I have a cyclic directed graph and I was wondering if there is any algorithm (preferably an optimum one) to make a list of common descendants between any two nodes? Something almost opposite of what Lowest Common Ancestor (LCA) does.
As user1990169 suggests, you can compute the set of vertices reachable from each of the starting vertices using DFS and then return the intersection.
If you're planning to do this repeatedly on the same graph, then it might be worthwhile first to compute and contract the strong components to supervertices representing a set of vertices. As a side effect, you can get a topological order on supervertices. This allows a data-parallel algorithm to compute reachability from multiple starting vertices at the same time. Initialize all vertex labels to {}. For each start vertex v, set the label to {v}. Now, sweep all vertices w in topological order, updating the label of w's out-neighbors x by setting it to the union of x's label and w's label. Use bitsets for a compact, efficient representation of the sets. The downside is that we cannot prune as with single reachability computations.
I would recommend using a DFS (depth first search).
For each input node
Create a collection to store reachable nodes
Perform a DFS to find reachable nodes
When a node is reached
If it's already stored stop searching that path // Prevent cycles
Else store it and continue
Find the intersection between all collections of nodes
Note: You could easily use BFS (breadth first search) instead with the same logic if you wanted.
When you implement this keep in mind there will be a few special cases you can look for to further optimize your search such as:
If an input node doesn't have any vertices then there are no common nodes
If one input node (A) reaches another input node (B), then A can reach everything B can. This means the algorithm wouldn't have to be ran on B.
etc.
Why not just reverse the direction of the edge and use LCA?
This is a homework question so I'll be glad to get a hint.
I have a graph G, where each vertex v has a weight w(v).
S(G) is the sum of weights of the all the vertexes in the graph.
I need to find an algorithm that determines if there is a group of vertexes A, when G[A] (G's graph induced by A) is a tree, that conducts S(G[A])=S(G[V\A]).
I know that i should go over all vertexes, sum their weights, and then try to find a tree that reaches half of that sum, but i'm not sure how exactly. I'm pretty sure it involves dynamic programming.
Thank you very much,
Yaron.
This is not really a dynamic programming problem, it is a search problem, the key being that you are trying to find a tree.
If you think about it, you already know an algorithm or two that will will tell you the minimum spanning tree. By the same logic, you can make a maximum spanning tree. For example, if you find the maximum spanning tree and the sum of its weights is less than 50% (or whatever the target value is), then you know the problem is impossible.
So, following this logic, you can go along as though you were making a spanning tree and reject any path that goes over the target amount. This strategy is known as "branch and bound". Let's imagine how we could do this with Kruskal's algorithm:
(1) you will have a set of trees; start with each vertex as a separate "tree"
(2) maintain a queue of edges you have not used yet, sorted from least to greatest
(3) maintain a stack of edges that you have used
(4) look for an edge that (a) connects two different trees, and (b) the sum of the two trees is less than (or equal to the target value, ie a solution)
(4a) if no such edge exists, then pop a value from the stack (remove the edge and seperate the trees) and try the next value in the queue
(4b) if such an edge does exist, then add the edge (combine two of the trees), push it onto the stack and go back to step 4
Obviously there are different ways to do the same process. For example, you could use a variant of Prim's algorithm as well.
Given an undirected graph, I want to generate all subgraphs which are trees of size N, where size refers to the number of edges in the tree.
I am aware that there are a lot of them (exponentially many at least for graphs with constant connectivity) - but that's fine, as I believe the number of nodes and edges makes this tractable for at least smallish values of N (say 10 or less).
The algorithm should be memory-efficient - that is, it shouldn't need to have all graphs or some large subset of them in memory at once, since this is likely to exceed available memory even for relatively small graphs. So something like DFS is desirable.
Here's what I'm thinking, in pseudo-code, given the starting graph graph and desired length N:
Pick any arbitrary node, root as a starting point and call alltrees(graph, N, root)
alltrees(graph, N, root)
given that node root has degree M, find all M-tuples with integer, non-negative values whose values sum to N (for example, for 3 children and N=2, you have (0,0,2), (0,2,0), (2,0,0), (0,1,1), (1,0,1), (1,1,0), I think)
for each tuple (X1, X2, ... XM) above
create a subgraph "current" initially empty
for each integer Xi in X1...XM (the current tuple)
if Xi is nonzero
add edge i incident on root to the current tree
add alltrees(graph with root removed, N-1, node adjacent to root along edge i)
add the current tree to the set of all trees
return the set of all trees
This finds only trees containing the chosen initial root, so now remove this node and call alltrees(graph with root removed, N, new arbitrarily chosen root), and repeat until the size of the remaining graph < N (since no trees of the required size will exist).
I forgot also that each visited node (each root for some call of alltrees) needs to be marked, and the set of children considered above should only be the adjacent unmarked children. I guess we need to account for the case where no unmarked children exist, yet depth > 0, this means that this "branch" failed to reach the required depth, and cannot form part of the solution set (so the whole inner loop associated with that tuple can be aborted).
So will this work? Any major flaws? Any simpler/known/canonical way to do this?
One issue with the algorithm outlined above is that it doesn't satisfy the memory-efficient requirement, as the recursion will hold large sets of trees in memory.
This needs an amount of memory that is proportional to what is required to store the graph. It will return every subgraph that is a tree of the desired size exactly once.
Keep in mind that I just typed it into here. There could be bugs. But the idea is that you walk the nodes one at a time, for each node searching for all trees that include that node, but none of the nodes that were searched previously. (Because those have already been exhausted.) That inner search is done recursively by listing edges to nodes in the tree, and for each edge deciding whether or not to include it in your tree. (If it would make a cycle, or add an exhausted node, then you can't include that edge.) If you include it your tree then the used nodes grow, and you have new possible edges to add to your search.
To reduce memory use, the edges that are left to look at is manipulated in place by all of the levels of the recursive call rather than the more obvious approach of duplicating that data at each level. If that list was copied, your total memory usage would get up to the size of the tree times the number of edges in the graph.
def find_all_trees(graph, tree_length):
exhausted_node = set([])
used_node = set([])
used_edge = set([])
current_edge_groups = []
def finish_all_trees(remaining_length, edge_group, edge_position):
while edge_group < len(current_edge_groups):
edges = current_edge_groups[edge_group]
while edge_position < len(edges):
edge = edges[edge_position]
edge_position += 1
(node1, node2) = nodes(edge)
if node1 in exhausted_node or node2 in exhausted_node:
continue
node = node1
if node1 in used_node:
if node2 in used_node:
continue
else:
node = node2
used_node.add(node)
used_edge.add(edge)
edge_groups.append(neighbors(graph, node))
if 1 == remaining_length:
yield build_tree(graph, used_node, used_edge)
else:
for tree in finish_all_trees(remaining_length -1
, edge_group, edge_position):
yield tree
edge_groups.pop()
used_edge.delete(edge)
used_node.delete(node)
edge_position = 0
edge_group += 1
for node in all_nodes(graph):
used_node.add(node)
edge_groups.append(neighbors(graph, node))
for tree in finish_all_trees(tree_length, 0, 0):
yield tree
edge_groups.pop()
used_node.delete(node)
exhausted_node.add(node)
Assuming you can destroy the original graph or make a destroyable copy I came up to something that could work but could be utter sadomaso because I did not calculate its O-Ntiness. It probably would work for small subtrees.
do it in steps, at each step:
sort the graph nodes so you get a list of nodes sorted by number of adjacent edges ASC
process all nodes with the same number of edges of the first one
remove those nodes
For an example for a graph of 6 nodes finding all size 2 subgraphs (sorry for my total lack of artistic expression):
Well the same would go for a bigger graph, but it should be done in more steps.
Assuming:
Z number of edges of most ramificated node
M desired subtree size
S number of steps
Ns number of nodes in step
assuming quicksort for sorting nodes
Worst case:
S*(Ns^2 + MNsZ)
Average case:
S*(NslogNs + MNs(Z/2))
Problem is: cannot calculate the real omicron because the nodes in each step will decrease depending how is the graph...
Solving the whole thing with this approach could be very time consuming on a graph with very connected nodes, however it could be paralelized, and you could do one or two steps, to remove dislocated nodes, extract all subgraphs, and then choose another approach on the remainder, but you would have removed a lot of nodes from the graph so it could decrease the remaining run time...
Unfortunately this approach would benefit the GPU not the CPU, since a LOT of nodes with the same number of edges would go in each step.... and if parallelization is not used this approach is probably bad...
Maybe an inverse would go better with the CPU, sort and proceed with nodes with the maximum number of edges... those will be probably less at start, but you will have more subgraphs to extract from each node...
Another possibility is to calculate the least occuring egde count in the graph and start with nodes that have it, that would alleviate the memory usage and iteration count for extracting subgraphs...
Unless I'm reading the question wrong people seem to be overcomplicating it.
This is just "all possible paths within N edges" and you're allowing cycles.
This, for two nodes: A, B and one edge your result would be:
AA, AB, BA, BB
For two nodes, two edges your result would be:
AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BAA, BAB, BBA, BBB
I would recurse into a for each and pass in a "template" tuple
N=edge count
TempTuple = Tuple_of_N_Items ' (01,02,03,...0n) (Could also be an ordered list!)
ListOfTuple_of_N_Items ' Paths (could also be an ordered list!)
edgeDepth = N
Method (Nodes, edgeDepth, TupleTemplate, ListOfTuples, EdgeTotal)
edgeDepth -=1
For Each Node In Nodes
if edgeDepth = 0 'Last Edge
ListOfTuples.Add New Tuple from TupleTemplate + Node ' (x,y,z,...,Node)
else
NewTupleTemplate = TupleTemplate + Node ' (x,y,z,Node,...,0n)
Method(Nodes, edgeDepth, NewTupleTemplate, ListOfTuples, EdgeTotal
next
This will create every possible combination of vertices for a given edge count
What's missing is the factory to generate tuples given an edge count.
You end up with a list of possible paths and the operation is Nodes^(N+1)
If you use ordered lists instead of tuples then you don't need to worry about a factory to create the objects.
If memory is the biggest problem you can use a NP-ish solution using tools from formal verification. I.e., guess a subset of nodes of size N and check whether it's a graph or not. To save space you can use a BDD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_decision_diagram) to represent the original graph's nodes and edges. Plus you can use a symbolic algorithm to check if the graph you guessed is really a graph - so you don't need to construct the original graph (nor the N-sized graphs) at any point. Your memory consumption should be (in big-O) log(n) (where n is the size of the original graph) to store the original graph, and another log(N) to store every "small graph" you want.
Another tool (which is supposed to be even better) is to use a SAT solver. I.e., construct a SAT formula that is true iff the sub-graph is a graph and supply it to a SAT solver.
For a graph of Kn there are approximately n! paths between any two pairs of vertices. I haven't gone through your code but here is what I would do.
Select a pair of vertices.
Start from a vertex and try to reach the destination vertex recursively (something like dfs but not exactly). I think this would output all the paths between the chosen vertices.
You could do the above for all possible pairs of vertices to get all simple paths.
It seems that the following solution will work.
Go over all partitions into two parts of the set of all vertices. Then count the number of edges which endings lie in different parts (k); these edges correspond to the edge of the tree, they connect subtrees for the first and the second parts. Calculate the answer for both parts recursively (p1, p2). Then the answer for the entire graph can be calculated as sum over all such partitions of k*p1*p2. But all trees will be considered N times: once for each edge. So, the sum must be divided by N to get the answer.
Your solution as is doesn't work I think, although it can be made to work. The main problem is that the subproblems may produce overlapping trees so when you take the union of them you don't end up with a tree of size n. You can reject all solutions where there is an overlap, but you may end up doing a lot more work than needed.
Since you are ok with exponential runtime, and potentially writing 2^n trees out, having V.2^V algorithms is not not bad at all. So the simplest way of doing it would be to generate all possible subsets n nodes, and then test each one if it forms a tree. Since testing whether a subset of nodes form a tree can take O(E.V) time, we are potentially talking about V^2.V^n time, unless you have a graph with O(1) degree. This can be improved slightly by enumerating subsets in a way that two successive subsets differ in exactly one node being swapped. In that case, you just have to check if the new node is connected to any of the existing nodes, which can be done in time proportional to number of outgoing edges of new node by keeping a hash table of all existing nodes.
The next question is how do you enumerate all the subsets of a given size
such that no more than one element is swapped between succesive subsets. I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure out :)
I think there is a good algorithm (with Perl implementation) at this site (look for TGE), but if you want to use it commercially you'll need to contact the author. The algorithm is similar to yours in the question but avoids the recursion explosion by making the procedure include a current working subtree as a parameter (rather than a single node). That way each edge emanating from the subtree can be selectively included/excluded, and recurse on the expanded tree (with the new edge) and/or reduced graph (without the edge).
This sort of approach is typical of graph enumeration algorithms -- you usually need to keep track of a handful of building blocks that are themselves graphs; if you try to only deal with nodes and edges it becomes intractable.
This algorithm is big and not easy one to post here. But here is link to reservation search algorithm using which you can do what you want. This pdf file contains both algorithms. Also if you understand russian you can take a look to this.
So you have a graph with with edges e_1, e_2, ..., e_E.
If I understand correctly, you are looking to enumerate all subgraphs which are trees and contain N edges.
A simple solution is to generate each of the E choose N subgraphs and check if they are trees.
Have you considered this approach? Of course if E is too large then this is not viable.
EDIT:
We can also use the fact that a tree is a combination of trees, i.e. that each tree of size N can be "grown" by adding an edge to a tree of size N-1. Let E be the set of edges in the graph. An algorithm could then go something like this.
T = E
n = 1
while n<N
newT = empty set
for each tree t in T
for each edge e in E
if t+e is a tree of size n+1 which is not yet in newT
add t+e to newT
T = newT
n = n+1
At the end of this algorithm, T is the set of all subtrees of size N. If space is an issue, don't keep a full list of the trees, but use a compact representation, for instance implement T as a decision tree using ID3.
I think problem is under-specified. You mentioned that graph is undirected and that subgraph you are trying to find is of size N. What is missing is number of edges and whenever trees you are looking for binary or you allowed to have multi-trees. Also - are you interested in mirrored reflections of same tree, or in other words does order in which siblings are listed matters at all?
If single node in a tree you trying to find allowed to have more than 2 siblings which should be allowed given that you don't specify any restriction on initial graph and you mentioned that resulting subgraph should contain all nodes.
You can enumerate all subgraphs that have form of tree by performing depth-first traversal. You need to repeat traversal of the graph for every sibling during traversal. When you'll need to repeat operation for every node as a root.
Discarding symmetric trees you will end up with
N^(N-2)
trees if your graph is fully connected mesh or you need to apply Kirchhoff's Matrix-tree theorem
Wikipedia: Directed Acyclic Graph
Not sure if leaf node is still proper terminology since it's not really a tree (each node can have multiple children and also multiple parents) and also I'm actually trying to find all the root nodes (which is really just a matter of semantics, if you reverse the direction of all the edges it'd they'd be leaf nodes).
Right now we're just traversing the entire graph (that's reachable from the specified node), but that's turning out to be somewhat expensive, so I'm wondering if there's a better algorithm for doing this. One thing I'm thinking is that we keep track of nodes that have been visited already (while traversing a different path) and don't recheck those.
Are there any other algorithmic optimizations?
We also thought about keeping a list of root nodes that this node is a descendant of, but it seems like maintaining such a list would be fairly expensive as well if we need to check if it changes every time a node is added, moved, or removed.
Edit:
This is more than just finding a single node, but rather finding ALL nodes that are endpoints.
Also there is no master list of nodes. Each node has a list of it's children and it's parents. (Well, that's not completely true, but pulling millions of nodes from the DB ahead of time is prohibitively expensive and would likely cause an OutOfMemory exception)
Edit2:
May or may not change possible solutions, but the graph is bottom-heavy in that there's at most a few dozen root nodes (what I'm trying to find) and some millions (possibly tens or hundreds of millions) leaf nodes (where I'm starting from).
There are a few methods that each may be faster depending on your structure, but in general what youre going to want is a traversal.
A depth first search, goes through each possible route, keeping track of nodes that have already been visited. It's a recursive function, because at each node you have to branch and try each child node of it. There's no faster method if you dont know which way to look for the object you just have to try each way! You definitely need to keep track of where you have already been because it would be wasteful otherwise. It should require on the order of the number of nodes to do a full traversal.
A breadth first search is similar but visits each child of the node before "moving on" and as such builds up layers of distance from the chosen root. This can be faster if the destination is expected to be close to the root node. It would be slower if it is expected to be all the way down a path, because it forces you to traverse every possible edge.
Youre right about maybe keeping a list of known root nodes, the tradeoff there is that you basically have to do the search whenever you alter the graph. If you are altering the graph rarely this is acceptable, but if you alter the graph more frequently than you need to generate this information, then of course it is too costly.
EDIT: Info Update.
It sounds like we are actually looking for a path between two arbitrary nodes, the root/leaf semantic keeps getting switched. The DepthFirstSearch (DFS) starts at one node, and then for each unvisited child, recurse. Break if you find the target node. Due to the way recursion evaluates, this will traverse all the way down the 'left' path, then enumerate nodes at this distance before ever getting to the 'right' path. This is time costly and inefficient if the target node is potentially the first child on the right. BreadthFirst walks in steps, covering all children before moving forward. Because your graph is bottom heavy like a tree, both will be approximately the same execution time.
When the graph is bottom heavy you might be interested in a reverse traversal. Start at the target node and walk upwards, because there are relatively fewer nodes in this direction. So long as the nodes in general have more parents than children, this direction will be much faster. You can also combine the approaches, stepping one up and one down , then comparing lists of nodes, and meeting somewhere in the middle. (this combination might seem the fastest if you ignore that twice as much work is done at each step).
However, since you said that your graph is stored as a list of lists of children, you have no real way of traversing the graph backwards. A node does not know what its parents are. This is a problem. To fix it you have to get a node to know what its parents are by adding that data on graph update, or by creating a duplicate of the whole structure (which you have said is too large). It will need the whole structure to be rewritten, which sounds probably out of the question due to it being a large database at this point.
There's a lot of work to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(data_structure)
Just color (keep track of) visited nodes.
Sample in Python:
def reachable(nodes, edges, start, end):
color = {}
for n in nodes:
color[n] = False
q = [start]
while q:
n = q.pop()
if color[n]:
continue
color[n] = True
for adj in edges[n]:
q.append(adj)
return color[end]
For a vertex x you want to compute a bit array f(x), each bit corresponds to a root vertex Ri, and 1 (resp 0) means "x can (resp can't) be reached from root vertex Ri.
You could partition the graph into one "upper" set U containing all your target roots R and such that if x in U then all parents of x are in U. For example the set of all vertices at distance <=D from the closest Ri.
Keep U not too big, and precompute f for each vertex x of U.
Then, for a query vertex y: if y is in U, you already have the result. Otherwise recursively perform the query for all parents of y, caching the value f(x) for each visited vertex x (in a map for example), so you won't compute a value twice. The value of f(y) is the bitwise OR of the value of its parents.