Suppose we are given a graph G and a spanning tree T of it. How can we check that if this spanning tree is a MST or not?
I suggest that for each edge i that is not in T, all edges j on the unique path of T from one end of i to the other end, we must have w_i >= w_j
You want to check that for each edge (u, v) not in the MST, the path from u to v in the MST has no edge with weight larger than that of (u, v). For a single vertex in the tree, you can use a single BFS or DFS to find the largest-weight edge on the path to all other nodes, so this gives an O(n2) algorithm (n times O(n) search). You can probably do better by not starting from scratch for each vertex. That said, it may be more efficient to just calculate an MST and see if the sum of all edge weights is the same. As mentioned by #Niklas in the comments, there are linear time methods for verifying an MST, but they seem to be significantly more involved.
Related
In a weighted undirected graph, I need to modify Kruskal's algorithm to find the MST conditional to the fact that it includes a given edge 'e' in O(m log n) time. How can I do that?
Consider kruskal's algorithm:
sort all edges in increasing order of edge weight
for every edge from u->v with weight w in the list:
if u and v are not connected, take this edge
This algorithm at any step does not consider the graph to be "individual" nodes; rather, they are all components that can be connected by any arbitrary node within the component. Thus, if we want to force some edges to be taken in the MST, we can simply connect them before running kruskal's, and remove the edge(s) forced from the edge list provided to kruskal's.
I am having problem with shortest path in directed weighted graph. I know Dijkstra, BFS, DFS. However, I have a set of vertices S for starting points and a set of vertices E to end. S and E doesn't overlap. So how can I find the set of edges with minimal sum of edge weight? The edge set doesn't have to include all vertices in S, but have to reach all vertices in E. Should I start with Dijkstra on all permutation of {Si, Ei} and optimize or I miss any important algorithm I should know? Or even I am over-thinking....
If I understand you correctly, you want to find the tree of minimal weight in the graph that contains all the vertices of E and at least one vertex from S.
The problem is called general Steiner tree, and it is NP-hard. So the best you can probably hope for is an exponential-time algorithm or some kind of approximation (the minimum spanning tree of the whole graph comes to mind, maybe after removing some unneeded subtrees).
There is a simple DP solution that works in O(2^n * (n + m)): Let f(S) be the cost of the minimum tree in the graph that spans all the nodes in S. It can be shown that there is such a tree T such that the weight of T \ {x} is f(S \ {x}) for some x, so the transition can be done in O(n + m).
Given an undirected and connected graph G(V,E) with weight function w:E->R, an edge e(u,v) belongs to E. Which algorithm that runs in linear run-time complexity can assure if there's a minimal spanning tree that contains the edge e?
Perform depth-first search starting from u and ignoring any edge with weight equal to weight of given edge or heavier. If DFS completes without visiting v, this means there is no cycle where given edge is the heaviest edge, therefore given edge is contained in some minimal spanning tree.
This is asking you to implement Prim's Minimum Spanning Tree twice.
The first time run the algorithm as normal. Make a note of the weight of the mst.
The second time, instead of starting with an empty tree as Prim's algorithm normally does, start with the nodes u and v already on the tree -- which is the same as having edge e(u,v). Then continue building the mst.
at the end if the second mst is the same weight as the first mst, then edge e(u,v) can be in a mst. If not, there is a lighter mst.
By the way, 2*O(n) is still O(n)
Here is an excise
Suppose we are given the minimum spanning tree T of a given graph G
(with n vertices and m edges) and a new edge e = (u, v) of weight w
that we will add to G. Give an efficient algorithm to find the minimum
spanning tree of the graph G + e. Your algorithm should run in O(n)
time to receive full credit.
I have this idea:
In the MST, just find out the path between u and v. Then find the edge (along the path) with maximum weight; if the maximum weight is bigger than w, then remove that edge from the MST and add the new edge to the MST.
The tricky part is how to do this in O(n) time and it is also I get stuck.
The question is that how the MST is stored. In normal Prim's algorithm, the MST is stored as a parent array, i.e., each element is the parent of the according vertex.
So suppose the excise give me a parent array indicating the MST, how can I release the above algorithm in O(n)?
First, how can I identify the path between u and v from the parent array? I can have two ancestor arrays for u and v, then check on the common ancestor, then I can get the path, although in backwards. I think for this part, to find the common ancestor, at least I have to do it in O(n^2), right?
Then, we have the path. But we still need to find the weight of each edge along the path. Since I suppose the graph will use adjacency-list for Prim's algorithm, we have to do O(m) (m is the number of edges) to locate each weight of the edge.
...
So I don't see it is possible to do the algorithm in O(n). Am I wrong?
The idea you have is right. Note that, finding the path between u and v is O(n). I'll assume you have a parent array identifying the MST. tracking the path (for max edge) from u to v or u to root vertex should take only O(n). If you reach root vertex, just track the path from v to u or root vertex.
Now that you have the path from u -> u1 ... -> max_path_vert1 -> max_path_vert2 -> ... -> v, remove the edge max_path_vert1->max_path_vert2 (assuming this is greater than the added edge) and reverse the parents for u->...->max_path_vert1 and mark parent[u] = v.
Edit: More explanation for clarity
Note that, in MST there will be exactly one path between any pair of vertices. So, if you can trace from u->y and v->y, you have only traced through atmost n vertices. If you traced more than n vertices that means you visited a vertex twice, which will not happen in an MST. Ok, now hopefully you're convinced it's O(n) to track from u->y and v->y. Once you have these paths, you have established a path from u->v. Do you see how? I'm assuming this is an undirected graph, since finding MST for directed graph is a different concept in itself. For undirected graph, when you have a path from x->y you have a path from y-x. So, u->y->v exist. You don't even need to trace back from y->v, since weights for v->y will be same as that of y->v. Just find the edge with the maximum weight when you trace from u->y and v->y.
Now for finding edge weights in O(1); how are you storing your current weights? Adjacency list or adjacency matrix? For O(1) access, store it the way parent vertex array is stored. So, weight[v] = weight(v, parent[v]). So, you'll have O(1) access. Hope this helps.
Well - your solution is correct.
But regarding implementation, I dont see why you are using G instead of T to find the path between u and v. Using any search traversal in T for the path between u and v, will give you O(n). - That is, you can assume that v is the root and performs a Depth-First Search algorithm [in this case, you will have to assume all neighbors of v as children] - and stop the DFS once you find u - then, the nodes in the stack corresponds to the path between u and v.
It is easy afterward to find the cost of each edge in the path (O(n)), and it is easy as well to delete/add edges. In total O(n).
Does that help somehow ?
Or maybe you are getting O(n^2) - according to my understanding - because you access the children of a vertex v in T in O(n) -- Here, you have to present your data structure as a mapped array so that the cost is reduced to O(1). [for instace, {a,b,c,u,w}(vertices) -> {0,1,2,3,4}(indices of vertices).
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.