Given an undirected graph with positive weights, there are 2 kinds of edges: locked edges and unlocked edges. Determination if a given edge is either locked or unlocked edge takes O(1).
For given two vertices s , t and a positive number k = O(1), how can I find the shortest path between s and t which contains at most k locked edges?
For given two vertices s , t and a positive number k = O(1), how can I find the shortest path between s and t which contains exactly k locked edges?
I'm not sure how can I run Dijkstra algorithm on this graph to find the shortest path between the given vertices, and how can I transform the undirected graph, into an directed one.
You can solve both of your problems by taking k copies of the graph, say G_0, ..., G_k, and modifying each graph so that a locked edge vw in G_i turns into an edge from u in G_i to v in G_{i+1} and from v in G_i to u in G_{i+1}. Then you can do single-source shortest paths from your root in G_0. The second query is solved by reading off the distance to the target in G_k, while the first is solved by reading off the minimum distance in any G_i to the target.
Related
I'm attending a master course in Algorithm for Bioinformatics, and I'm trying to solve some exercise in order to pass the exam. I'm stuck in this problem and I don't understand in which way I have to solve it. Could you help?
Thanks the next few lines are the exercise:
Argue whether you believe that the following problem has a polynomial time algorithm
Input: A complete undirected graph G with non-negative weights on the edges, and a weight bound W.
Solution: A simple path with the maximum possible number of vertices among all paths in G of weight < W.
This is NP-Hard, and thus there is no known polynomial solution to it.
It is easy to reduce this problem from the Hamiltonian Path problem1.
Given a graph G=(V, E), create:
G' = (V, E', w)
Where:
E' = VxV (all edges)
w(u,v) = 1 if (u,v) is in E
2 otherwise
Now, G' has a valid solution with |V| maximal weight if and only if G is hamiltonian.
(->) If 'G' is hamiltonian, then there is a path v1->v2->...->vn. Weights of all these edges is 1, so total weight in G' is |V|-1, making it maximal and valid.
(<-) If there is a path in G' with value<|V|, and we know it is maximal - so if it goes through all vertices - it cannot have edges with w(u,v)=2 (otherwise it will exceed the maximal weight). Then, this path is hamiltonian in G.
(1) A hamiltonian path is a simple path that goes through all vertices in the graph. If a graph has such a path, we call it a hamiltonian graph. The Hamiltonian Path Problem is finding if a graph is hamiltonian or not.
If I had to give an algorithm in O|V|3| that takes as input a directed graph with positive edge lengths and returns the length of the shortest cycle in the graph (if the graph is acyclic, it should say so). I know that it will be:
Let G be a graph, define a matrix Dij which stores the shortest path from vertex i to j for any pair of vertices u,v. There can be two shortest paths between u and v. The length of the cycle is Duv+ Dvu. This then is enough to compote the minimum of the Duv+Dvu for any given pair of vertices u and v.
Could I write this in a way to make it at most O(nm log n) (where n is the number of vertices and m is the number of edges) instead of O|V|3|?
Yes, in fact this problem can be solved in O(nm) according to a conference paper by Orlin and Sedeño-Noda (2017), titled An O(nm) time algorithm for finding the min length directed cycle in a graph:
In this paper, we introduce an O(nm) time algorithm to determine the minimum length directed cycle (also called the "minimum weight directed cycle") in a directed network with n nodes and m arcs and with no negative length directed cycles.
I have a question which I was asked in some past exams at my school and I can't find an answer to it.
Is it possible knowing the final matrix after running the Johnson Algorithm on a graph, to know if it previously had negative cycles or not? Why?
Johnson Algorithm
Johnson's Algorithm is a technique that is able to compute shortest paths on graphs. Which is able to handle negative weights on edges, as long as there does not exist a cycle with negative weight.
The algorithm consists of (from Wikipedia):
First, a new node q is added to the graph, connected by zero-weight edges to each of the other nodes.
Second, the Bellman–Ford algorithm is used, starting from the new vertex q, to find for each vertex v the minimum weight h(v) of a path from q to v. If this step detects a negative cycle, the algorithm is terminated.
Next the edges of the original graph are reweighted using the values computed by the Bellman–Ford algorithm: an edge from u to v, having length w(u, v), is given the new length w(u,v) + h(u) − h(v).
Finally, q is removed, and Dijkstra's algorithm is used to find the shortest paths from each node s to every other vertex in the reweighted graph.
If I understood your question correctly, which should have been as follows:
Is it possible knowing the final pair-wise distances matrix after running the Johnson Algorithm on a graph, to know if it originally had any negative-weight edges or not? Why?
As others commented here, we must first assume the graph has no negative weight cycles, since otherwise the Johnson algorithm halts and returns False (due to the internal Bellman-Form detection of negative weight cycles).
The answer then is that if any negative weight edge e = (u, v) exists in the graph, then the shortest weighted distance between u --> v cannot be > 0 (since at the worst case you can travel the negative edge e between those vertices).
Therefore, at least one of the edges had negative weight in the original graph iff any value in the final pair-wise distances is < 0
If the question is supposed to be interpreted as:
Is it possible, knowing the updated non-negative edge weights after running the Johnson Algorithm on a graph, to know if it originally had any negative-weight edges or not? Why?
Then no, you can't tell.
Running the Johnson algorithm on a graph that has only non-negative edge weights will leave the weights unchanged. This is because all of the shortest distances q -> v will be 0. Therefore, given the edge weights after running Johnson, the initial weights could have been exactly the same.
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've been studying all-pair shortest path algorithms recently such as Floyd-Warshall and Johnson's algorithm, and I've noticed that these algorithms produce correct solutions even when a graph contains negative weight edges (but not negative weight cycles). For comparison, Dijkstra's algorithm (which is single-source shortest path) does not work for negative weight edges. What makes the all-pair shortest path algorithms work with negative weights?
Floyd Warshall's all pairs shortest paths algorithm works for graphs with negative edge weights because the correctness of the algorithm does not depend on edge's weight being non-negative, while the correctness of Dijkstra's algorithm is based on this fact.
Correctness of Dijkstra's algorithm:
We have 2 sets of vertices at any step of the algorithm. Set A consists of the vertices to which we have computed the shortest paths. Set B consists of the remaining vertices.
Inductive Hypothesis: At each step we will assume that all previous iterations are correct.
Inductive Step: When we add a vertex V to the set A and set the distance to be dist[V], we must prove that this distance is optimal. If this is not optimal then there must be some other path to the vertex V that is of shorter length.
Suppose this some other path goes through some vertex X in the set B.
Now, since dist[V] <= dist[X] , therefore any other path to V will be atleast dist[V] length, unless the graph has negative edge lengths.
Correctness of Floyd Warshall's algorithm:
Any path from vertex S to vertex T, will go through any other vertex U of the graph. Thus the shortest path from S to T can be computed as the
min( shortest_path(S to U) + shortest_path(U to T)) for all vertices U in the graph.
As you can see there is no dependence on the graph's edges to be non-negative as long as the sub calls compute the paths correctly. And the sub calls compute the paths correctly as long as the base cases have been properly initialized.
Dijkstra's Algorithm doesn't work for negative weight edge because it is based on the greedy strategy(an assumption) that once a vertex v was added to the set S, d[v] contains the minimum distance possible.
But if the last vertex in Q was added to S and it has some outgoing negative weight edges. The effects on the distance that caused by negative edges won't count.
However, all pairs shortest paths algorithm will capture those updates.