I would like to create a bunch of "and" and "or" and "not" gates in a directed graph.
And then traverse from the inputs to see what they results are.
I assume there is a ready made traversal that would do that but I don't see it.
I don't know what the name of such a traversal would be.
Certainly breadth first will not do the job.
I need to get ALL the leaves, and go up toward the root.
In other words
A = (B & (C & Z))
I need to resolve C # Z first.
I need to put this type of thing in a graph and to traverse up.
You would probably create each of the operations as a node which has N incoming and one outgoing connection. You can of course also have more complex operations encapsuled as a node.
With Neo4j 2.0 I would use Labels for the 3 types of operations.
I assume your leaves would then be boolean values? Actually I think you have many roots and just a single leaf (the result expression)
(input1)-->(:AND {id:1})-->(:OR {id:2})-->(output)
(input2)-->(:AND {id:1})
(input3)------------------>(:OR {id:2})
Then you can use CASE when for decisions on the label type and use the collection predicates (ALL, ANY) for the computation
See: http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/cypher-query-lang.html
Predicates: http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/query-function.html
Labels: http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/query-match.html#match-get-all-nodes-with-a-label
Related
I have a Neo4j graph with directed cycles. I have had no issue finding all descendants of A assuming I don't care about loops using this Cypher query:
match (n:TEST{name:"A"})-[r:MOVEMENT*]->(m:TEST)
return n,m,last(r).movement_time
The relationships between my nodes have a timestamp property on them, movement_time. I've simulated that in my test data below using numbers that I've imported as floats. I would like to traverse the graph using the timestamp as a constraint. Only follow relationships that have a greater movement_time than the movement_time of the relationship that brought us to this node.
Here is the CSV sample data:
from,to,movement_time
A,B,0
B,C,1
B,D,1
B,E,1
B,X,2
E,A,3
Z,B,5
C,X,6
X,A,7
D,A,7
Here is what the graph looks like:
I would like to calculate the descendants of every node in the graph and include the timestamp from the last relationship using Cypher; so I'd like my output data to look something like this:
Node:[{Descendant,Movement Time},...]
A:[{B,0},{C,1},{D,1},{E,1},{X,2}]
B:[{C,1},{D,1},{E,1},{X,2},{A,7}]
C:[{X,6},{A,7}]
D:[{A,7}]
E:[{A,3}]
X:[{A,7}]
Z:[{B,5}]
This non-Neo4J implementation looks similar to what I'm trying to do: Cycle enumeration of a directed graph with multi edges
This one is not 100% what you want, but very close:
MATCH (n:TEST)-[r:MOVEMENT*]->(m:TEST)
WITH n, m, r, [x IN range(0,length(r)-2) |
(r[x+1]).movement_time - (r[x]).movement_time] AS deltas
WHERE ALL (x IN deltas WHERE x>0)
RETURN n, collect(m), collect(last(r).movement_time)
ORDER BY n.name
We basically find all the paths between any of your nodes (beware cartesian products get very expensive on non-trivial datasets). In the WITH we're building a collection delta's that holds the difference between two subsequent movement_time properties.
The WHERE applies an ALL predicate to filter out those having any non-positive value - aka we guarantee increasing values of movement_time along the path.
The RETURN then just assembles the results - but not as a map, instead one collection for the reachable nodes and the last value of movement_time.
The current issue is that we have duplicates since e.g. there are multiple paths from B to A.
As a general notice: this problem is much more elegantly and more performant solvable by using Java traversal API (http://neo4j.com/docs/stable/tutorial-traversal.html). Here you would have a PathExpander that skips paths with decreasing movement_time early instead of collection all and filter out (as Cypher does).
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.
Given a directed graph, I need to find all vertices v, such that, if u is reachable from v, then v is also reachable from u. I know that, the vertex can be find using BFS or DFS, but it seems to be inefficient. I was wondering whether there is a better solution for this problem. Any help would be appreciated.
Fundamentally, you're not going to do any better than some kind of search (as you alluded to). I wouldn't worry too much about efficiency: these algorithms are generally linear in the number of nodes + edges.
The problem is a bit underspecified, so I'll make some assumptions about your data structure:
You know vertex u (because you didn't ask to find it)
You can iterate both the inbound and outbound edges of a node (efficiently)
You can iterate all nodes in the graph
You can (efficiently) associate a couple bits of data along with each node
In this case, use a convenient search starting from vertex u (depth/breadth, doesn't matter) twice: once following the outbound edges (marking nodes as "reachable from u") and once following the inbound edges (marking nodes as "reaching u"). Finally, iterate through all nodes and compare the two bits according to your purpose.
Note: as worded, your result set includes all nodes that do not reach vertex u. If you intended the conjunction instead of the implication, then you can save a little time by incorporating the test in the second search, rather than scanning all nodes in the graph. This also relieves assumption 3.
a little out of my depth here and need to phone a friend. I've got a directed acyclical graph I need to traverse and I'm stumbling into to graph theory for the first time. I've been reading a lot about it lately but unfortunately I don't have time to figure this out academically. Can someone give me a kick with some help as to how to process this tree?
Here are the rules:
there are n root nodes (I call them "sources")
there are n end nodes
source nodes carry a numeric value
downstream nodes (I call them "worker" nodes) preform various operations on the incoming values like Add, Mult, etc.
As you can see from the graph below, nodes a, b, and c need to be processed before d, e, or f.
What's the proper order to walk this tree?
I would look into linearization of DAGs which should be achievable through Topological sorts.
Linearization, from what I remember, basically sorts in an order which holds to the invariant that for all nodes (Node_X) that have an outdegree to any other given node NodeA, NodeX appears before NodeA.
This would mean that, from your example, nodes a,b, and d would be processed first. Node c second. Nodes e and f, last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting
You need to process the nodes via a Topological sort. The sort is not necessarily unique so there might be more than one available order (not that this should matter anyway).
The linked wikipedia page should have concrete algorithms to help you.
I've faved a question here, and the most promising answer to-date implies "graph carvings". Problem is, I have no clue what it is (neither does the OP, apparently), and it sounds very promising and interesting for several uses. My Googlefu failed me on this topic, as I found no useful/free resource talking about them.
Can someone please tell me what is a 'graph carving', how I can make one for a graph, and how I can determine what makes a certain carving better suited for a task than another?
Please don't go too mathematical on me (or be ready to answer more questions): I understand what's a graph, what's a node and what's a vertex, I manage with big O notation, but I have no real maths background.
I think the answer given in the linked question is a little loose with terminology. I think it is describing a tree carving of a graph G. This is still not particularly google-friendly, I admit, but perhaps it will get you going on your way. The main application of this structure appears to be in one particular DFS algorithm, described in these two papers.
A possibly more clear description of the same algorithm may appear in this book.
I'm not sure stepping through this algorithm would be particularly helpful. It is a reasonably complex algorithm and the explanation would probably just parrot those given in the papers I linked. I can't claim to understand it very well myself. Perhaps the most fruitful approach would be to look at the common elements of those three links, and post specific questions about parts you don't understand.
Q1:
what is a 'graph carving'
There are two types of graph carving: Tree-Carving and Carving.
A tree-carving of a graph is a partition of the vertex set V into subsets V1,V2,...,Vk with the following properties. Each subset constitutes a node of a tree T. For every vertex v in Vj, all the neighbors of v in G belong either to Vj itself, or to Vi where Vi is adjacent to Vj in the tree T.
A carving of a graph is a partitioning of the vertex set V into a collection of subsets V1,V2,...Vk with the following properties. Each subset constitutes a node of a rooted tree T. Each non-leaf node Vj of T has a special vertex denoted by g(Vj) that belongs to p(Vj). For every vertex v in Vi, all the neighbors of v that are in ancestor sets of Vi belong to either
Vi or
Vj, where Vj is the parent of Vi in the tree T, or
Vl, where Vl is the grandparent in the tree T. In this case, however the neighbor of v can only be g(p(Vi))
Those defination referred from chapter 6 of book "Approximation Algorithms for NP-Hard problems" and paper1. (paper1 is picked from Gain's answer, thanks Gain.)
According to my understanding. Tree-Carving or Carving are a kind of representation (or a simplification) of an original graph G. So that the resulting new graph still preserve 'connection properties' of G, but with much smaller size(less vertex, less nodes). These two methods both somehow try to delete 'local' 'similar' information but to keep 'structure' 'vital' information. By merging some 'closed' vertices into one vertex and deleting some edges.
And It seems that Tree Carving is a little bit simpler and easier to understand Since in **Carving**, edges are allowed to go to a single vertex in the grapdhparenet node as well. It would preserve more information.
Q2:
how I can make one for a graph
I only know how to get a tree-carving.
You can refer the algorithm from paper1.
It's a Depth-First-Search based algorithm.
Do DFS, before return from an iteration, check whether this edges is 'bridge' edge or not. If yes, you need remove this 'bridge' and adding some 'back edge'.
You would get a DFS-partition which yields a tree-carving of G.
Q3:
how I can determine what makes a certain carving better suited for a task than another?
Sorry I don't know. I am also a new guy in graph theory.
If you have more question:
What's g function of g(Vj)?
a special node called gray node. go to paper1
What's p function of p(Vj)?
I am not sure. maybe p represent 'parent'. go to paper1
What's the back edge of node t?
some edge(u,v) s.t. u is a decent of t and v is a precedent of t. goto to paper1
What's bridge?
bridge wiki