I have this question from Robert Sedgewick's book on algorithms.
Critical edges. An MST edge whose deletion from the graph would cause the
MST weight to increase is called a critical edge. Show how to find all critical edges in a
graph in time proportional to E log E. Note: This question assumes that edge weights
are not necessarily distinct (otherwise all edges in the MST are critical).
Please suggest an algorithm that solves this problem.
One approach I can think of does the job in time E.V.
My approach is to run the kruskal's algorithm.
But whenever we encounter an edge whose insertion in the MST creates a cycle and if that
cycle already contains an edge with the same edge weight, then, the edge already inserted will not be a critical edge (otherwise all other MST edges are critical edges).
Is this algorithm correct? How can I extend this algorithm to do the job in time E log E.
The condition you suggest for when an edge is critical is correct I think. But it's not necessary to actually find a cycle and test each of its edges.
The Kruskal algorithm adds edges in increasing weight order, so the sequence of edge additions can be broken into blocks of equal-weight edge additions. Within each equal-weight block, if there is more than one edge that joins the same two components, then all of these edges are non-critical, because any one of the other edges could be chosen instead. (I say they are all non-critical because we are not actually given a specific MST as part of the input -- if we were then this would identify a particular edge to call non-critical. The edge that Kruskal actually chooses is just an artefact of initial edge ordering or how sorting was implemented.)
But this is not quite sufficient: it might be that after adding all edges of weight 4 or less to the MST, we find that there are 3 weight-5 edges, connecting component pairs (1, 2), (2, 3) and (1, 3). Although no component pair is joined by more than 1 of these 3 edges, we only need (any) 2 of them -- using all 3 would create a cycle.
For each equal-weight block, having weight say w, what we actually need to do is (conceptually) create a new graph in which each component of the MST so far (i.e. using edges having weight < w) is a vertex, and there is an edge between 2 vertices whenever there is a weight-w edge between these components. (This may result in multi-edges.) We then run DFS on each component of this graph to find any cycles, and mark every edge belonging to such a cycle as non-critical. DFS takes O(nEdges) time, so the sum of the DFS times for each block (whose sizes sum to E) will be O(E).
Note that Kruskal's algorithm takes time O(Elog E), not O(E) as you seem to imply -- although people like Bernard Chazelle have gotten close to linear-time MST construction, TTBOMK no one has got there yet! :)
Yes, your algorithm is correct. We can prove that by comparing the execution of Kruskal's algorithm to a similar execution where the cost of some MST edge e is changed to infinity. Until the first execution considers e, both executions are identical. After e, the first execution has one fewer connected component than the second. This condition persists until an edge e' is considered that, in the second execution, joins the components that e would have. Since edge e is the only difference between the forests constructed so far, it must belong to the cycle created by e'. After e', the executions make identical decisions, and the difference in the forests is that the first execution has e, and the second, e'.
One way to implement this algorithm is using a dynamic tree, a data structure that represents a labelled forest. One configuration of this ADT supports the following methods in logarithmic time.
MakeVertex() - constructs and returns a fresh vertex.
Link(u, c, v) - vertices u and v must not be connected. Creates an unmarked edge from vertex u to vertex v with cost c.
Mark(u, v) - vertices u and v must be endpoints of an edge e. Marks e.
Connected(u, v) - indicates whether vertices u and v are connected.
FindMax(u, v) - vertices u and v must be connected. Returns the endpoints of an unmarked edge on the unique path from u to v with maximum cost, together with that cost. The endpoints of this edge are given in the order that they appear on the path.
I make no claim that this is a good algorithm in practice. Dynamic trees, like Swiss Army knives, are versatile but complicated and often not the best tool for the job. I encourage you to think about how to take advantage of the fact that we can wait until all of the edges are processed to figure out what the critical edges are.
Related
Given a G(V,E) weighted(on edges) graph i need to find the number of edges that belong in every MST as well as the number of the edges that belong in at least one but not all and the ones that belong in none.
The graph is given as input in the following form(example):
3 3
1 2 1
1 3 1
2 3 2
First 3 is the number of nodes,second 3 is the number of edges.The following three lines are the edges where first number is where they start,second is where they end and third is the value.
I've thought about running kruskal once to find an MST and then for each edge belonging in G check in(linear?) time if it can be replace an edge in this MST without altering it's overall weight.If it can't it belongs in none.If it can it belongs in one but not all.I can also mark the edges in the first MST(maybe with a second value 1 or 0)and in the end check how many of them could not be replaced.These are the ones belonging in every possible MST. This algorithm is probably O(V^2) and i am not quite sure how to write it in C++.My questions are,could we somehow reduce it's complexity? If i add an edge to the MST how can i check(and implement in C++) if the cycle formed contains an edge that has less weight?
You can do this by adding some extra work to Kruskal's algorithm.
In Kruskal's algorithm, edges with the same weight can be in any order, and the order in which they are actually checked determines which MST you get out of all possible MSTs. For every MST, there is a sort-consistent order of the edges that will produce that tree.
No matter what sort-consistent order is used, the state of the union-find structure will be the same between weights.
If there is only one edge of a specific weight, then it is in every MST if Kruskal's algorithm selects it, because it would be selected with any sort-consistent edge order, and otherwise it is in no MSTs.
If there are multiple edges with the same weight, and Kruskal's algorithm would select at least one of them, then you can pause Kruskal's at that point and make a new (small) graph with just those edges that connect different sets, using the sets that they connect as vertices.
All of those edges are in at least one MST, because Kruskal's might pick them first. Any of those edges that are bridges in the new graph are in every MST, because Kruskal's would select them no matter what. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_(graph_theory)
So, modify Kruskal's algorithm as follows:
When Kruskal's would select an edge, before doing the union, gather and process ALL the non-redundant edges with the same weight.
Make a small graph with those edges using the find() sets they connect as vertices
Use Tarjan's algorithm or equivalent (see the link) to find all the bridges in the graph. Those edges are in ALL MSTs.
The remaining edges in the small graph are in some, but not all, MSTs.
perform all the unions for edges in the small graph and move on to the next weight.
Since bridge-finding can be done in linear time, and every edge is in at most one small graph, the whole algorithm is still O(|V| + |E| log |E|).
Is it possible to perform some sort of pre-processing that would allow to answer the question efficiently (fast)?
The graph is connected, undirected, has no self loops neither parallel edges (a cycle is formed by at least 3 nodes).
Note that this a yes/no query, meaning that I just need to know whether such a cycle exits, which one doesn't matter.
Edit: My progress so far (based on Nursultan hint) and where I'm blocking:
I'm separating the graph into sub-components through articulation points, and then doubling articulation points in each sub-component they originally separated. This came from the following observation: 3 given vertices may belong to a cycle iff they all belong to a component with no articulation points. I have not proved this but I couldn't think of a counter example.
Assuming the observation above is correct (which seems very likely), the problem now is the 3 given vertices in the query may all be articulation points, in which case all of them would belong to several components, which in the worst case could lead to a slow O(n) query time complexity.
Another observation that seem helpful to address the described worst case is: there's at most 1 sub-graph to which 2 given articulation points may both belong to at the same time (I can prove this if needed), the observation easily leads to a worst case pre-processing space and time of O(n^2) (n is number of vertices), versus constant time queries, however O(n^2) preprocessing time is too slow (O(n^2) space is also too greedy). Can preprocessing be improved? a trade off of say log(n) query time expense would be fine.
Let's partition your graph into several subgraphs, which has this property:
Every vertice in each subgraph belongs to some cycle and using this
cycle you can travel to any vertice from this subgraph.
So you can check if three vertices belong to a cycle by checking if they belong to some subgraph. It can be done in O(log V)
So how can we partition such graph?
Partition your graph into subgraphs (http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/bridge-in-a-graph/)
Remove all edges considered as bridges
Now you have several components. Every vertice that belongs to the same component, insert into the same set.
NOTE: As #ALTN mentioned this is not a correct solution. So maybe you must also partition each subgraph in articulation points. http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/articulation-points-or-cut-vertices-in-a-graph/
Having A as the adjacency matrix of the graph. A^l_{i,j} gives you the number of paths from i to j of length l. So A^l_{i,i} are the number of cycles for node i.
Precompute all A^l for l>=3. Let n_1, n_2, n_3 be the nodes. Assuming they are part of the same cycle then there exists a cycle from each of them of the same length. Hence check in the same A^l if A^l_{n_i, n_i} have at least one cycle. They can be in different cycles though. So for each l the before criteria satisfied, see if you can find such d_i, 1 <= i <= 3 between n_1 -> n_2 -> n_3 -> n_1 such that sum(d_i) = l. Since you already computed the set {A^l} doing that is rather easy.
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?
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.
Given an undirected connected graph with weights. w:E->{1,2,3,4,5,6,7} - meaning there is only 7 weights possible.
I need to find a spanning tree using Prim's algorithm in O(n+m) and Kruskal's algorithm in O( m*a(m,n)).
I have no idea how to do this and really need some guidance about how the weights can help me in here.
You can sort edges weights faster.
In Kruskal algorithm you don't need O(M lg M) sort, you just can use count sort (or any other O(M) algorithm). So the final complexity is then O(M) for sorting and O(Ma(m)) for union-find phase. In total it is O(Ma(m)).
For the case of Prim algorithm. You don't need to use heap, you need 7 lists/queues/arrays/anything (with constant time insert and retrieval), one for each weight. And then when you are looking for cheapest outgoing edge you check is one of these lists is nonempty (from the cheapest one) and use that edge. Since 7 is a constant, whole algorithms runs in O(M) time.
As I understand, it is not popular to answer homework assignments, but this could hopefully be usefull for other people than just you ;)
Prim:
Prim is an algorithm for finding a minimum spanning tree (MST), just as Kruskal is.
An easy way to visualize the algorithm, is to draw the graph out on a piece of paper.
Then you create a moveable line (cut) over all the nodes you have selected. In the example below, the set A will be the nodes inside the cut. Then you chose the smallest edge running through the cut, i.e. from a node inside of the line to a node on the outside. Always chose the edge with the lowest weight. After adding the new node, you move the cut, so it contains the newly added node. Then you repeat untill all nodes are within the cut.
A short summary of the algorithm is:
Create a set, A, which will contain the chosen verticies. It will initially contain a random starting node, chosen by you.
Create another set, B. This will initially be empty and used to mark all chosen edges.
Choose an edge E (u, v), that is, an edge from node u to node v. The edge E must be the edge with the smallest weight, which has node u within the set A and v is not inside A. (If there are several edges with equal weight, any can be chosen at random)
Add the edge (u, v) to the set B and v to the set A.
Repeat step 3 and 4 until A = V, where V is the set of all verticies.
The set A and B now describe you spanning tree! The MST will contain the nodes within A and B will describe how they connect.
Kruskal:
Kruskal is similar to Prim, except you have no cut. So you always chose the smallest edge.
Create a set A, which initially is empty. It will be used to store chosen edges.
Chose the edge E with minimum weight from the set E, which is not already in A. (u,v) = (v,u), so you can only traverse the edge one direction.
Add E to A.
Repeat 2 and 3 untill A and E are equal, that is, untill you have chosen all edges.
I am unsure about the exact performance on these algorithms, but I assume Kruskal is O(E log E) and the performance of Prim is based on which data structure you use to store the edges. If you use a binary heap, searching for the smallest edge is faster than if you use an adjacency matrix for storing the minimum edge.
Hope this helps!