I need to find the complexity of finding all the cycles in a undirected graph consisting of 50 nodes. Moreover, if the graph grows large, will the complexity be changed and what will be it if the network grows considerably large. In addition, if I find only few cycles then how do I find the complexity of finding few cycles in a graph.
Thanking you in Anticipation!
Using depth-first search and proactive marking of nodes, you can find cycles simply by noticing any time that you run into a marked node in your search.
This is an O(V+E) approach, I believe, where V is the number of vertices or nodes and E is the number of edges or connections.
If you put the nodes in a particular branch on a stack, you can also easily determine the cycle path. Just make sure to pop a node out each time you backtrack.
A given graph can have exponential number of cycles (in the size of graph). Consider a bipartite graph where vi is connected to wi+1 % n and wi is connected to vi+1%n.
So unless you have specific kind of graphs, there is no hope for polynomial time solutions.
A solution that runs in exponential time is very easy to build. Consider all permutations of vertices, see if that ordering results in a cycle.
Of course, in practical terms you can come up with solutions that are much faster than that.
Related
I know that brute force approach to do this is perform DFS on all the vertices of the graph.So for this algorithm the complexity would be O(V|V+E|). But is there more efficient way to do this?
I get the impression from papers like http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/144985/todsfinal.pdf that there is no algorithm that does better than O(VE) or O(V^3) in the general case. For sparse graphs and other special graphs there are faster algorithms. It seems, however, that you can still make improvements by separating "index construction" from "query", if you have some idea of the number of queries that will be made on the data. If there are going to be a lot of queries, O(1) is possible for queries if all the data is pre-computed (DFS or Floyd-Warshall, etc.) and stored in O(n^2) space. On the other hand, if there are going to be relatively few queries, space and/or index construction time can be reduced at the expense of query time.
I really suspect that there isn't a known better algorithm for general graphs. All the papers I found on the subject [1] [2] describe algorithms that run in O(|V| * |E|) time. That isn't better than your naïve attempt in the worst case.
Even the wikipedia page [3] says the fastest algorithms reduce the problem to matrix multiplication, which the fastest algorithms are only marginally better than your baseline.
[1] http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~ychen2/conferencePapers/tranRelationCopy.pdf
[2] http://www.vldb.org/conf/1988/P382.PDF
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_closure#Algorithms
[EDIT: As pointed out by kraskevich, the final query step can be worse than I had originally claimed: up to O(|V|^2) even for an output of size O(|V|), which is no better than ordinary DFS without any preprocessing.].
In the worst case, O(|V|^2) space would be needed to store all this information explicitly -- i.e., to store the complete list of reachable vertices for each vertex (think of a graph in which every vertex has an edge to every other vertex). But it's possible to represent it in such a way that only O(|V|) space is needed, and this representation can be built in O(|V|+|E|) time, and a query on it will only take time proportional to the size of the answer (number of reachable vertices).
The basic idea is: Every vertex in a strongly connected component (SCC) can reach every other vertex in the same SCC (this is the definition of SCC), and can reach all vertices in SCCs that it can reach, and no other vertices.
Find all SCCs; this can be done in O(|V|+|E|) time. Build a table SCC, so that SCC(u) = i if the SCC of u is i (both vertices in G and SCCs can be represented as integers). Afterwards make another pass through this table to build a dual table, Verts, so that Verts(i) contains a list of all vertices in the ith SCC.
Build a new graph G' whose vertices are the SCCs of G. G' will necessarily be acyclic.
So, given a vertex u in G, look up its SCC, SCC(u). Call this i. Perform a DFS through G' starting at vertex i: For each vertex (of G') j encountered during this DFS, output every vertex (of G) in Verts(j).
I have a follow-up question on this:
Finding shortest path distances in a graph containing at most two negative edges
Ranveer's solution looks great, but it is not fast enough because I need O(|E| + |V|*log|V|) fast algorithm.
I guess Dukeling's solution works great. It makes sense and it operates in the same running time of Dijkstra's algorithm.
However, my goal is to find shortest path distances from a given node s to ALL the nodes in V.
If I apply Dukeling's algorithm by setting all the nodes in V as end vertex e, I will need to run it |V| - 1 times. Then, the running time will be O(|V||E| + |V^2|*log|V|).
Any help would be appreciated!
Dijkstra's algorithm, in its original form, finds all the shortest paths from a source node to all other nodes in the graph.
You have (at least) two options for your problem:
Use Bellman - Ford. It's not as slow as its big-oh would suggest, at least not necessarily. Make sure you implement it like you would a BF search: using a FIFO queue. This means you will insert a node into the queue every time the distance to it is updated, and only if it isn't already in the queue. Other optimizations are also possible, but this should already give you a fast algorithm in practice;
Use Dijkstra's, but modified similarly to Bellman - Ford: the default Dijkstra's never inserts a node twice into the priority queue. Make sure you reinsert nodes if you have updated the distance to them. This will deal with negative cost edges. It essentially makes the algorithm closer to the Bellman - Ford described above, but using a priority queue instead of a FIFO queue. This will also get you closer to your desired complexity.
Suppose that the number of edges of a connected graph is known and the weight of each edge is distinct, would it possible to create a minimal spanning tree in linear time?
To do this we must look at each edge; and during this loop there can contain no searches otherwise it would result in at least n log n time. I'm not sure how to do this without searching in the loop. It would mean that, somehow we must only look at each edge once, and decide rather to include it or not based on some "static" previous values that does not involve a growing data structure.
So.. let's say we keep the endpoints of the node in question, then look at the next node, if the next node has the same vertices as prev, then compare the weight of prev and current node and keep the lower one. If the current node's endpoints are not equal to prev, then it is in a different component .. now I am stuck because we cannot create a hash or array to keep track of the component nodes that are already added while look through each edge in linear time.
Another approach I thought of is to find the edge with the minimal weight; since the edge weights are distinct this edge will be part of any MST. Then.. I am stuck. Since we cannot do this for n - 1 edges in linear time.
Any hints?
EDIT
What if we know the number of nodes, the number of edges and also that each edge weight is distinct? Say, for example, there are n nodes, n + 6 edges?
Then we would only have to find and remove the correct 7 edges correct?
To the best of my knowledge there is no way to compute an MST faster by knowing how many edges there are in the graph and that they are distinct. In the worst case, you would have to look at every edge in the graph before finding the minimum-cost edge (which must be in the MST), which takes Ω(m) time in the worst case. Therefore, I'll claim that any MST algorithm must take Ω(m) time in the worst case.
However, if we're already doing Ω(m) work in the worst-case, we could do the following preprocessing step on any MST algorithm:
Scan over the edges and count up how many there are.
Add an epsilon value to each edge weight to ensure the edges are unique.
This can be done in time Ω(m) as well. Consequently, if there were a way to speed up MST computation knowing the number of edges and that the edge costs are distinct, we would just do this preprocessing step on any current MST algorithm to try to get faster performance. Since to the best of my knowledge no MST algorithm actually tries to do this for performance reasons, I would suspect that there isn't a (known) way to get a faster MST algorithm based on this extra knowledge.
Hope this helps!
There's a famous randomised linear-time algorithm for minimum spanning trees whose complexity is linear in the number of edges. See "A randomized linear-time algorithm to find minimum spanning trees" by Karger, Klein, and Tarjan.
The key result in the paper is their "sampling lemma" -- that, if you independently randomly select a subset of the edges with probability p and find the minimum spanning tree of this subgraph, then there are only |V|/p edges that are better than the worst edge in the tree path connecting its ends.
As templatetypedef noted, you can't beat linear-time. That all edge weights are distinct is a common assumption that simplifies analysis; if anything, it makes MST algorithms run a little slower.
The fact that a number of edges (N) is known does not influence the complexity in any way. N is still a finite but unbounded variable, and each graph will have different N. If you place a upper bound on N, say, 1 million, then the complexity is O(1 million log 1 million) = O(1).
The fact that each edge has distinct weight does not influence the program either, because it does not say anything about the graph's structure. Therefore knowledge about current case cannot influence further processing, as we cannot predict how the graph's structure will look like in the next step.
If the number of edges is close to n, like in this case n-6 (after edit), we know that we only need to remove 7 edges as every spanning tree has only n-1 edges.
The Cycle Property shows that the most expensive edge in a cycle does not belong to any Minimum Spanning tree(assuming all edges are distinct) and thus, should be removed.
Now you can simply apply BFS or DFS to identify a cycle and remove the most expensive edge. So, overall, we need to run BFS 7 times. This takes 7*n time and gives us a time complexity of O(n). Again, this is only true if the number of edges is close to the number of nodes.
I have Graph with N nodes and edges with cost. (graph may be Complete but also can contain zero edges).
I want to find K trees in the graph (K < N) to ensure every node is visited and cost is the lowest possible.
Any recommendations what the best approach could be?
I tried to modify the problem to finding just single minimal spanning tree, but didn't succeeded.
Thank you for any hint!
EDIT
little detail, which can be significant. To cost is not related to crossing the edge. The cost is the price to BUILD such edge. Once edge is built, you can traverse it forward and backwards with no cost. The problem is not to "ride along all nodes", the problem is about "creating a net among all nodes". I am sorry for previous explanation
The story
Here is the story i have heard and trying to solve.
There is a city, without connection to electricity. Electrical company is able to connect just K houses with electricity. The other houses can be connected by dropping cables from already connected houses. But dropping this cable cost something. The goal is to choose which K houses will be connected directly to power plant and which houses will be connected with separate cables to ensure minimal cable cost and all houses coverage :)
As others have mentioned, this is NP hard. However, if you're willing to accept a good solution, you could use simulated annealing. For example, the traveling salesman problem is NP hard, yet near-optimal solutions can be found using simulated annealing, e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/26758/Simulated-Annealing-Solving-the-Travelling-Salesma
You are describing something like a cardinality constrained path cover. It's in the Traveling Salesman/ Vehicle routing family of problems and is NP-Hard. To create an algorithm you should ask
Are you only going to run it on small graphs.
Are you only going to run it on special cases of graphs which do have exact algorithms.
Can you live with a heuristic that solves the problem approximately.
Assume you can find a minimum spanning tree in O(V^2) using prim's algorithm.
For each vertex, find the minimum spanning tree with that vertex as the root.
This will be O(V^3) as you run the algorithm V times.
Sort these by total mass (sum of weights of their vertices) of the graph. This is O(V^2 lg V) which is consumed by the O(V^3) so essentially free in terms of order complexity.
Take the X least massive graphs - the roots of these are your "anchors" that are connected directly to the grid, as they are mostly likely to have the shortest paths. To determine which route it takes, you simply follow the path to root in each node in each tree and wire up whatever is the shortest. (This may be further optimized by sorting all paths to root and using only the shortest ones first. This will allow for optimizations on the next iterations. Finding path to root is O(V). Finding it for all V X times is O(V^2 * X). Because you would be doing this for every V, you're looking at O(V^3 * X). This is more than your biggest complexity, but I think the average case on these will be small, even if their worst case is large).
I cannot prove that this is the optimal solution. In fact, I am certain it is not. But when you consider an electrical grid of 100,000 homes, you can not consider (with any practical application) an NP hard solution. This gives you a very good solution in O(V^3 * X), which I imagine is going to give you a solution very close to optimal.
Looking at your story, I think that what you call a path can be a tree, which means that we don't have to worry about Hamiltonian circuits.
Looking at the proof of correctness of Prim's algorithm at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prim%27s_algorithm, consider taking a minimum spanning tree and removing the most expensive X-1 links. I think the proof there shows that the result has the same cost as the best possible answer to your problem: the only difference is that when you compare edges, you may find that the new edge join two separated components, but in this case you can maintain the number of separated components by removing an edge with cost at most that of the new edge.
So I think an answer for your problem is to take a minimum spanning tree and remove the X-1 most expensive links. This is certainly the case for X=1!
Here is attempt at solving this...
For X=1 I can calculate minimal spanning tree (MST) with Prim's algorithm from each node (this node is the only one connected to the grid) and select the one with the lowest overall cost
For X=2 I create extra node (Power plant node) beside my graph. I connect it with random node (eg. N0) by edge with cost of 0. I am now sure I have one power plant plug right (the random node will definitely be in one of the tree, so whole tree will be connected). Now the iterative part. I take other node (eg. N1) and again connected with PP with 0 cost edge. Now I calculate MST. Then repeat this process with replacing N1 with N2, N3 ...
So I will test every pair [N0, NX]. The lowest cost MST wins.
For X>2 is it really the same as for X=2, but I have to test connect to PP every (x-1)-tuple and calculate MST
with x^2 for MST I have complexity about (N over X-1) * x^2... Pretty complex, but I think it will give me THE OPTIMAL solution
what do you think?
edit by random node I mean random but FIXED node
attempt to visualize for x=2 (each description belongs to image above it)
Let this be our city, nodes A - F are houses, edges are candidates to future cables (each has some cost to build)
Just for image, this could be the solution
Let the green one be the power plant, this is how can look connection to one tree
But this different connection is really the same (connection to power plant(pp) cost the same, cables remains untouched). That is why we can set one of the nodes as fixed point of contact to the pp. We can be sure, that the node will be in one of the trees, and it does not matter where in the tree is.
So let this be our fixed situation with G as PP. Edge (B,G) with zero cost is added.
Now I am trying to connect second connection with PP (A,G, cost 0)
Now I calculate MST from the PP. Because red edges are the cheapest (the can actually have even negative cost), is it sure, that both of them will be in MST.
So when running MST I get something like this. Imagine detaching PP and two MINIMAL COST trees left. This is the best solution for A and B are the connections to PP. I store the cost and move on.
Now I do the same for B and C connections
I could get something like this, so compare cost to previous one and choose the better one.
This way I have to try all the connection pairs (B,A) (B,C) (B,D) (B,E) (B,F) and the cheapest one is the winner.
For X=3 I would just test other tuples with one fixed again. (A,B,C) (A,B,D) ... (A,C,D) ... (A,E,F)
I just came up with the easy solution as follows:
N - node count
C - direct connections to the grid
E - available edges
1, Sort all edges by cost
2, Repeat (N-C) times:
Take the cheapest edge available
Check if adding this edge will not caused circles in already added edge
If not, add this edge
3, That is all... You will end up with C disjoint sets of edges, connect every set to the grid
Sounds like the famous Traveling Salesman problem. The problem known to be NP-hard. Take a look at the Wikipedia as your starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
The minimum spanning tree problem is to take a connected weighted graph and find the subset of its edges with the lowest total weight while keeping the graph connected (and as a consequence resulting in an acyclic graph).
The algorithm I am considering is:
Find all cycles.
remove the largest edge from each cycle.
The impetus for this version is an environment that is restricted to "rule satisfaction" without any iterative constructs. It might also be applicable to insanely parallel hardware (i.e. a system where you expect to have several times more degrees of parallelism then cycles).
Edits:
The above is done in a stateless manner (all edges that are not the largest edge in any cycle are selected/kept/ignored, all others are removed).
What happens if two cycles overlap? Which one has its longest edge removed first? Does it matter if the longest edge of each is shared between the two cycles or not?
For example:
V = { a, b, c, d }
E = { (a,b,1), (b,c,2), (c,a,4), (b,d,9), (d,a,3) }
There's an a -> b -> c -> a cycle, and an a -> b -> d -> a
#shrughes.blogspot.com:
I don't know about removing all but two - I've been sketching out various runs of the algorithm and assuming that parallel runs may remove an edge more than once I can't find a situation where I'm left without a spanning tree. Whether or not it's minimal I don't know.
For this to work, you'd have to detail how you would want to find all cycles, apparently without any iterative constructs, because that is a non-trivial task. I'm not sure that's possible. If you really want to find a MST algorithm that doesn't use iterative constructs, take a look at Prim's or Kruskal's algorithm and see if you could modify those to suit your needs.
Also, is recursion barred in this theoretical architecture? If so, it might actually be impossible to find a MST on a graph, because you'd have no means whatsoever of inspecting every vertex/edge on the graph.
I dunno if it works, but no matter what your algorithm is not even worth implementing. Finding all cycles will be the freaking huge bottleneck that will kill it. Also doing that without iterations is impossible. Why don't you implement some standard algorithm, let's say Prim's.
Your algorithm isn't quite clearly defined. If you have a complete graph, your algorithm would seem to entail, in the first step, removing all but the two minimum elements. Also, listing all the cycles in a graph can take exponential time.
Elaboration:
In a graph with n nodes and an edge between every pair of nodes, there are, if I have my math right, n!/(2k(n-k)!) cycles of size k, if you're counting a cycle as some subgraph of k nodes and k edges with each node having degree 2.
#Tynan The system can be described (somewhat over simplified) as a systems of rules describing categorizations. "Things are in category A if they are in B but not in C", "Nodes connected to nodes in Z are also in Z", "Every category in M is connected to a node N and has 'child' categories, also in M for every node connected to N". It's slightly more complicated than this. (I have shown that by creating unstable rules you can model a turning machine but that's beside the point.) It can't explicitly define iteration or recursion but can operate on recursive data with rules like the 2nd and 3rd ones.
#Marcin, Assume that there are an unlimited number of processors. It is trivial to show that the program can be run in O(n^2) for n being the longest cycle. With better data structures, this can be reduced to O(n*O(set lookup function)), I can envision hardware (quantum computers?) that can evaluate all cycles in constant time. giving a O(1) solution to the MST problem.
The Reverse-delete algorithm seems to provide a partial proof of correctness (that the proposed algorithm will not produce a non-minimal spanning tree) this is derived by arguing that mt algorithm will remove every edge that the Reverse-delete algorithm will. However I'm not sure how to show that my algorithm won't delete more than that algorithm.
Hhmm....
OK this is an attempt to finish the proof of correctness. By analogy to the Reverse-delete algorithm, we know that enough edges will be removed. What remains is to show that there will not be to many edges removed.
Removing to many edges can be described as removing all the edges between the side of a binary partition of the graph nodes. However only edges in a cycle are ever removed, therefor, for all edge between partitions to be removed, there needs to be a return path to complete the cycle. If we only consider edges between the partitions then the algorithm can at most remove the larger of each pair of edges, this can never remove the smallest bridging edge. Therefor for any arbitrary binary partitioning, the algorithm can't sever all links between the side.
What remains is to show that this extends to >2 way partitions.