Let G = (V, E) be a weighted, connected and undirected graph and let T be a minimum spanning tree. Let e be any edge not in E (and has a weight W(e)).
Prove or disprove:
T U {e} is an edge set that contains a minimum spanning tree of G' = (V, E U {e}).
Well, it sounds true to me, so I decided to prove it but I just get stuck every time...
For example, if e is the new edge with minimum weight, who can promise us that the edges in T weren't chosen in a bad way that would prevent us from obtaining a new minimum weight without the 'help' of other edges in E - T ?
I would appreciate any help,
Thanks in advance.
Let [a(1), a(2), ..., a(n-1)] be a sequence of edges selected from E to construct MST of G by Kruskal's algorithm (in the order they were selected - weight(a(i)) <= weight(a(i + 1))).
Let's now consider how Kruskal's Algorithm behaves being given as input E' = E U {e}.
Let i = min{i: weight(e) < weight(a(i))}. Firstly algorithm decides to choose edges [a(1), ..., a(i - 1)] (e hasn't been processed yet, so it behaves the same). Then it need to decide on e - if e is dropped, solution for E' will be the same as for E. So let's suppose that first i edges selected by algorithm are [a(1), ..., a(i - 1), e] - I will call this new sequence a'. Algorithm continues - as long as its following selections (for j > i) satisfy a'(j) = a(j - 1) we are cool. There are two scenarios that break such great streak (let's say streak breaks at index k + 1):
1) Algorithm selects some edge e' that is not in T, and weight(e') < weight(a(k+1)). By now a' sequence is:
[a(1), ..., a(i-1), e, a(i), a(i+1), ..., a(k-1), a(k), e']
But if it was possible to append e' to this list it would be also possible to append it to [a(1), ..., a(k-1), a(k)]. But Kruskal's algorithm didn't do it when looking for MST for G. That leads to contradiction.
2) Algorithm politely selected:
[a(1), ..., a(i-1), e, a(i), a(i+1), ..., a(k-1), a(k)]
but decided to drop edge a(k+1). But if e was not present in the list algorithm would decide to append a(k+1). That means that in graph (V, {a(1), ..., a(k)}) edge a(k+1) would connect the same components as edge e. And that means that after considering by algorithm edge a(k + 1) in case of both G and G' the division into connected components (determined by set of selected edges) is the same. So after processing a(k+1) algorithm will proceed in the same way in both cases.
When ever a edge is add to a graph without adding a node , then that edge creates a cycle in minimum spanning tree of graph, cycle length may vary from 2 to n where n= no of nodes in graph.
T = Minimum spanning tree of G
Now to find the MST for (T + added edge) , we have to just remove one edge from that cycle .. so remove that edge which has maximum weight.
So T' always comes from T U {e}.
And if you are thinking that this doesn't prove that new MST will be an edge set of T U {e} then analyse Kruskal algorithim for for new graph. i.e. if e is of minimum weight it must have been selected for MST acc to Kruskal algorithim and same here if it is minimum it can not be removed from cycle.
Related
remarks：c' is logc with base 17
MST means (minimum spanning tree)
it's easy to prove the conclusion is correct when we use linear function to transform the cost of every edge.
But log function is not a linear function ,I could not understand why this conclusion is correct。
Supplementary notes：
I did not consider specific algorithms, such as the greedy algorithm. I simply consider the relationship between the sum of the weights of the two trees after transformation.
Numerically if (a + b) > (c + d) , (log a + log b) maybe not > ( logc + logd) .
If a tree generated by G has two edge a and b ,another tree generated by G has c and d，a + b < c + d and the first tree is a MST,but in transformed graph G' ,the sum of weights of edges of second tree may be smaller.
Because of this, I want to construct a counterexample based on "if (a + b)> (c + d), (log a + log b) maybe not> (logc + logd) ", but I failed.
One way to characterize when a spanning tree T is a minimum spanning tree is that, for every edge e not in T, the cycle formed by e and edges of T (the fundamental cycle of e with respect to T) has no edge more expensive than e. Using this characterization, I hope you see how to prove that transforming the costs with any increasing function preserves minimum spanning trees.
There's a one line proof that this condition is necessary. If the fundamental cycle contained a more expensive edge, we could replace it with e and get a spanning tree that costs less than T.
It's less obvious that this condition is sufficient, since at first glance it looks like we're trying to prove global optimality from a local optimality condition. To prove this statement, let T be a spanning tree that satisfies the condition, let T' be a minimum spanning tree, and let G' be the graph whose edges are the union of the edges of T and T'. Run Kruskal's algorithm on G', breaking ties by favoring edges in T over edges not in T. Let T'' be the resulting minimum spanning tree in G'. Since T' is a spanning tree in G', the cost of T'' is not greater than T', hence T'' is a minimum spanning tree in G as well as G'.
Suppose to the contrary that T'' ≠ T. Then there exists an edge in T but not in T''. Let e be the first such edge considered by Kruskal's algorithm. At the time that e was considered, it formed a cycle C in the edges that had been selected from T''. Since T is acyclic, C \ T is nonempty. By the tie breaking criterion, we know that every edge in C \ T costs less than e. Observing that some edge e' in C \ T must have one endpoint in each of the two connected components of T \ {e}, we infer that the fundamental cycle of e' with respect to T contains e, which violates the local optimality condition. In conclusion, T = T'', hence is a minimum spanning tree in G.
If you want a deeper dive, this logic gets abstracted out in the theory of matroids.
Well, its pretty easy to understand...let's see if I can break it down for you:
c` = log_17(c) // here 17 is base
log may not be linear function...but we can say that:
log_b(x) > log_b(y) if x > y and b > 1 (and of course x > 0 and y > 0)
I hope you get the equation I've written...In words in means, consider a base "b" such that b > 1, then log_b(x) would be greater than log_b(y) if x > y.
So, if we apply this rule in your costs of MST of G, then we see that the edges those were selected for G, would still produce the least possible edges to construct MST G' if c' = log_17(c) // here 17 is base.
UPDATE: As I can see you've problem understanding the proof, I'm elaborating a bit:
I guess, you know MST construction is greedy. We're going to use kruskal's algo to proof why it is correct.(In case, you don't know, how kruskal's algo works, you can read it somewhere, or just google it, you'll find millions of resources). Now, Let me write some steps of kruskal's edge selection for MST of G:
// the following edges are sorted by cost..i.e. c_0 <= c_1 <= c_2 ....
c_0: A, F // here, edge c_0 connects A, F, we've to take the edge in MST
c_1: A, B // it is also taken to construct MST
c_2: B, R // it is also taken to construct MST
c_3: A, R // we won't take it to construct to MST, cause (A, R) already connected through A -> B -> R
c_4: F, X // it is also taken to construct MST
...
...
so on...
Now, when constructing MST of G', we've to select edges which are in the form c' = log_17(c) // where 17 is base
Now, if we convert the edges using log of base 17, then c_0 becomes c_0', c_1 becomes c_1' and so on...
But we, know that:
log_b(x) > log_b(y) if x > y and b > 1 (and of course x > 0 and y > 0)
So, we may say that,
log_17(c_0) <= log_17(c_1), cause c_0 <= c_1
in general,
log_17(c_i) <= log_17(c_j), where i <= j
And now, we may say:
c_0` <= c_1` <= c_2` <= c_3` <= ....
So, the edge selection process to construct MST of G' would be:
// the following edges are sorted by cost..i.e. c_0` <= c_1` <= c_2` ....
c_0`: A, F // here, edge c_0` connects A, F, we've to take the edge in MST
c_1`: A, B // it is also taken to construct MST
c_2`: B, R // it is also taken to construct MST
c_3`: A, R // we won't take it to construct to MST, cause (A, R) already connected through A -> B -> R
c_4`: F, X // it is also taken to construct MST
...
...
so on...
Which is same as MST of G...
That proves the theorem ultimately....
I hope you get it...if not ask me in the comment what is not clear to you...
I am studying algorithms, and I have seen an exercise like this
I can overcome this problem with exponential time but. I don't know how to prove this linear time O(E+V)
I will appreciate any help.
Let G be the graph where the minimum spanning tree T is embedded; let A and B be the two trees remaining after (u,v) is removed from T.
Premise P: Select minimum weight edge (x,y) from G - (u,v) that reconnects A and B. Then T' = A + B + (x,y) is a MST of G - (u,v).
Proof of P: It's obvious that T' is a tree. Suppose it were not minimum. Then there would be a MST - call it M - of smaller weight. And either M contains (x,y), or it doesn't.
If M contains (x,y), then it must have the form A' + B' + (x,y) where A' and B' are minimum weight trees that span the same vertices as A and B. These can't have weight smaller than A and B, otherwise T would not have been an MST. So M is not smaller than T' after all, a contradiction; M can't exist.
If M does not contain (x,y), then there is some other path P from x to y in M. One or more edges of P pass from a vertex in A to another in B. Call such an edge c. Now, c has weight at least that of (x,y), else we would have picked it instead of (x,y) to form T'. Note P+(x,y) is a cycle. Consequently, M - c + (x,y) is also a spanning tree. If c were of greater weight than (x,y) then this new tree would have smaller weight than M. This contradicts the assumption that M is a MST. Again M can't exist.
Since in either case, M can't exist, T' must be a MST. QED
Algorithm
Traverse A and color all its vertices Red. Similarly label B's vertices Blue. Now traverse the edge list of G - (u,v) to find a minimum weight edge connecting a Red vertex with a Blue. The new MST is this edge plus A and B.
When you remove one of the edges then the MST breaks into two parts, lets call them a and b, so what you can do is iterate over all vertices from the part a and look for all adjacent edges, if any of the edges forms a link between the part a and part b you have found the new MST.
Pseudocode :
for(all vertices in part a){
u = current vertex;
for(all adjacent edges of u){
v = adjacent vertex of u for the current edge
if(u and v belong to different part of the MST) found new MST;
}
}
Complexity is O(V + E)
Note : You can keep a simple array to check if vertex is in part a of the MST or part b.
Also note that in order to get the O(V + E) complexity, you need to have an adjacency list representation of the graph.
Let's say you have graph G' after removing the edge. G' consists have two connected components.
Let each node in the graph have a componentID. Set the componentID for all the nodes based on which component they belong to. This can be done with a simple BFS for example on G'. This is an O(V) operation as G' only has V nodes and V-2 edges.
Once all the nodes have been flagged, iterate over all unused edges and find the one with the least weight that connects the two components (componentIDs of the two nodes will be different). This is an O(E) operation.
Thus the total runtime is O(V+E).
I'm pretty sure this problem is P and not NP, but I'm having difficulty coming up with a polynomially bound algorithm to solve it.
You can :
check that number of edges in the graph is n(n-1)/2.
check that each vertice is connected to exaclty n-1 distinct vertices.
This will run in O(V²), which is polynomial.
Hope it helped.
Here's an O(|E|) algorithm that also has a small constant.
It's trivial to enumerate every edge in a complete graph. So all you need to do is scan your edge list and verify that every such edge exists.
For each edge (i, j), let f(i, j) = i*|V| + j. Assuming vertices are numbered 0 to |V|-1.
Let bitvec be a bit vector of length |V|2, initialized to 0.
For each edge (i, j), set bitvec[f(i, j)] = 1.
G is a complete graph if and only if every element of bitvec == 1.
This algorithm not only touches E once, but it's also completely vectorizable if you have a scatter instruction. That also means it's trivial to parallelize.
Here is an O(E) algorithm:
Use O(E) as it is input time, to scan the graph
Meanwhile, record each vertex p's degree, increase degree only if the neighbor is not p itself (self-connecting edge) and is not a vertex q where p and q has another edge counted already (multiple edge), these checking can be done in O(1)
Check if all vertex's degree is |V|-1, this step is O(V), if Yes then it is a complete graph
Total is O(E)
For a given graph G = (V,E), check for each pair u, v in the V, and see if edge (u,v) is in E.
The total number of u, v pairs are |V|*(|V|-1)/2. As a result, with a time complexity of O(|V|^2), you can check and see if a graph is complete or not.
Love some guidance on this problem:
G is a directed acyclic graph. You want to move from vertex c to vertex z. Some edges reduce your profit and some increase your profit. How do you get from c to z while maximizing your profit. What is the time complexity?
Thanks!
The problem has an optimal substructure. To find the longest path from vertex c to vertex z, we first need to find the longest path from c to all the predecessors of z. Each problem of these is another smaller subproblem (longest path from c to a specific predecessor).
Lets denote the predecessors of z as u1,u2,...,uk and dist[z] to be the longest path from c to z then dist[z]=max(dist[ui]+w(ui,z))..
Here is an illustration with 3 predecessors omitting the edge set weights:
So to find the longest path to z we first need to find the longest path to its predecessors and take the maximum over (their values plus their edges weights to z).
This requires whenever we visit a vertex u, all of u's predecessors must have been analyzed and computed.
So the question is: for any vertex u, how to make sure that once we set dist[u], dist[u] will never be changed later on? Put it in another way: how to make sure that we have considered all paths from c to u before considering any edge originating at u?
Since the graph is acyclic, we can guarantee this condition by finding a topological sort over the graph. topological sort is like a chain of vertices where all edges point left to right. So if we are at vertex vi then we have considered all paths leading to vi and have the final value of dist[vi].
The time complexity: topological sort takes O(V+E). In the worst case where z is a leaf and all other vertices point to it, we will visit all the graph edges which gives O(V+E).
Let f(u) be the maximum profit you can get going from c to u in your DAG. Then you want to compute f(z). This can be easily computed in linear time using dynamic programming/topological sorting.
Initialize f(u) = -infinity for every u other than c, and f(c) = 0. Then, proceed computing the values of f in some topological order of your DAG. Thus, as the order is topological, for every incoming edge of the node being computed, the other endpoints are calculated, so just pick the maximum possible value for this node, i.e. f(u) = max(f(v) + cost(v, u)) for each incoming edge (v, u).
Its better to use Topological Sorting instead of Bellman Ford since its DAG.
Source:- http://www.utdallas.edu/~sizheng/CS4349.d/l-notes.d/L17.pdf
EDIT:-
G is a DAG with negative edges.
Some edges reduce your profit and some increase your profit
Edges - increase profit - positive value
Edges - decrease profit -
negative value
After TS, for each vertex U in TS order - relax each outgoing edge.
dist[] = {-INF, -INF, ….}
dist[c] = 0 // source
for every vertex u in topological order
if (u == z) break; // dest vertex
for every adjacent vertex v of u
if (dist[v] < (dist[u] + weight(u, v))) // < for longest path = max profit
dist[v] = dist[u] + weight(u, v)
ans = dist[z];
Let G = (V, E) be a weighted, connected and undirected graph. Let T1 and T2 be 2 different MST's. Suppose we can write E = (A1 U B U A2) such that:
B is the intersection of the edges of T1 and T2, and
A1 = T1 - B
A2 = T2 - B
Assuming that every MST T in G contains all the edges of B, find an algorithm that decides whether there is a MST T that contains at least one edge in A1 and at least one edge in A2.
Edit: I've dropped the part that was here. I think that it does more harm than good.
you should sort your edge that the red edge is prefer to blue edge for choose.then you can use any MST algorithm same as Prim's algorithm :
If a graph is empty then we are done immediately. Thus, we assume
otherwise. The algorithm starts with a tree consisting of a single
vertex, and continuously increases its size one edge at a time, until
it spans all vertices. Input: A non-empty connected weighted graph
with vertices V and edges E (the weights can be negative). Initialize:
Vnew = {x}, where x is an arbitrary node (starting point) from V, Enew
= {} Repeat until Vnew = V: Choose an edge {u, v} with minimal weight such that u is in Vnew and v is not (if there are multiple edges with
the same weight, any of them may be picked) Add v to Vnew, and {u, v}
to Enew Output: Vnew and Enew describe a minimal spanning tree