since I think many of us don't have the same edition of "Introduction to algorithms" of Prof. Cormen et al., I'm gonna write the Lemma (and my question) in the following.
Edmonds-Karp-Algorithm
Lemma 26.7 (in 3rd edition; in 2nd it may be Lemma 26.8):
If the Edmonds-Karp algorithm is run on a flow network G=(V,E) with source s and sink t, then for all vertices v in V{s,t}, the shortest-path distance df(s,v) in the residual network Gf increases monotonically with each flow augmentation
Proof:
First, suppose that for some vertex v in V{s,t}, there is a flow augmentation that causes the shortest-path distance from s to v to decrease, then we will derive a contradiction.
Let f be the flow just before the first augmentation that decreases some shortest-path distance, and let f' be the flow just afterward. Let v be the vertex with the minimum df'(s,v), whose distance was decreased by the augmentation, so that df'(s,v) < df(s,v). Let p = s ~~> u -> u be a shortest path from s to v in Gf', so that (u,v) in Ef' and
df'(s,u) = df'(s,v) - 1. (26.12)
Because of how we chose v, we know that the distance of vertex u from soruce s did not decrease, i.e.
df'(s,u) >= df(s,u). (26.13)
...
My question is: I don't really understand the phrase
"Because of how we chose v, we know that the distance of vertex u from soruce s did not decrease, i.e.
df'(s,u) >= df(s,u). (26.13)"
How does the way we chose v affect the property that "the distance of vertex u from s did not decrease" ? How can I derive the equation (26.13).
We know, u is a vertex on the path (s,v) and (u,v) is also a part in (s,v). Why can (s,u) not decrease as well?
Thank you all for your help.
My answer may be drawn out, but hopefully it helps for an all around understanding.
For some history, note that the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm came first. Ford-Fulkerson simply selects any path from the source to the sink, adds the amount of flow to the current capacity, then augments the Residual graph accordingly. Since the path that is selected could hypothetically be anything, there are scenarios where this approach takes 'forever' (figuratively and literally speaking, if the edge weights are allowed to be irrational) to actually terminate.
Edmonds-Karp does the same thing as the Ford-Fulkerson, only it chooses the 'shortest' path, which can be found via a breadth-first search (BFS).
BFS guarantees a certain (partial) ordering among the traversed vertices. For example, consider the following graph:
A -> B -> C,
BFS guarantees that B will be traversed before C. (You should be able to generalize this argument with more sophisticated graphs, an exercise I leave to you.) For the remainder of this post, let "n" denote the number of levels it takes in BFS to reach the target node. So if we were searching for node C in the example above, n = 2.
Edmonds-Karp behaves similarly to Ford-Fulkerson, only it guarantees that the shortest paths are chosen first. When Edmonds-Karp updates the residual graph, we know that only nodes at a level equal to or smaller than n have actually been traversed. Similarly, only edges between nodes for the first n levels could have possibly been updated in the residual graph.
I'm pretty sure that the 'how we chose v' reflects the ordering that BFS guarantees, since the added residual edges necessarily flow in the opposite direction of any selected path. If the residual edges were to create a shorter path, then it would have been possible to find a shorter path than n in the first place, because the residual edges are only created when a path to the target node has been found and BFS guarantees that the shortest such path has already been found.
Hope this helps and at least gives some insight.
I don't quite understand either. But I think that "how we choose v" here means that the flow augmentation only causes the path from s to v becomes shorter, in another way, v is the first node whose path from s becomes shorter because of the augmentation, thus the node u's distance from s does not become shorter.
Related
I don't understand exactly what an active node is and how I could identify one, you have an example in the image below
https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJ12z.png
I don't necessarily need a solution, but more of a definition or a good example
The Push-Relabel Maximum Flow Algorithm has the definition:
For a fixed flow f1, a vertex v ∉ {s, t} is called active if it has positive excess with respect to f1, i.e., xf(u) > 0.
If that is the algorithm you are using to analyse the graph then you can use that definition; if you are using a different algorithm then you should consult the definitions for that algorithm and it will tell you how an "active" vertex is defined.
Let be G a given undirected simple graph, with edge-weights w. Does there exist an algorithm with time complexity O((n+m)log^*(n+m)) that counts the number of node pairs (u,v) for which there exists a path from u to v with total weight under some given constant W? Looking for either an algorithm or a proof that no such algorithm exists.
I’ve tried union find + DFS yet it doesn’t seem that will only use up to n+m calls to Find/Union... I’ve also tried dis-proving the existence on an algorithm by solving APSP with time complexity lower than the lower bound, yet to no avail.
Successfully shown no such algorithm exists:
Assume by contradiction that such an algorithm exists.
Let G be a given undirected un-weighted graph, we’ll compute the diameter of the graph as follows:
Assign weight 1 to every edge on the graph. Thus the weighted diameter is equal to un-weighted diameter.
We find that the diameter of the graph is bounded by m
Perform a binary search using the algorithm to find the diameter of the graph (check for each value whether or not the count returns zero).
Overall, we find the diameter of G in O((n+m)log(n)log*(n+m)). The current best algorithms for finding a graph diameter are O(min(nm, ~n^2.4)). Thus, at the very least, if this algorithm succeeded then the time complexity of computing a diameter would decrease dramatically. Not entirely a proof, but good enough for the purpose I needed it for.
So I found a problem where a traveller can travel a certain distance in a graph and all bidirectional edges have some length(distance). Suppose when travelling a certain edge(either direction) you get some money/gift (it's given in question for all edges)so you have to find the max money you can collect for the given distance you can travel. Basic problem is how do I find all possible paths with given distance (there might be loops in graph) and after finding all possible paths, path with max money collected will simply be the answer. Note: any possible paths you come up with should not have a loop (straight path).
You are given an undirected connected graph with double weight on the edges (distance and reward).
You are given a fixed number d corresponding to a possible distance.
For each couple of nodes (u,v), u not equal to v, you are looking for
All the paths {P_j} connecting u and v with no repeating nodes whose total distance is d.
The paths {P_hat(j)} subset of {P_j} whose reward is maximal.
To get the first, I would try to use a modified version of the Floyd-Warshall algorithm, where you do not look for the shortest, but for any path.
Floyd-Warshall uses a strategy based on considering a "middle node" w between u and v and recursively finds the path minimising the distance between u and v.
You can do the same, while taking all path instead of excluding the minimisation, taking care of putting to inf the nodes where you have already b visited in the distance matrix and excluding at runtime every partial path in the recursion whose distance is longer than d or that arrives to an end (they connects u and v) and whose distance is shorter than d.
Can be generalised if an interval of possible distances [d, D] is given, instead of a single value d, as in this second case you would probably get the empty set all the time.
For the second step, you simply compare the reward of each of the path found in solving the first step, and you take the best one.
Is more a suggested direction rather than a complete answer, but I hope it helps!
We are given a undirected graph without loops.We have to check if it is possible to delete edges such that the degree of each vertex is one.
What should I try to this question? Should I use adjacency matrix or list.
Please suggest me the efficient way.
If the graph needs to be fully connected, it's possible if and only if
there are exactly two vertices and they have an edge between them.
If it does not need to be fully connected you must search for a
similar constellation. That is, you need to see if it is possible to
partition the graph into pairs of vertices with one edge in each
pair. That is what we are after. What do we know?
The graph has no loops. This means it must be a tree! (Not necessarily
binary, though). Maybe we can solve this eagerly by starting at
the bottom of the tree? We don't know what the bottom is; how do we
solve that? We can decide this ourselves, so I decide to pick all the
leaves as "bottom".
I now propose the following algorithm (whose efficiency you may
evaluate yourself, it isn't necessarily the best algorithm):
For each leaf L:
Let P be the parent of L, and Q the parent of P (Q may be NULL).
Is the degree of P <= 2? That is, does it have only one edge
connecting it to L, and possibly one connecting it to Q?
If no: Pick another leaf L and go to 1.1.
If yes: L and P can form a pair by removing the edge between P and Q. So
remove L and P from your memory (in some way; let's come back to
data structures later).
Do we have any vertices left in the graph?
No: The answer is "Yes, we can partition the graph by removing edges".
Only one: The answer is "No, we cannot partition the graph".
More:
Did we remove any nodes?
If yes: Go back to 1 and check all the current leaves.
If no: The answer is "No, we cannot partition the graph".
So what data structure do you use for this? I think it's easiest to
use a priority queue, perhaps based on a min-heap, with degree as
priority. You can use a linked list as a temporary storage for leaves
you have already visited but not removed yet. Don't forget to decrease
the priority of Q in step 1.2.2.
But you can do even better! Add all leaves (vertices with degree 1) to
a linked list. Loop through that list in step 1. In step 1.2.2, check
the degree of Q after removing L and P. If the degree is 1, add it to
the list of leaves!
I believe you can implement the entire algorithm recursively as well, but I let you
think about that.
I am looking for a Dijkstra's algorithm implementation, that also takes into consideration the number of nodes traversed.
What I mean is, a typical Dijkstra's algorithm, takes into consideration the weight of the edges connecting the nodes, while calculating the shortest route from node A to node B. I want to insert another parameter into this. I want the algorithm to give some weightage to the number of nodes traversed, as well.
So that the shortest route computed from A to B, under certain values, may not necessarily be the Shortest Route, but the route with the least number of nodes traversed.
Any thoughts on this?
Cheers,
RD
Edit :
My apologies. I should have explained better. So, lets say, the shortest route from
(A, B) is A -> C -> D -> E -> F -> B covering a total of 10 units
But I want the algorithm to come up with the route A -> M -> N -> B covering a total of 12 units.
So, what I want, is to be able to give some weightage to the number of nodes as well, not just the distance of the connected nodes.
Let me demonstrate that adding a constant value to all edges can change which route is "shortest" (least total weight of edges).
Here's the original graph (a triangle):
A-------B
\ 5 /
2 \ / 2
\ /
C
Shortest path from A to B is via C. Now add constant 2 to all edges. The shortest path becomes instead the single step from A directly to B (owing to "penalty" we've introduced for using additional edges).
Note that the number of edges used is (excluding the node you start from) the same as the number of nodes visited.
The way you can do that is adapt the weights of the edges to always be 1, so that you traverse 5 nodes, and you've gone a distance of "5". The algorithm would be the same at that point, optimizing for number of nodes traversed rather than distance traveled.
If you want some sort of hybrid, you need to determine how much importance to give to traversing a node and the distance. The weight used in calculations should look something like:
weight = node_importance * 1 + (1 - node_importance) * distance
Where node_importance would be a percentage which gauges how much distance is a factor and how much minimum node traversal is important. Though you may have to normalize the distances to be an average of 1.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but have you tried the A* algorithm? I may have understood your question wrong, but it seems like A* would be a good starting point for what you want to do.
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm
Some pseudo code there to help you out too :)
If i understood the question correctly then its best analogy would be that used to find the best network path.
In network communication a path may not only be selected because it is shortest but has many hop counts(node), thus may lead to distortion, interference and noise due to node connection.
So the best path calculation contains the minimizing the function of variables as in your case Distance and Hop Count(nodes).
You have to derive a functional equation that could relate the distance and node counts with quality.
so something as suppose
1 hop count change = 5 unit distance (which means the impact is same for 5unit distace or 1 node change)
so to minimize the loss you can use it in the linear equation.
minimize(distance + hopcount);
where hopcount can be expressed as distance.