Find it on GitHub

Find it on GitHub

Find it on GitHub

Find it on GitHub

We already know what’s topological sort of a directed acyclic graph. So why do we need a revision of this algorithm? First of all I never mentioned its complexity, thus to understand why we do need a revision let’s get again on the algorithm.

We have a directed acyclic graph (DAG). There are no cycles so we must go for some kind of order putting all the vertices of the graph in such an order, that if there’s a directed edge (u, v), u must precede v in that order.

The process of putting all the vertices of the DAG in such an order is called topological sorting. It’s commonly used in task scheduling or while finding the shortest paths in a DAG.

The algorithm itself is pretty simple to understand and code. We must start from the vertex (vertices) that don’t have predecessors.

We put them in our sorted list in random order. Since they don’t depend on each other we can assume they are equally sorted already. Indeed thinking of a task schedule if there are tasks that don’t have predecessors (they don’t depend on other tasks before them) and that don’t depend on each other we can put them in random order (and execute them in random order).

Once we have the vertices with no predecessors we must remove the edges starting from them. Then – go again with the vertices with no predecessors.

It’s as simple as that, so why do we need a revision of this algorithm? Well, basically because of its efficiency.

Overview

As we know most of the graph algorithms depend on the way the graph is represented in our application. We consider as the two main representations the adjacency matrix …

… and adjacency lists.

Let’s first take a look of some of the main approaches to get the topologically sorted list at the end of the algorithm.

What can we do in order to find the vertices with no predecessors? We can only scan the entire list of vertices.

Adjacency Matrix

In case we’re using adjacency matrix we need|V|^2 space to store the graph. To find the vertices with no predecessors we have to scan the entire graph, which will cost us O(|V|^2) time. And we’ll have to do that |V| times. This will be |V|^3 time consuming algorithm and for dense graphs this will be quite an ineffective algorithm.

Adjacency Lists

What about the adjacency list? There we need |E| space to store a directed graph. How fast can we find a node with no predecessor? Practically we’ll need O(|E|) time. Thus in the worst case we have again O(|V|^2) time consuming programs.

So what can be done in order to optimize this algorithm?

Practically we can start by picking up a random vertex and “go back” until we get a node with no predecessors. This approach can be very effective yet also very ineffective. First of all if we have to scan all the way back to a node with no predecessors this will cost us |V| time, but if we stuck on a node that don’t have a preceding node then we’ll have a constant speed.

This means that we can modify the algorithm a bit in order to improve a lot the algorithm. We just need to store both incoming and outgoing edges and slightly modify the adjacency lists.

What’s the algorithm now?

First we easily find the nodes with no predecessors. Then, using a queue, we can keep the nodes with no predecessors and on each dequeue we can remove the edges from the node to all other nodes.

Pseudo Code

1. Represent the graph with two lists on each vertex (incoming edges and outgoing edges)
2. Make an empty queue Q;
3. Make an empty topologically sorted list T;
4. Push all items with no predecessors in Q;
5. While Q is not empty
   a. Dequeue from Q into u;
   b. Push u in T;
   c. Remove all outgoing edges from u;
6. Return T;

This approach will give us a better performance than the “brute force” approach. The running time complexity is O(|V| + |E|). The problem is that we need additional space and an operational queue, but this approach is a perfect example of how by using additional space you can get a better performing algorithm.

A very common problem in computer programming is finding the longest increasing (decreasing) subsequence in a sequence of numbers (usually integers). Actually this is a typical dynamic programming problem.

Dynamic programming can be described as a huge area of computer science problems that can be categorized by the way they can be solved. Unlike divide and conquer, where we were able to merge the fairly equal sub-solutions in order to receive one single solution of the problem, in dynamic programming we usually try to find an optimal sub-solution and then grow it.

Once we have an optimal sub-solution on each step we try to upgrade it in order to cover the whole problem. Thus a typical member of the dynamic programming class is finding the longest subsequence.

However this problem is interesting because it can be related to graph theory. Let’s find out how.

Overview

We already know various ways to calculate the shortest paths in a graph. Indeed finding the single-source shortest path is a typical graph problem. To model such kind of solutions we definitely need a graph represented in our solution.

However the single-source shortest path isn’t a straight-forward problem. It depends on many factors. Thus for positive edges the algorithm of Edsger Dijkstra can be a perfect solution, but when the graph contains negative edges his algorithm is no longer useful.

In the presence of negative edges the Dijkstra’s algorithm doesn’t work and we’d better use the Bellman-Ford algorithm. It is interesting to note, that it was exactly Richard Bellman who first introduced the term “dynamic programming” in the 1940s.

In fact the Bellman-Ford algorithm was able to detect negative cycles. That’s too important, because in presence of negative cycles the shortest path problem is no longer well defined.

In the other hand when we’re talking about shortest paths in a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) we can find a faster (linear) solution. That’s because we’re sure that there are no cycles (not even negative cycles)!

Finding the shortest paths in a DAG is closely related to the topological sorting of the DAG. This gives us a linear representation of the vertices of the DAG and we can clearly calculate the distances from the starting node to all other nodes. Note that in a DAG we have one or more nodes that can be considered as starting nodes – which means they don’t have predecessors (incoming edges).

Following the words above is pretty hard to find what all these graph algorithms have to do with finding the longest increasing (decreasing) subsequence. Actually this problem is very closely related to the toplogical sort of the DAG and the problem of finding shortest paths in a DAG.

That’s because we can represent our sequence as a DAG. The only thing we must care about is to “connect” with directed edges those elements that form an increasing (decreasing) pair.

Thus the sequence from our example [1, 8, 2, 7, 3, 4, 1, 6] is going to look like this.

Another important thing to note is that we don’t search for shortest, but for longest path, since our task is to find the longest subsequence.

Pseudo Code

Our pseudo code for finding the shortest paths in a DAG was something like that.

1. Get the toplogically sorted list L of the DAG;
2. The starting node is s;
3. The distance to s equals to 0;
4. All other distances are initialized to ∞
5. For each node (v) in L\{s} do:
5.1. If dist(v) > dist(u) + w(u, v) then
5.1.1.  dist(v) := dist(u) + w(u, v)

In the above pseudo code “u” is every predecessor of “v”!

Now we must “reverse” the solution above in order to find the longest increasing subsequence. Note that we don’t care any more about the weight of the edges, thus we can simply substitute them with 1.

1. Get the sequence (L) as a toplogically sorted DAG;
2. For each (i) in L do:
2.1. S(i) := 1 + max(S(j), where (i, j) is an edge from the DAG);

Application

Finding the longest increasing subsequence can be very useful not only at the Google/Yahoo/Facebook interview, but also in various fields of statistics.

Along with the Kruskal’s minimum spanning tree algorithm, there’s another general algorithm that solves the problem. The algorithm of Prim.

As we already know the algorithm of Kruskal works in a pretty natural and logical way. Since we’re trying to build a MST, which is naturally build by the minimal edges of the graph (G), we sort them in a non-descending order and we start building the tree.

During the whole process of building the final minimum spanning tree Kruskal’s algorithm keeps a forest of trees. The number of trees in that forest decreases on each step and finally we get the minimum weight spanning tree.

A key point in the Kruskal’s approach is the way we get the “next” edge from G that should be added to one of the trees of the forest (or to connect two trees from the forest). The only thing we should be aware of is to choose an edge that’s connecting two vertices – u and v and these two shouldn’t be in the same tree. That’s all.

An important feature of the Kruskal’s algorithm is that it builds the MST just by sorting the edges by their weight and doesn’t care about a particular starting vertex.

In the same time there’s another algorithm that builds a MST – the algorithm of Prim designed by Robert Prim in 1957.

Overview

The idea behind the Prim’s algorithm is rather different from Kruskal’s approach. During the process of building the MST this algorithm keeps a single tree, which is finally sub-tree of the final minimum weight spanning tree.

On each step we chose an edge which we add to the growing tree that finally forms the MST.

It is somehow unnatural approach! We start from a given vertex and initially we don’t choose the lightest edge. Thus during the whole process the tree grows, but outside the tree (T) there might be edges that are lighter than those in the tree (i.e. the edge (5, 1) from the tree above is lighter than (2, 5) but (2, 5) is added to the growing tree before the edge (5, 1)).

Compared to the Kruskal’s algorithm this time everything seems to be really unnatural. How we should be sure the final tree (T) will be a minimum spanning tree since we don’t get the lightest edge on each step?

Actually we are sure that the final tree is a MST because of another obvious feature of the minimum spanning trees. They should “connect” all the vertices of G, thus somehow at least one edge reaching each vertex will appear in the MST. Thus we shouldn’t care where do we start, the only important thing is to choose the lightest edge that’s visible so far.

This algorithm looks much like Dijkstra’s shortest path in a graph, because we start from a vertex, we push all the edges starting from this node to a priority queue and we chose the lightest edge. Going to the next node connected by this edge we append to the queue all the edges that aren’t in the queue.

That way the queue grows and we get always the lightest edge – thus forming a priority queue.

Now let’s summarize the algorithm of Prim

Pseudo Code

As an initial input we have the graph (G) and a starting vertex (s).

1.  Make a queue (Q) with all the vertices of G (V);
2.  For each member of Q set the priority to INFINITY;
3.  Only for the starting vertex (s) set the priority to 0;
4.  The parent of (s) should be NULL;
5.  While Q isn’t empty
6.     Get the minimum from Q – let’s say (u); (priority queue);
7.     For each adjacent vertex to (v) to (u)
8.        If (v) is in Q and weight of (u, v) < priority of (v) then
9.           The parent of (v) is set to be (u)
10.          The priority of (v) is the weight of (u, v)

Indeed it looks much like the Dijkstra’s algorithm.

Code

Here’s a PHP implementation of the algorithm of Prim, which directly follows the pseudo code.

// Prim's algorithm

define('INFINITY', 100000000);

// the graph
$G = array(
    0 => array( 0,  4,  0,  0,  0,  0,  0,  0,  8),
    1 => array( 4,  0,  8,  0,  0,  0,  0,  0,  11),
    2 => array( 0,  8,  0,  7,  0,  4,  2,  0,  0),
    3 => array( 0,  0,  7,  0,  9,  14,  0,  0,  0),
    4 => array( 0,  0,  0,  9,  0,  10,  0,  0,  0),
    5 => array( 0,  0,  4,  14,  10,  0,  0,  2,  0),
    6 => array( 0,  0,  2,  0,  0,  0,  0,  6,  7),
    7 => array( 0,  0,  0,  0,  0,  2,  6,  0,  1),
    8 => array( 8,  11,  0,  0,  0,  0,  7,  1,  0),
);

function prim(&$graph, $start)
{
    $q = array(); // queue
    $p = array(); // parent
    
    foreach (array_keys($graph) as $k) {
        $q[$k] = INFINITY;
    }
    
    $q[$start] = 0;
    $p[$start] = NULL;
    
    asort($q);
    
    while ($q) {
        // get the minimum value
        $keys = array_keys($q);
        $u = $keys[0];
        
        foreach ($graph[$u] as $v => $weight) {
            if ($weight > 0 && in_array($v, $keys) && $weight < $q[$v]) {
                $p[$v] = $u;
                $q[$v] = $weight;
            }
        }
        
        unset($q[$u]);
        asort($q);
    }
    
    return $p;
}

prim($G, 5);

History

It’s curious to say that the algorithm developed by Robert Prim isn’t developed by him. It’s considered that a Czech mathematician Vojtech Jarnik discovered back in 1930. However now we know this algorithm as the algorithm of Prim, which independently discovered it in 1957 as I said above, and finally Edsger Dijkstra described it in 1959. That’s why his algorithm on finding the single-source shortest paths in a graph looks so much to this algorithm. Perhaps by finding this algorithm on minimum spanning tree Dijkstra discovered how we can find the shortest paths to all vertices using a priority queue. Indeed the paths to all other vertices use the edges of the minimum spanning tree.

Just because Jarnik found and described this algorithm 27 years earlier than Robert Prim, today it’s more convenient to call this algorithm the Prim-Jarnik algorithm.

One of the two main algorithms in finding the minimum spanning tree algorithms is the algorithm of Kruskal. Before getting into the details, let’s get back to the principles of the minimum spanning tree.

We have a weighted graph and of all spanning trees we’d like to find the one with minimal weight. As an example on the picture above you see a spanning tree (T) on the graph (G), but that isn’t the minimum weight spanning tree!

We can think of a group of islands and the possible connections of bridges connecting them. Of course building bridges is expensive and time consuming, so we must be aware of what kind of bridges we want to build. Nevertheless there is an important question, what’s the minimum price we’d like to pay to build such set of bridges connecting all the islands.

Thus we practically need to build a minimum spanning tree, where the vertices will be the islands, while the edges will be the possible bridges between them. Every possible bridge has a weight (the price or the time we need to build it, etc.).

This scenario is only one of possible use cases of where minimum spanning trees can be used in practice.

The two main approaches – the Kruskal’s and the Prim’s algorithms however differ.

Overview

The algorithm of Kruskal starts by initializing a set of |V| trees.

During the process of building the final spanning tree we keep a forest. Obviously we start with a forest with |V| trees, where each tree is a single node tree.

On some point we have a forest of “k” trees which are all a sub-trees of the minimum spanning tree.

Finally one step before building the final MST we have two trees and we connect them with the less weighted edge left that connects them.

It’s important to note that during the process of building the tree we sort the edges in ascending order by their weight.

Than we start getting edges and check whether their ends (the two vertices making the edge) belong to a different sub-trees.

Pseudo Code

1. T (the final spanning tree) is defined to be the empty set;
2. For each vertex v of G, make the empty set out of v;
3. Sort the edges of G in ascending (non-decreasing) order;
4. For each edge (u, v) from the sored list of step 3.
      If u and v belong to different sets
         Add (u,v) to T;
         Get together u and v in one single set;
5. Return T

A great feature about the Kruskal’s algorithm is that it also work on disconnected graphs.

History

Kruskal’s algorithm is named after Joseph Kruskal, who wasn’t only computer scientist, but also prominent mathematician and statistician. Although he is best known for its algorithm for computing the minimum spanning tree, described in this post, he’s also known with his work as a statistician and his contribution to the formulation of multidimensional scaling.

Kruskal also explored the Indo-European languages contributing the studies of the linguistics along with other scientists. His “Indo-European Lexicographical List” (http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/) is still widely used.

Here’s a classical task on graphs. We have a group of cities and we must wire them to provide them all with electricity. Out of all possible connections we can make, which one is using minimum amount of wire.

To wire N cities, it’s clear that, you need to use at least N-1 wires connecting a pair of cities. The problem is that sometimes you have more than one choice to do it. Even for small number of cities there must be more than one solution as shown on the image bellow.

Here we can wire these four nodes in several ways, but the question is, which one is the best one. By the way defining the term “best one” is also tricky. Most often this means which uses least wire, but it can be anything else depending on the circumstances.

As we talk on weighted graphs we can generally speak of a minimum weight solution through all the vertices of the graph.

By the way there might be more the one equally optimal (minimal) solutions.

Overview

Obviously we must choose those edges that are enough to connect all the vertices of the graph and whose sum of weights is minimal. Since we can’t have cycles in our final solution it must form a tree. Thus we’re speaking on a minimum weight spanning tree, as the tree spans over the whole graph.

Does each connected and weighted graph have a minimum spanning tree? The answer is yes! By removing the cycles from the graph G we get a spanning tree, since it’s connected. From all possible spanning trees one or more are minimal.

If w(u, v) is the weight of the edge (u, v), we can speak of weight of any spanning tree T – w(T) which is the sum of all the edges forming that tree.

Thus the weight of the minimum spanning tree is less than the weight of whatever other spanning tree of G.

After we’re sure that there is at least one minimum spanning tree for all connected and weighted graphs we only need to find it somehow.

We can go with an incremental approach. At the end we’ll have the minimum spanning tree (MST), but before that on each step of our algorithm we’ll have a sub-set of this final tree, which will grow and grow until it becomes the real MST. This subset of edges we’ll keep in one additional set A.

So far we know that on each step we have a subset of the final MST, but first we need to answer a couple of questions.

How do we start?

Well, we’ll start with the empty set of edges. Clearly the empty set is a subset of any other set, thus it will be also a subset of the MST.

How do we grow the tree?

Another question we must answer is how to grow the tree. Since we have a MST sub-set (A) on each step how do we add an edge to this set in order to get another (bigger than the previous one) subset of edges, which will be again a subset of the minimum spanning tree?

Clearly we must make a decision which edge to add to the growing subset and this is the tricky part of this algorithm.

Chose the lowest weight edge!

To find the minimum spanning tree on each step we must get the lowest weighted edge that connects our subset (A) with the rest of the vertices.

However can we be sure that by choosing the less weighted edge we’ll get the MST? Well, let’s assume that isn’t right in order to prove that wrong!

OK so on some step of our growing sub-tree we don’t get the lightest edge (u, v), because we somehow doubt this rule, and we get another edge – let’s say (x, y). Mind that w(x, y) >= w(u, v).

Thus our final MST will contain somewhere in its set of edges the edge (x, y), but the weight of MST w(T) is minimal, and if we get another spanning tree that contains the exact same edges as T but instead of (x, y) contains (u, v) we’ll get a smaller weight!

That isn’t possible! Thus we proved that on each step we must get the less weighted edge.

This particular approach is called “greedy”, because on each step we get the best possible choice. However greedy algorithms don’t always get the right or optimal solution. Fortunately for MST this isn’t true so we can be greedy as much as we can!

OK let’s make a summary of our algorithm in the following pseudo code.

Pseudo Code

1. We start with an  empty set (A) subset of the final MST;
2. Until A does not form T:
      a. Get the less weighted edge u from G;	
      b. Add u to A;
3. Return A

Application

Actually this algorithm is used firstly by Borůvka which started to wire Moravia in 1926. Even without knowing that the “greedy” approach will lead him to the right solution he optimally covered Moravia with electricity.

However this algorithm is too general and there are two main algorithms – the Prim’s algorithm and the Kruskal’s algorithm that we shall see in future posts.

The thing is that on each step we must get the less weighted edge and both algorithms use different approaches to do that.

We saw how to find the shortest path in a graph with positive edges using the Dijkstra’s algorithm. We also know how to find the shortest paths from a given source node to all other nodes even when there are negative edges using the Bellman-Ford algorithm. Now we’ll see that there’s a faster algorithm running in linear time that can find the shortest paths from a given source node to all other reachable vertices in a directed acyclic graph, also known as a DAG.

Because the DAG is acyclic we don’t have to worry about negative cycles. As we already know it’s pointless to speak about shortest path in the presence of negative cycles because we can “loop” over these cycles and practically our path will become shorter and shorter.

Thus we have two problems to overcome with Dijkstra and the Bellman-Ford algorithms. First of all we needed only positive weights and on the second place we didn’t want cycles. Well, we can handle both cases in this algorithm.

Overview

The first thing we know about DAGs is that they can easily be topologically sorted. Topological sort can be used in many practical cases, but perhaps the mostly used one is when trying to schedule dependent tasks.

After a topological sort we end with a list of vertices of the DAG and we’re sure that if there’s an edge (u, v), u will precede v in the topologically sorted list.

This information is precious and the only thing we need to do is to pass through this sorted list and to calculate distances for a shortest paths just like the algorithm of Dijkstra.

OK, so let’s summarize this algorithm:
– First we must topologically sort the DAG;
– As a second step we set the distance to the source to 0 and infinity to all other vertices;
– Then for each vertex from the list we pass through all its neighbors and we check for shortest path;

It’s pretty much like the Dijkstra’s algorithm with the main difference that we used a priority queue then, while this time we use the list from the topological sort.

Code

This time the code is actually a pseudocode. Altough all the examples so far was in PHP, perhaps pseudocode is easier to understand and doesn’t bind you in a specific language implementation. Also if you don’t feel comforatable with the given programming language it can be more difficult for you to understand the code than by reading pseudocode.

1. Topologically sort G into L;
2. Set the distance to the source to 0;
3. Set the distances to all other vertices to infinity;
4. For each vertex u in L
5.    - Walk through all neighbors v of u;
6.    - If dist(v) > dist(u) + w(u, v) 
7.       - Set dist(v) <- dist(u) + w(u, v);

Application

It’s clear why and where we must use this algorithm. The only problem is that we must be sure that the graph doesn’t have cycles. However if we’re aware of how the graph is created we may have some additional information if there are cycles or not – then this linear time algorithm can be very applicable.