Given a subset of edges of a graph G = (V,E), how can we check whether it is a valid cut-set of the graph or not?
Note: A cut is a partition of the vertices of a graph into two disjoint subsets. So, cut-set of the cut is the set of edges whose end points are in different subsets of the partition.
I am interested to find an algorithm for this problem
A simple algorithm would be to remove the suspected cut-edges from the graph, and see if you can still get from a node of a removed edge to its counterpart. If you still can, it was not a full cut. So if you remove E2 which had nodes A and D, you can use breadth first search from A and see if you ever get to D. It should be linear in space requirements and complexity since we store all the nodes we've visited so we don't backtrack and visit any node twice.
This wiki page has some nice pictures that might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_%28graph_theory%29
It's a valid cut set if, with that edge subset removed, it's no longer a connected graph.
If you're asking for algorithms, you should be able to start at any node and see if you can reach all other nodes via depth first search. If so, it's not a valid cut set, if it can't, it's a valid cut set.
Related
I am looking for efficient algorithm to discover whether removing a set of nodes in graph would split graph into multiple components.
Formally, given undirected graph G = (V,E) and nonempty set od vertices W ⊆ V, return true iff W is vertex cut set. There are no edge weights in graph.
What occurs to my mind until now is using disjoint set:
The disjoint set is initialized with all neigbors of nodes in W where every set contains one such neighbor.
During breadth-first traversal of all nodes of V \ W, exactly one of following cases holds for every newly explored node X:
X is already in same set as its predecessor
X is absent in disjoint set ⇒ is added into same set as its predecessor (both cases mean the connected component is being further explored)
X is in different set ⇒ merge disjoint sets (two components so far appeared as disconnected but turned out to be connected)
Whenever the disjoint set contains only single set (even before traversal is finished), result is false.
If the disjoint set contains 2 or more sets when traversal is finished, result is true.
Time complexity is O(|V|+|E|) (assuming time complexity of disjoint set is O(1) instead of more precise inverse Ackermann function).
Do you know better solution (or see any flaw in proposed one)?
Note: Since it occurs very often in Google search results, I would like to explicitly state I'm not looking for algorithm to find so-far-unknown vertex cut set, let alone optimal. The vertex set is given, the task is just to say yes or no.
Note 2: Also, I don't search for edge cut set validation (I'm aware of Find cut set in a graph but can't think up similar solution for vertices).
Thanks!
UPDATE: I figured out that in case of true result I will also need data of nodes in disconnected components in hierarchical structure depending on distance from removed nodes. Hence the choice of BFS. I apologize for post-edit.
The practical case behind is an outage in telecommunication network. When some node breaks so the whole network get disconnected, one component (containing the node with connectivity to higher level network) is still ok, every other components need to be reported.
Have a unordered_set<int> r to store the set of vertices you want to remove.
Run a DFS normally, but only go to adjacents who are not in r. Always you visit an unvisited node, add 1 to the number of nodes visited.
If in the end, the number of visited nodes is smaller than |V| - r, this set divides the graph.
With this approach, you don't need to make changes in the graph, just ignore nodes that are in r, which you can check in O(1) using an unordered_set<int>.
The complexity is the same than a normal DFS.
Can’t you get O(|V|) complexity by performing a depth first search on the graph? Eliminate the set W from V and perform DFS. Record the number of nodes processed and stop when you cannot reach any more nodes. If the number of nodes processed is less than |V| - |W|, then W is a cut set.
First of all, I have to admit I'm not good at graph theory.
I have a weakly connected directed graph G=(V,E) where V is about 16 millions and E is about 180 millions.
For a given set S, which is a subset of V (size of S will be around 30), is it possible to find a weakly connected sub-graph G'=(V',E') where S is a subset of V' but try to keep the number of V' and E' as small as possible?
The graph G may change and I hope there's a way to find the sub-graph in real time. (When a process is writing into G, G will be locked, so don't worry about G get changed when your sub-graph calculation is still running.)
My current solution is find the shortest path for each pair of vertex in S and merge those paths to get the sub-graph. The result is OK but the running time is pretty expensive.
Is there a better way to solve this problem?
If you're happy with the results from your current approach, then it's certainly possible to do at least as well a lot faster:
Assign each vertex in S to a set in a disjoint set data structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint-set_data_structure. Then:
Do a breadth-first-search of the graph, starting with S as the root set.
When you the search discovers a new vertex, remember its predecessor and assign it to the same set as its predecessor.
When you discover an edge that connects two sets, merge the sets and follow the predecessor links to add the connecting path to G'
Another way to think about doing exactly the same thing:
Sort all the edges in E according to their distance from S. You can use BFS discovery order for this
Use Kruskal's algorithm to generate a spanning tree for G, processing the edges in that order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%27s_algorithm)
Pick a root in S, and remove any subtrees that don't contain a member of S. When you're done, every leaf will be in S.
This will not necessarily find the smallest possible subgraph, but it will minimize its maximum distance from S.
The problem: you need to find the minimum spanning tree of a graph (i.e. a set S of edges in said graph such that the edges in S together with the respective vertices form a tree; additionally, from all such sets, the sum of the cost of all edges in S has to be minimal). But there's a catch. You are given an initial set of fixed edges K such that K must be included in S.
In other words, find some MST of a graph with a starting set of fixed edges included.
My approach: standard Kruskal's algorithm but before anything else join all vertices as pointed by the set of fixed edges. That is, if K = {1,2}, {4,5} I apply Kruskal's algorithm but instead of having each node in its own individual set initially, instead nodes 1 and 2 are in the same set and nodes 4 and 5 are in the same set.
The question: does this work? Is there a proof that this always yields the correct result? If not, could anyone provide a counter-example?
P.S. the problem only inquires finding ONE MST. Not interested in all of them.
Yes, it will work as long as your initial set of edges doesn't form a cycle.
Keep in mind that the resulting tree might not be minimal in weight since the edges you fixed might not be part of any MST in the graph. But you will get the lightest spanning tree which satisfies the constraint that those fixed edges are part of the tree.
How to implement it:
To implement this, you can simply change the edge-weights of the edges you need to fix. Just pick the lowest appearing edge-weight in your graph, say min_w, subtract 1 from it and assign this new weight,i.e. (min_w-1) to the edges you need to fix. Then run Kruskal on this graph.
Why it works:
Clearly Kruskal will pick all the edges you need (since these are the lightest now) before picking any other edge in the graph. When Kruskal finishes the resulting set of edges is an MST in G' (the graph where you changed some weights). Note that since you only changed the values of your fixed set of edges, the algorithm would never have made a different choice on the other edges (the ones which aren't part of your fixed set). If you think of the edges Kruskal considers, as a sorted list of edges, then changing the values of the edges you need to fix moves these edges to the front of the list, but it doesn't change the order of the other edges in the list with respect to each other.
Note: As you may notice, giving the lightest weight to your edges is basically the same thing as you suggest. But I think it is a bit easier to reason about why it works. Go with whatever you prefer.
I wouldn't recommend Prim, since this algorithm expands the spanning tree gradually from the current connected component (in the beginning one usually starts with a single node). The case where you join larger components (because your fixed edges might not all be in a single component), would be needed to handled separately - it might not be hard, but you would have to take care of it. OTOH with Kruskal you don't have to adapt anything, but simply manipulate your graph a bit before running the regular algorithm.
If I understood the question properly, Prim's algorithm would be more suitable for this, as it is possible to initialize the connected components to be exactly the edges which are required to occur in the resulting spanning tree (plus the remaining isolated nodes). The desired edges are not permitted to contain a cycle, otherwise there is no spanning tree including them.
That being said, apparently Kruskal's algorithm can also be used, as it is explicitly stated that is can be used to find an edge that connects two forests in a cost-minimal way.
Roughly speaking, as the forests of a given graph form a Matroid, the greedy approach yields the desired result (namely a weight-minimal tree) regardless of the independent set you start with.
On my recent interview I was asked the following question:
There is a bidirectional graph G with no cycles. Each edge has some weight. Also there is a set of nodes K which should be disconnected from each other (by removing some edges). There is only one path between any two nodes in K set. The goal is to minimize total weight of removed edges and disconnect all nodes (from set K) from each other.
My approach was to run BFS for each node from K set and determine all paths between all pairs of nodes from K. So then I'll have set of paths (each path is a set of edges).
My next step is to apply dynamic programming approach to find minimum total weight of removed edges. And here I stuck. Could you please help me (just direct me) of how DP should be done.
Thanks.
This sounds like the Multiway Cut problem in trees, assuming a "bidirectional" graph is just like an undirected one. It can be solved in polynomial time by a straightforward dynamic programming. See Chopra and Rao: "On the multiway cut polyhedron", Networks 21(1):51–89, 1991. See also this question.
This problem can be solved using disjoint Sets. In this problem you need to make set of each vertex like forest. Then, join the vertices which belong to two different sets through the edges which are in the graph such that -
1) if one of the set contains a node which is mentioned in the k set of nodes, then the node becomes the representative element.
2) if both the sets contain the unwanted node (node present in the k set of nodes), then find the minimum weight edge in both the sets and compare them, then compare the minimum one of them with the edge to be joined and find the minimum. Then delete the edge which we found so that no path exists b/w them.
3) if none of the set contain the unwanted node, then join one set to the other set.
In this way you find the minimum total weight of the destroyed edges in a very good time complexity of the order of O(nlogn).
Your approach will also work but it will prove to be costly in terms of time complexity.
Here is the complete code - (GameAlgorithm.cpp)
https://github.com/KARTHEEKCIC/RoboAttack
I've been spending a lot of time reading online presentations and textbooks about the cut property of a minimum spanning tree. I don't really get what it's suppose to illustrate or even why it's practical. Supposedly it helps determine what edges to add to a MST, but I fail to see how it accomplishes that. My understanding of the cut property so far is that you split a MST into two arbitrary subsets. Any help here? Thanks!
A cut of a connected graph is a minimal set of edges whose removal separate the graph into two components (pieces). The minimal cut property says that if one of the edges of the cut has weight smaller than any other edge in the cut then it is in the MST. To see this, assume that there is an MST not containing the edge. If we add the edge to the MST we get a cycle that crosses the cut at least twice, so we can break the cycle by removing the other edge from the MST, thereby making a new tree with smaller weight, thereby contradicting the minimality of the MST.
There's another property up on which this explanation is based.
"For any of the cut, if there are even number of edges crossing the cut then there must be a cycle crossing the cut"
Because MST does not contain any cycle there won't be any even number of edges crossing the cut.
Proof by contradiction:
Assume that there's a MST not containing edge with min weight "e". If we add the edge "e" to the MST we get a cycle crossing the cut at least twice. We can remove other edge with more weight and break the cycle which results in an ST containing lesser weighing edge "e". This is in contradiction with the assumption.
I'd like to share what I understand about Cut Property to help. If there're anything to improve in my post, please comment below so I can modify my answer.
Background:
For simplification, suppose there are 2 separate MSTs (T1 and T2) formed in a graph G(V, E). There are edges not yet connected between T1 and T2.
Goal:
We want to show that when T1 and T2 are connected, a newly produced tree is also an MST - an optimal solution.
>> My Understanding of Cut Property:
Among the edges not yet connected between T1 and T2, pick the lightest edge. Adding it to connect T1 and T2 makes a new MST - an optimal solution.
Note: Connecting an edge in the same tree introduces a cycle. But a tree shouldn't contain a cycle