My graph is as follows:
I need to find a maximum weight subgraph.
The problem is as follows:
There are n Vectex clusters, and in every Vextex cluster, there are some vertexes. For two vertexes in different Vertex cluster, there is a weighted edge, and in the same Vextex cluster, there is no edge among vertexes. Now I
want to find a maximum weight subgraph by finding only one vertex in each
Vertex cluster. And the total weight is computed by adding all weights of the edges between the selected vertex. I add a picture to explain the problem. Now I know how to model this problem by ILP method. However, I do not know how to solve it by an approximation algorithm and how to get its approximation ratio.
Could you give some solutions and suggestions?
Thank you very much. If any unclear points in this description,
please feel free to ask.
I do not think you can find an alpha-approx for this problem, for any alpha. That is because if such an approximation exists, then it would also prove that the unique games conjecture(UGC) is false. And disproving (or proving) the UGC is a rather big feat :-)
(and I'm actually among the UGC believers, so I'd say it's impossible :p)
The reduction is quite straightforward, since any UGC instance can be described as your problem, with weights of 0 or 1 on edges.
What I can see as polynomial approximation is a 1/k-approx (k the number of clusters), using a maximum weight perfect matching (PM) algorithm (we suppose the number of clusters is even, if it's odd just add a 'useless' one with 1 vertex, 0 weights everywhere).
First, you need to build a new graph. One vertex per cluster. The weight of the edge u, v has the weight max w(e) for e edge from cluster u to cluster v. Run a max weight PM on this graph.
You then can select one vertex per cluster, the one that corresponds to the edge selected in the PM.
The total weight of the solution extracted from the PM is at least as big as the weight of the PM (since it contains the edges of the PM + other edges).
And then you can conclude that this is a 1/k approx, because if there exists a solution to the problem that is more than k times bigger than the PM weight, then the PM was not maximal.
The explanation is quite short (lapidaire I'd say), tell me if there is one part you don't catch/disagree with.
Edit: Equivalence with UGC: unique label cover explained.
Think of a UGC instance. Then, every node in the UGC instance will be represented by a cluster, with as many nodes in the cluster as there are colors in the UGC instance. Then, create edge with weight 0 if they do not correspond to an edge in the UGC, or if it correspond to a 'bad color match'. If they correspond to a good color match, then give it the weight 1.
Then, if you find the optimal solution to an instance of your problem, it means it corresponds to an optimal solution to the corresponding UGC instance.
So, if UGC holds, it means it is NP-hard to approximate your problem.
Introduce a new graph G'=(V',E') as follows and then solve (or approximate) the maximum stable set problem on G'.
Corresponding to each edge a-b in E(G), introduce a vertex v_ab in V'(G') where its weight is equal to the weight of the edge a-b.
Connect all of vertices of V'(G') to each other except for the following ones.
The vertex v_ab is not connected to the vertex v_ac, where vertices b and c are in different clusters in G. In this manner, we can select both of these vertices in an stable set of G' (Hence, we can select both of the corresponding edges in G)
The vertex v_ab is not connected to the vertex v_cd, where vertices a, b, c and d are in different clusters in G. In this manner, we can select both of these vertices in an stable set of G' (Hence, we can select both of the corresponding edges in G)
Finally, I think you can find an alpha-approximation for this problem. In other words, in my opinion the Unique Games Conjecture is wrong due to the 1.999999-approximation algorithm which I proposed for the vertex cover problem.
Related
Could someone explain in pretty simple words why the normalization of many network analysis indicies (graph theory) is n(n - 1), where n – the graph size? Why do we need to take into account (n - 1)?
Most network measures that focus on counting edges (e.g. clustering coefficient) are normalized by the total number of possible edges. Since every edge connects a pair of vertices, we need to know how many possible pairs of vertices we can make. There are n possible vertices we could choose as the source of our edge, and therefore there are n-1 possible vertices that could be the target of our edge (assuming no self-loops, and if undirected divide by 2 bc source and target are exchangeable). Hence, you frequently encounter $n(n-1)$ or $\binomal{n}{2}$.
I was trying to come up with a solution for finding the single-source shortest path algorithm for an undirected weighted graph using BFS.
I came up with a solution to convert every edge weight say x into x edges between the vertices each new edge with weight 1 and then run the BFS. I would get a new BFS tree and since it is a tree there exists only 1 path from the root node to every other vertex.
The problem I am having with is trying to come up with the analysis of the following algorithm. Every edge needs to be visited once and then be split into the corresponding number of edges according to its weight. Then we need to find the BFS of the new graph.
The cost for visiting every edge is O(m) where m is the number of edges as every edge is visited once to split it. Suppose the new graph has km edges (say m').
The time complexity of BFS is O (n + m') = O(n + km) = O(n + m) i.e the Time complexity remains unchanged.
Is the given proof correct?
I'm aware that I could use Dijkstra's algorithm here, but I'm specifically interested in analyzing this BFS-based algorithm.
The analysis you have included here is close but not correct. If you assume that every edge's cost is at most k, then your new graph will have O(kn) nodes (there are extra nodes added per edge) and O(km) edges, so the runtime would be O(kn + km). However, you can't assume that k is a constant here. After all, if I increase the weight on the edges, I will indeed increase the amount of time that your code takes to run. So overall, you could give a runtime of O(kn + km).
Note that k here is a separate parameter to the runtime, the same way that m and n are. And that makes sense - larger weights give you larger runtimes.
(As a note, this is not considered a polynomial-time algorithm. Rather, it's a pseudopolynomial-time algorithm because the number of bits required to write out the weight k is O(log k).)
I have got a graph network and the edges of the graph are weighted. Is there a way to distribute the edge weights to nodes?
I'd like to know if there is a way to derive node weight or edge weight from each other.
I noticed a similar post here, which is the inverse of my problem. I am not sure if there is a similar approach that can be used for my problem.
EDIT:
For instance, for a graph like this (created from the commands given here) and each edge has a weight associated with it.
Example: Nodes i and j are linked by edge $e_{ij}$ that has weight $w_{ij}$
If the node weights are denoted by $nw_i$ (i = 1 to Number of nodes), the weight of any two nodes should sum up to the weight of the edge that links those nodes. i.e. $nw_i$ + $nw_j$ should be equal to $w_{ij}$,
$nw_j$ + $nw_k$ should be equal to $w_{jk}$ and so on.
My problem is a generalization of a task solved by [Blossom algorithm] by Edmonds. The original task is the following: given a complete graph with weighted undirected edges, find a set of edges such that
1) every vertex of the graph is adjacent to only one edge from this set (i.e. vertices are grouped into pairs)
2) sum over weights of edges in this set is minimal.
Now, I would like to modify the first goal into
1') vertices are grouped into sets of 3 vertices (or in general, d vertices), and leave condition 2) unchanged.
My questions:
Do you know if this 'generalised' problem has a name?
Do you know about an algorithm solving it in number of steps being polynomial of number of vertices (like Blossom algorithm for an original problem)? I don't see a straightforward generalisation of Blossom algorithm, as it is based on looking for augmenting paths on a graph compressed to a bipartite graph (and uses here Hungarian algorithm). But augmenting paths do not seem to point to groups of vertices different than pairs.
Best regards,
Paweł
Consider a graph that has weights on each of its nodes instead of between two nodes. Therefore the cost of traveling to a node would be the weight of that node.
1- How can we represent this graph?
2- Is there a minimum spanning path algorithm for this type of graph (or could we modify an existing algorithm)?
For example, consider a matrix. What path, when traveling from a certain number to another, would produce a minimum sum? (Keep in mind the graph must be directed)
if one don't want to adjust existing algorithms and use edge oriented approaches, one could transform node weights to edge weights. For every incoming edge of node v, one would save the weight of v to the edge. Thats the representation.
well, with the approach of 1. this is now easy to do with well known algorithms like MST.
You could also represent the graph as wished and hold the weight at the node. The algorithm simply didn't use Weight w = edge.weight(); it would use Weight w = edge.target().weight()
simply done. no big adjustments are necessary.
if you have to use adjacency matrix, you need a second array with node weights and in adjacency matrix are just 0 - for no edge or 1 - for an edge.
hope that helped