I know a graph is considered cylic if it has at least one cycle. However, I can't seem to find an answer to the question if its only cylic in one direction. This graph is cylic from
(A -> C -> B -> E)
However this doesn't work in the opposite direction
(E -> B -> C -/> A)
So is this graph still considered cylic? I believe it would be, but I just can't find confirmation of this.
Yes, a directed graph is cyclic if and only if it contains at least one directed cycle. A (simple) directed cycle is a list of arcs such that (1) each vertex is the head of at most one arc in the list (2) the head of each arc in the list is the tail of the next arc in the list, wrapping around to the beginning if it's at the end. You can chase references from Wikipedia if you won't take it on my authority as a CS PhD specialized in graph algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_(graph_theory).
Related
I know that one can detect cycles in direct graphs using DFS and BFS. I want to know whether we can detect cycles in directed graphs using Union-Find or not?
If yes, then how? and
If we can't, then why?
No, we cannot use union-find to detect cycles in a directed graph. This is because a directed graph cannot be represented using the disjoint-set(the data structure on which union-find is performed).
When we say 'a union b' we cannot make out the direction of edge
is a going to b? (or)
is b going to a?
But, incase of unordered graphs, each connected component is equivalent to a set. So union-find can be used to detect a cycle. Whenever you try to perform union on two vertices belonging to the same connected component, we can say that cycle exists.
No.
Let me give you an example:
Q1. Take an undirected graph:
Is there a cycle in above undirected graph? Yes. And we can find the cycle using Union-Find algo.
Q2. Now look at the similar directed graph:
Is there a cycle in above directed graph? No!
BUT if you use Union-Find algo to detect cycle in above directed graph, it will say YES! Since union-find algo looks at the above diagram as below:
OR
Is there a cycle in above diagram? Yes! But the original(Q2) question was tampered and this is not what was asked. So Union-find algo will give wrong results for directed graphs.
No, we cannot use union-find to detect cycles in a directed graph.
This is because a directed graph cannot be represented using the
disjoint-set(the data structure on which union-find is performed).
When we say 'a union b' we cannot make out the direction of edge
is a going to b? (or) is b going to a? But, incase of unordered
graphs, each connected component is equivalent to a set. So union-find
can be used to detect a cycle. Whenever you try to perform union on
two vertices belonging to the same connected component, we can say
that cycle exists.
Just wanted to add to #Cherubim's answer, I just thought of this question that why can't we make out the direction of 'a union b' like we can consider it as a is connected to b right ('a union b' only nodes which are a->b)?
Well that will also fail, consider two nodes x and y, they are connected x -> y and they already have parents in the disjoint set, x_root and y_root.
So what happens when we say 'x union y' (x is connected to y), we make y_root the parent of x_root. well this tells us that:
x_root -> y_root (could be opposite too)
x_root and y_root are connected. (they could be disconnected)
So the main problem beside ambiguous direction, is also that not every node in a directed graph is connected to each other.
Heyo!
So I've got this directed and/or undirected graph with a bunch of vertices and edges. In this graph there is a start vertex and an end vertex. There's also a subset of vertices which are coloured red (this subset can include the start and end vertices). Also, no pair of vertices can have more than one edge between them.
What I have to do is to find:
A) The shortest path that passes no red vertices
B) If there is a path that passes at least one red vertex
C) The path with the greatest amount of red vertices
D) The path with the fewest amount of red vertices
For A I use a breadth first search ignoring red branches. For B I simply brute force it with a depth first search of the graph. And for C and D I use dynamic programming, memoizing the number of red vertices I find in all paths, using the same DFS as in B.
I am moderately happy with all the solutions and I would very much appreciate any suggestions! Thanks!!
For A I use a breadth first search ignoring red branches
A) is a Typical pathfinding problem happening in the sub-graph that contains no red edges. So your solution is good (could be improved with heuristics if you can come up with one, then use A*)
For B I simply brute force it with a depth first search of the graph
Well here's the thing. Every optimal path A->C can be split at an arbitrary intermediate point B. A Nice property of optimal paths, is that every sub-path is optimal. So A->B and B->C are optimal.
This means if you know you must travel from some start to some end through an intermediary red vertex, you can do the following:
Perform a BFS from the start vertex
Perform a BFS from the endvertex backwards (If your edges are directed - as I think - you'll have to take them in reverse, here)
Alternate expanding both BFS so that both their 'edge' (or open lists, as they are called) have the same distance to their respective start.
Stop when:
One BFS hits a red vertex encountered by (or in the 'closed' list of) the other one. In this case, Each BFS can construct the optimal path to that commen vertex. Stitch both semi-paths, and you have your optimal path with at least a red vertex.
One BFS is stuck ('open' list is empty). In this case, there is no solution.
C) The path with the greatest amount of red vertices
This is a combinatorial problem. the first thing I would do is make a matrix of reachability of [start node + red nodes + end nodes] where:
reachability[i, j] = 1 iff there is a path from node i to node j
To compute this matrix, simply perform one BFS search starting at the start node and at every red node. If the BFS reaches a red node, put a 1 in the corresponding line/column.
This will abstract away the underlying complexity of the graph, and make an order of magnitude speedup on the combinatorial search.
The problem is now a longest path problem through that connectivity matrix. dynamic programming would be the way to go indeed.
D) The path with the fewest amount of red vertices
Simply perform a Dijkstra search, but use the following metric when sorting the nodes in the 'open' list:
dist(start, a) < dist(start, b) if:
numRedNodesInPath(start -> a) < numRedNodesInPath(start -> b)
OR (
numRedNodesInPath(start -> a) == numRedNodesInPath(start -> b)
AND
numNodesInPath(start -> a) < numNodesInPath(start -> a)
)
For this, when discovering new vertices, you'll have to store the path leading up to them (well, just the nb of nodes in the path, as well as the nb of red nodes, separately) in a dedicated map to be fetched. I mention this because usually, the length of the path is stored implicitly as the position of the verrtex in the array. You'll have to enforce it explicitely in your case.
Note on length optimality:
Even though you stated you did not care about length optimality outside of problem A), the algorithm I provided will produce shortest-length solutions. In many cases (like in D) it helps Dijkstra converge better I believe.
I'm doing a breadth-first search on a digraph. I'm lost at nodes c and f, and I'm not sure if and how they should be in the BF-tree or if you only go as far as reachable from the source node and don't start at another node in order to get all the vertices.
Here's what I'm getting so far. As you can see, letters mark the nodes. Distance and predecessor are marked by d and pi:
This was helpful BFS traversal of directed graph from a given node but I'm not familiar with graphs enough to understand how that applies to this situation. From what I'm getting from that question, it seems like in this case I would not include c and f at all.
In fact, it seems like I have the maximal number of nodes included already, just because I started at i. I think that the d=4 at the g node (also at k but that doesn't even connect to any other nodes), this is the greatest distance and max-depth possible in BFS in this graph.
Let's say we have a fully connected directed graph G. The vertices are [a,b,c]. There are edges in both directions between each vertex.
Given a starting vertex a, I would like to traverse the graph in all directions and save the path only when I hit a vertex which is already in the path.
So, the function full_paths(a,G) should return:
- [{a,b}, {b,c}, {c,d}]
- [{a,b}, {b,d}, {d,c}]
- [{a,c}, {c,b}, {b,d}]
- [{a,c}, {c,d}, {d,b}]
- [{a,d}, {d,c}, {c,b}]
- [{a,d}, {d,b}, {b,c}]
I do not need 'incomplete' results like [{a,b}] or [{a,b}, {b,c}], because it is contained in the first result already.
Is there any other way to do it except of generating a powerset of G and filtering out results of certain size?
How can I calculate this?
Edit: As Ethan pointed out, this could be solved with depth-first search method, but unfortunately I do not understand how to modify it, making it store a path before it backtracks (I use Ruby Gratr to implement my algorithm)
Have you looked into depth first search or some variation? A depth first search traverses as far as possible and then backtracks. You can record the path each time you need to backtrack.
If you know your graph G is fully connected there is N! paths of length N when N is number of vertices in graph G. You can easily compute it in this way. You have N possibilities of choice starting point, then for each starting point you can choose N-1 vertices as second vertex on a path and so on when you can chose only last not visited vertex on each path. So you have N*(N-1)*...*2*1 = N! possible paths. When you can't chose starting point i.e. it is given it is same as finding paths in graph G' with N-1 vertices. All possible paths are permutation of set of all vertices i.e. in your case all vertices except starting point. When you have permutation you can generate path by:
perm_to_path([A|[B|_]=T]) -> [{A,B}|perm_to_path(T)];
perm_to_path(_) -> [].
simplest way how to generate permutations is
permutations([]) -> [];
permutations(L) ->
[[H|T] || H <- L, T <- permutations(L--[H])].
So in your case:
paths(A, GV) -> [perm_to_path([A|P]) || P <- permutations(GV--[A])].
where GV is list of vertices of graph G.
If you would like more efficient version it would need little bit more trickery.
A similar question is posted here.
I have an undirected graph with Vertex V and Edge E. I am looking for an algorithm to identify all the cycle bases in that graph. An example of such a graph is shown below:
Now, all the vertex coordinates are known ( unlike previous question, and contrary to the explanation in the above diagram), therefore it is possible to find the smallest cycles that encompass the whole graph.
In this graph, it is possible that there are edges that don't form any cycles.
What is the best algorithm to do this?
Here's another example that you can take a look at:
Assuming that e1 is the edge that gets picked first, and the arrow shows the direction of the edge.
I haven't tried this and it is rather greedy but should work:
Pick one node
Go to one it's neighbors's
Keep on going until you get back to your starting node, but you're not allowed to visit an old node.
If you get a cycle save it if it doesn't already exist or a subset of those node make up a cycle. If the node in the cycle is a subset of the nodes in another cycle remove the larger cycle (or maybe split it in two?)
Start over at 2 with a new neighbor.
Start over at 1 with a new node.
Comments: At 3 you should of course do the same thing as for step 2, so take all possible paths.
Maybe that's a start? As I said, I haven't tried it so it is not optimized.
EDIT: An undocumented and not optimized version of one implementation of the algorithm can be found here: https://gist.github.com/750015. But, it doesn't solve the solution completely since it can only recognize "true" subsets.