I'm relatively new to Gremlin, and the company I'm with is looking to implement a graph database with some temporary edges within it. Each vertex could have 1 or more edge, and each edge would have a property on it that is essentially isTemporary true/false.
When traversing the graph, if "isTemporary" = true we should follow that edge, otherwise we should follow the edge where "isTemporary" = false.
I.e.,
A-[isTemporary:true, value 1] -> B
A-[isTemporary:false, value 2] -> C
B-[isTemporary: false, value 3] -> D
Running a single gremlin query should return A->B->D in this case.
I've looked through TinkerPop3 documentation, and it seems like "choose" may be what I want to use here, but all the examples seem to return a value, when what I want is a traversal to come back so I can repeatedly act on the traversal.
Any help would be appreciated.
You could be looking for the coalesce step.
Considering this graph:
g.addV().as('a').property('name', 'A').
addV().as('b').property('name', 'B').
addV().as('c').property('name', 'C').
addV().as('d').property('name', 'D').
addE('someLink').from('a').to('b').
property('isTemporary', true).property('value', 1).
addE('someLink').from('a').to('c').
property('isTemporary', false).property('value', 2).
addE('someLink').from('b').to('d').
property('isTemporary', false).property('value', 3)
The following query will return all paths from A to D, attempting to traverse via isTemporary: true edges if present, or via isTemporary: false edges otherwise (coalesce step), iteratively.
g.V().has('name', 'A').
repeat(
coalesce(
outE().has('isTemporary', true).inV(),
outE().has('isTemporary', false).inV()
)
).
until(has('name', 'D')).
path().by('name')
Result:
==>[A,B,D]
An arborescence of a directed graph G is a rooted tree such that there is a directed path from the root to every other vertex in the graph. Give an efficient and correct algorithm to test whether G contains an arborescence, and its time complexity.
I could only think of running DFS/BFS from every node till in one of the DFS all the nodes are covered.
I thought of using min spanning tree algorithm, but that is also only for un-directed graphs
is there any other efficient algorithm for this ?
I found a follow up question which state there is a O(n+m) algorithm for the same, can anybody help what could be the solution ?
What you are exactly looking for is the so called Edmond's algorithm. The minimum spanning tree algorithms are not going to work on directed graphs but that is the idea. The MST problem became arborescence problem when the graph is directed and arborescence is what you have described above.
The naive complexity is O(EV) just like the Prim's algorithm for undirected MST problem but I am sure there are faster implementations of it.
For more information you can check the wiki page:
Edmonds Algorithm
First note that the definition for an arborescence of a directed graph given in the question above is a bit different from the one given in e.g. Wikipedia: your question's definition does not require that the path be unique, nor does it require that the original directed graph G be a weighted one. So a solution should be simpler than the one handled by Edmond's Algorithm.
How about the following: first part will be to find an adequate root. Once an adequate root is found, running a simple DFS on the graph G starting from that root should allow us to create the needed tree and we're done. So how can we find such a root?
Start by running DFS and "reduce" any cycle found to a single edge. Inside any cycle found, it won't matter which edge we use as any of them can reach any other. If a single edge is left after this reduction it means the entire graph is strongly connected and so any edge - including the only one left - can fit as root.
If more than one edge is left, go over all remaining edges, and find the ones having an in-degree of zero. If more than one is found - then we can't construct the needed tree - as they can't be reached from one another. If just a single edge is found here - that's our root edge.
Complexity is O(edges + vertices) in say an adjacency list representation of the graph.
I think this is much simpler than I thought. Something in the similar lines already mentioned at the beginning of the thread. So basically start the DFS traversal at any node in the graph using BFS and reach what ever you can and then the once you are done. Simply take the next unvisited vertex and do BFS traversal again and incase you encounter a node that is already processed means this is sub tree has already been processed and all the nodes reachable through this node will node be reached through another node hence make the current node as the parent of this new sub tree.
simply do a DFS traversal in which each edge is guaranteed to be visited only once. Do the following
edgeCb()
{
// Already processed and has no parent means this must a sub tree
if ( g->par[ y ] == -1 && g->prc[ y ] )
g->par[ y ] = x; // Connecting two disconnected BFS/DFS trees
return 1;
}
graphTraverseDfs( g, i )
{
// Parent of each vertex is being updated as and when it is visited.
}
main() {
.
.
for ( i = 0; i < g->nv; i++ )
if ( !g->vis[ i ] )
graphTraverseDfs( g, i );
.
.
}
I would like to implement a function which finds all possible paths to all possible vertices from a source vertex V in a directed cyclic graph G.
The performance doesn't matter now, I just would like to understand the algorithm. I have read the definition of the Depth-first search algorithm, but I don't have full comprehension of what to do.
I don't have any completed piece of code to provide here, because I am not sure how to:
store the results (along with A->B->C-> we should also store A->B and A->B->C);
represent the graph (digraph? list of tuples?);
how many recursions to use (work with each adjacent vertex?).
How can I find all possible paths form one given source vertex in a directed cyclic graph in Erlang?
UPD: Based on the answers so far I have to redefine the graph definition: it is a non-acyclic graph. I know that if my recursive function hits a cycle it is an indefinite loop. To avoid that, I can just check if a current vertex is in the list of the resulting path - if yes, I stop traversing and return the path.
UPD2: Thanks for thought provoking comments! Yes, I need to find all simple paths that do not have loops from one source vertex to all the others.
In a graph like this:
with the source vertex A the algorithm should find the following paths:
A,B
A,B,C
A,B,C,D
A,D
A,D,C
A,D,C,B
The following code does the job, but it is unusable with graphs that have more that 20 vertices (I guess it is something wrong with recursion - takes too much memory, never ends):
dfs(Graph,Source) ->
?DBG("Started to traverse graph~n", []),
Neighbours = digraph:out_neighbours(Graph,Source),
?DBG("Entering recursion for source vertex ~w~n", [Source]),
dfs(Neighbours,[Source],[],Graph,Source),
ok.
dfs([],Paths,Result,_Graph,Source) ->
?DBG("There are no more neighbours left for vertex ~w~n", [Source]),
Result;
dfs([Neighbour|Other_neighbours],Paths,Result,Graph,Source) ->
?DBG("///The neighbour to check is ~w, other neighbours are: ~w~n",[Neighbour,Other_neighbours]),
?DBG("***Current result: ~w~n",[Result]),
New_result = relax_neighbours(Neighbour,Paths,Result,Graph,Source),
dfs(Other_neighbours,Paths,New_result,Graph,Source).
relax_neighbours(Neighbour,Paths,Result,Graph,Source) ->
case lists:member(Neighbour,Paths) of
false ->
?DBG("Found an unvisited neighbour ~w, path is: ~w~n",[Neighbour,Paths]),
Neighbours = digraph:out_neighbours(Graph,Neighbour),
?DBG("The neighbours of the unvisited vertex ~w are ~w, path is:
~w~n",[Neighbour,Neighbours,[Neighbour|Paths]]),
dfs(Neighbours,[Neighbour|Paths],Result,Graph,Source);
true ->
[Paths|Result]
end.
UPD3:
The problem is that the regular depth-first search algorithm will go one of the to paths first: (A,B,C,D) or (A,D,C,B) and will never go the second path.
In either case it will be the only path - for example, when the regular DFS backtracks from (A,B,C,D) it goes back up to A and checks if D (the second neighbour of A) is visited. And since the regular DFS maintains a global state for each vertex, D would have 'visited' state.
So, we have to introduce a recursion-dependent state - if we backtrack from (A,B,C,D) up to A, we should have (A,B,C,D) in the list of the results and we should have D marked as unvisited as at the very beginning of the algorithm.
I have tried to optimize the solution to tail-recursive one, but still the running time of the algorithm is unfeasible - it takes about 4 seconds to traverse a tiny graph of 16 vertices with 3 edges per vertex:
dfs(Graph,Source) ->
?DBG("Started to traverse graph~n", []),
Neighbours = digraph:out_neighbours(Graph,Source),
?DBG("Entering recursion for source vertex ~w~n", [Source]),
Result = ets:new(resulting_paths, [bag]),
Root = Source,
dfs(Neighbours,[Source],Result,Graph,Source,[],Root).
dfs([],Paths,Result,_Graph,Source,_,_) ->
?DBG("There are no more neighbours left for vertex ~w, paths are ~w, result is ~w~n", [Source,Paths,Result]),
Result;
dfs([Neighbour|Other_neighbours],Paths,Result,Graph,Source,Recursion_list,Root) ->
?DBG("~w *Current source is ~w~n",[Recursion_list,Source]),
?DBG("~w Checking neighbour _~w_ of _~w_, other neighbours are: ~w~n",[Recursion_list,Neighbour,Source,Other_neighbours]),
? DBG("~w Ready to check for visited: ~w~n",[Recursion_list,Neighbour]),
case lists:member(Neighbour,Paths) of
false ->
?DBG("~w Found an unvisited neighbour ~w, path is: ~w~n",[Recursion_list,Neighbour,Paths]),
New_paths = [Neighbour|Paths],
?DBG("~w Added neighbour to paths: ~w~n",[Recursion_list,New_paths]),
ets:insert(Result,{Root,Paths}),
Neighbours = digraph:out_neighbours(Graph,Neighbour),
?DBG("~w The neighbours of the unvisited vertex ~w are ~w, path is: ~w, recursion:~n",[Recursion_list,Neighbour,Neighbours,[Neighbour|Paths]]),
dfs(Neighbours,New_paths,Result,Graph,Neighbour,[[[]]|Recursion_list],Root);
true ->
?DBG("~w The neighbour ~w is: already visited, paths: ~w, backtracking to other neighbours:~n",[Recursion_list,Neighbour,Paths]),
ets:insert(Result,{Root,Paths})
end,
dfs(Other_neighbours,Paths,Result,Graph,Source,Recursion_list,Root).
Any ideas to run this in acceptable time?
Edit:
Okay I understand now, you want to find all simple paths from a vertex in a directed graph. So a depth-first search with backtracking would be suitable, as you have realised. The general idea is to go to a neighbour, then go to another one (not one which you've visited), and keep going until you hit a dead end. Then backtrack to the last vertex you were at and pick a different neighbour, etc.
You need to get the fiddly bits right, but it shouldn't be too hard. E.g. at every step you need to label the vertices 'explored' or 'unexplored' depending on whether you've already visited them before. The performance shouldn't be an issue, a properly implemented algorithm should take maybe O(n^2) time. So I don't know what you are doing wrong, perhaps you are visiting too many neighbours? E.g. maybe you are revisiting neighbours that you've already visited, and going round in loops or something.
I haven't really read your program, but the Wiki page on Depth-first Search has a short, simple pseudocode program which you can try to copy in your language. Store the graphs as Adjacency Lists to make it easier.
Edit:
Yes, sorry, you are right, the standard DFS search won't work as it stands, you need to adjust it slightly so that does revisit vertices it has visited before. So you are allowed to visit any vertices except the ones you have already stored in your current path.
This of course means my running time was completely wrong, the complexity of your algorithm will be through the roof. If the average complexity of your graph is d+1, then there will be approximately d*d*d*...*d = d^n possible paths.
So even if every vertex has only 3 neighbours, there's still quite a few paths when you get above 20 vertices.
There's no way around that really, because if you want your program to output all possible paths then indeed you will have to output all d^n of them.
I'm interested to know whether you need this for a specific task, or are just trying to program this out of interest. If the latter, you will just have to be happy with small, sparsely connected graphs.
I don't understand question. If I have graph G = (V, E) = ({A,B}, {(A,B),(B,A)}), there is infinite paths from A to B {[A,B], [A,B,A,B], [A,B,A,B,A,B], ...}. How I can find all possible paths to any vertex in cyclic graph?
Edit:
Did you even tried compute or guess growing of possible paths for some graphs? If you have fully connected graph you will get
2 - 1
3 - 4
4 - 15
5 - 64
6 - 325
7 - 1956
8 - 13699
9 - 109600
10 - 986409
11 - 9864100
12 - 108505111
13 - 1302061344
14 - 16926797485
15 - 236975164804
16 - 3554627472075
17 - 56874039553216
18 - 966858672404689
19 - 17403456103284420
20 - 330665665962403999
Are you sure you would like find all paths for all nodes? It means if you compute one milion paths in one second it would take 10750 years to compute all paths to all nodes in fully connected graph with 20 nodes. It is upper bound for your task so I think you don't would like do it. I think you want something else.
Not an improved algorithmic solution by any means, but you can often improve performance by spawning multiple worker threads, potentially here one for each first level node and then aggregating the results. This can often improve naive brute force algorithms relatively easily.
You can see an example here: Some Erlang Matrix Functions, in the maximise_assignment function (comments starting on line 191 as of today). Again, the underlying algorithm there is fairly naive and brute force, but the parallelisation speeds it up quite well for many forms of matrices.
I have used a similar approach in the past to find the number of Hamiltonian Paths in a graph.