n; k++) if(A[1][i][k]<BG && A[t-1][k][j]<BG)
if(A[1][i][k]+A[t-1][k][j] < A[t][i][j])
{
A[t][i][j] = A[1][i][k]+A[t-1][k][j];
p[t][i][j] = k;
}
}
trace back the path
void output(int a, int b, int t)
{
while(t)
{
cout<<a<<" ";
a = p[t][a][b];
t--;
}
cout<<b<<endl;
}