Thuật toán Algorithms (Phần 44)

DIRECTED GRAPHS ing to those edges that were actually used to visit vertices via recursive calls and dotted edges corresponding to those edges pointing to vertices that had already been visited at the time the edge was considered. The nodes are visited in the order A F E D B G J K L M C H I. Note that the directions on the edges make this depth-first search forest quite different from the depth-first search forests that we saw for undirected graphs. For example, even though the original graph was connected, the depth-first search structure defined by the solid edges is not connected: it is a forest, not a tree. For undirected graphs, we had only one kind of dotted edge, one that connected a vertex with some ancestor in the tree. For directed graphs, there are three kinds of dotted edges: up edges, which point from a vertex to some ancestor in the tree, down edges, which point from a vertex to some descendant in the tree, and cross edges, which point from a vertex to some vertex which is neither a descendant nor an ancestor in the tree. As with undirected graphs, we’re interested in connectivity properties of directed graphs. We would like to be able to answer questions like “Is there a directed path from vertex x to vertex y (a path which only follows edges in the indicated direction)?” and “Which vertices can we get to from vertex x with a directed path?” and “Is there a directed path from vertex x to vertex y and a directed path from y to x. Just as with undirected graphs, we’ll be able to answer such questions by appropriately modifying the basic depth-first search algorithm, though the various different types of dotted edges make the modifications somewhat more complicated. Transitive Closure In undirected graphs, simple connectivity gives the vertices that can be reached from a given vertex by traversing edges from the graph: they are all those in the same connected component. Similarly, for directed graphs, we’re often interested in the set of vertices which can be reached from a given vertex by traversing edges from the graph in the indicated direction. It is easy to prove that the recursive visit procedure from the depth-first search method in Chapter 29 visits all the nodes that can be reached from the start node. Thus, if we modify that procedure to print out the nodes that it is visiting (say, by inserting just upon entering), we are printing out all the nodes that can be reached from the start node. But note carefully that it is not necessarily true that each tree in the depth-first search forest contains all the nodes that can be reached from the root of that tree (in our example, all the nodes in the graph can be reached from H, not just I). To get all the nodes that can be visited from each node, we simply call visit V times, once for each node: 424 32 for to Vdo begin for to V do visit(k); wri end This program produces the following output for our sample graph: AFEDBG JKLMC B CAFEDBGJKLM DFE EDF FED GJKLMCAFEDB HGJKLMCAFEDBI IHGJKLMCAFEDB JKLGCAFEDBM K LGJKMCAFEDB MLGJKCAFEDB For undirected graphs, this computation would produce a table with the property that each line corresponding to the nodes in a connected component lists all the nodes in that component. The table above has a similar property: certain of the lines list identical sets of nodes. Below we shall examine the generalization of connectedness that explains this property. As usual, we could add code to do extra processing rather than just writing out the table. One operation we might want to perform is to add an edge directly from to y if there is some way to get from to y. The graph which results from adding all edges of this form to a directed graph is called the transitive closure of the graph. Normally, a large number of edges will be added and the transitive closure is likely to be dense, so an adjacency matrix representation is called for. This is an analogue to connected components in an undirected graph; once we’ve performed this computation once, then we can quickly answer questions like there a way to get from x to y?” Using depth-first search to compute the transitive closure requires steps in the worst case, since we may have to examine every bit of the DIRECTED GRAPHS 425 adjacency matrix for the depth-first search from each vertex. There is a remarkably simple nonrecursive program for computing the transitive closure of a graph represented with an adjacency matrix: for to V do for to V do if y] then for to Vdo if then S. invented this method in 1962, using the simple observation that “if there’s a way to get from node x to node y and a way to get from node y to node j then there’s a way to get from node x to node j.” The trick is to make this observation a little stronger, so that the computation can be done in only one pass through the matrix, to wit: “if there’s a way to get from node x to node y using only nodes with indices less than x and a way to get from node y to node j then there’s a way to get from. node x to node j using only nodes with indices less than The above program is a direct implementation of this. Warshall’s method converts the adjacency matrix for our sample graph, given at left in the table below, into the adjacency matrix for its transitive closure, given at the right: ABCDEFGHIJKLM A1100011000000 BOlOOOOOOOOOOO 10000000110000 KOOOOOOOOOOlOO ABCDEFGHI JKLM A1111111001111 BOlOOOOOOOOOOO Hlllllllllllll 11111111111111 KOOOOOOOOOOlOO 426 CHAPTER 32 For very large graphs, this computation can be organized so that the operations on bits can be done a computer word at a time, which will lead to significant savings in many environments. (As we’ve seen, it is not intended that such optimizations be tried with Pascal.) Topological Sorting For many applications involving directed graphs, cyclic graphs do arise. If, however, the graph above modeled a manufacturing line, then it would imply, say, that job A must be done before job G, which must be done before job C, which must be done before job A. But such a situation is inconsistent: for this and many other applications, directed graphs with no directed cycles (cycles with all edges pointing the same way) are called for. Such graphs are called directed acyclic graphs, or just dags for short. Dags may have many cycles if the directions on the edges are not taken into account; their defining property is simply that one should never get in a cycle by following edges in the indicated direction. A dag similar to the directed graph above, with a few edges removed or directions switched in order to remove cycles, is given below. The edge list for this graph is the same as for the connected graph of Chapter 30, but here, again, the order in which the vertices are given when the edge is specified makes a difference. Dags really are quite different objects from general directed graphs: in a sense, they are part tree, part graph. We can certainly take advantage of their special structure when processing them. Viewed from any vertex, a dag looks like a tree; put another way, the depth-first search forest for a dag has no up edges. For example, the following depth-first search forest describes the operation of dfs on the example dag above. DIRECTED GRAPHS 427 A fundamental operation on dags is to process the vertices of the graph in such an order that no vertex is processed before any vertex that points to it. For example, the nodes in the above graph could be processed in the following order: JKLMAGHIFEDBC If edges were to be drawn with the vertices in these positions, all the edges would go from left to right. As mentioned above, this has obvious application, for example, to graphs which represent manufacturing processes, for it gives a specific way to proceed within the constraints represented by the graph. This operation is called topological sorting, because it involves ordering the vertices of the graph. In general, the vertex order produced by a topological sort is not unique. For example, the order AJGFKLEMBHCID is a legal topological ordering for our example (and there are many others). In the manufacturing application mentioned, this situation occurs when one job has no direct or indirect dependence on another and thus they can be performed in either order. It is occasionally useful to interpret the edges in a graph the other way around: to say that an edge directed from x to y means that vertex x “depends” on vertex y. For example, the vertices might represent terms to be defined in a programming language manual (or a book on algorithms!) with an edge from x to y if the definition of x uses y. In this case, it would be useful to find an ordering with the property that every term is defined before it is used in another definition. This corresponds to positioning the vertices in a line so that edges would all go from right to left. A reverse topological order for our sample graph is: DEFCBIHGAKMLJ CHAPTER 32 The distinction here is not crucial: performing a reverse topological sort on a graph is equivalent to performing a topological sort on the graph obtained by reversing all the edges. But we’ve already seen an algorithm for reverse topological sorting, the standard recursive depth-first search procedure of Chapter Simply chang- ing visit to print out the vertex visited just before for example by inserting ) right at the end, causes dfs to print out the vertices in reverse topological order, when the input graph is a dag. A simple induction argument proves that this works: we print out the name of each vertex after we’ve printed out the names of all the vertices that it points to. When visit is changed in this way and run on our example, it prints out the vertices in the reverse topological order given above. Printing out the vertex name on exit from this recursive procedure is exactly equivalent to putting the vertex name on a stack on entry, then popping it and printing it on exit. It would be ridiculous to use an explicit stack in this case, since the mechanism for recursion provides it automatically; we mention this because we do need a stack for the more difficult problem to be considered next. Strongly Connected Components If a graph contains a directed cycle, (if we can get from a node back to itself by following edges in the indicated direction), then it it is not a dag and it can’t be topologically sorted: whichever vertex on the cycle is printed out first will have another vertex which points to it which hasn’t yet been printed out. The nodes on the cycle are mutually accessible in the sense that there is a way to get from every node on the cycle to another node on the cycle and back. On the other hand, even though a graph may be connected, it is not likely to be true that any node can be reached from any other via a directed path. In fact, the nodes divide themselves into sets called strongly connected components with the property that all nodes within a are mutually accessible, but there is no way to get from a node in one component to a node in another component and back. The strongly connected components of the directed graph at the beginning of this chapter are two single nodes B and K, one pair of nodes H I, one triple of nodes D E F, and one large component with six nodes A C G J L M. For example, vertex A is in a different component from vertex F because though there is a path from A to F, there is no way to get from F to A. The strongly connected components of a directed graph can be found using a variant of depth-first search, as the reader may have learned to expect. The method that we’ll examine was discovered by R. E. in 1972. Since it is based on depth-first search, it runs in time proportional to V + E, but it is actually quite an ingenious method. It requires only a few simple modifications to our basic visit procedure, but before presented the method, no linear DLRECTED GRAPHS 429 time algorithm was known for this problem, even though many people had worked on it. The modified version of depth first search that we use to find the strongly connected components of a graph is quite similar to the program that we studied in Chapter 30 for finding biconnected components. The recursive visit function given below uses the same min computation to find the highest vertex reachable (via an up link) from any descendant of vertex k, but uses the value of min in a slightly different way to write out the strongly connected components: function integer): integer; var link; m, min : integer; begin :=now; min:=now; :=k; ; while do begin if then else if then end ; if min=vaJ[k] then begin repeat until wri end end This program pushes the vertex names onto a stack on entry to visit, then pops them and prints them on exit from visiting the last member of each strongly connected component. The point of the computation is the test whether min=vaJ[k] at the end: if so, all vertices encountered since entry (except those already printed out) belong to the same strongly connected 430 CHAPTER 32 component as k. As usual, this program could easily be modified to do more sophisticated processing than simply writing out the components. The method is based on two observations that we’ve actually already made in other contexts. First, once we reach the end of a call to visit for a vertex, then we won’t encounter any more vertices in the same strongly connected component (because all the vertices which can be reached from that vertex have been processed, as we noted above for topological sorting). Second, the “up” links in the tree provide a second path from one vertex to another and bind together the strong components. As with the algorithm in Chapter 30 for finding articulation points, we keep track of the highest ancestor reachable via one link from all descendants of each node. Now, if a vertex x has no descendants or links in the depth-first search tree, or if it has a descendant in the depth-first search tree with an “up” link that points to x, and no descendants with links that point higher up in the tree, then it and all its descendants (except those vertices satisfying the same property and their descendants) comprise a strongly connected component. In the first search tree at the beginning of the chapter, nodes B and K satisfy the first condition (so they represent strongly connected components themselves) and nodes F E D), H (representing H I), and A (representing A G J L M C) satisfy the second condition. The members of the component represented by A are found by deleting B K F and their descendants (they appear in previously discovered components). Every descendant y of x that does not satisfy this same property has some descendant that has an “up” link that points higher than y in the tree. There is a path from x to y down through the tree; and a path from y to x can be found by going down from y to the vertex with the “up” link that reaches past y, then continuing the same process until x is reached. A crucial extra twist is that once we’re done with a vertex, we give it a high so that “cross” links to that vertex will be ignored. This program provides a deceptively simple solution to a relatively difficult problem. It is certainly testimony to the subtleties involved in searching directed graphs, subtleties which can be handled (in this case) by a carefully crafted recursive DIRECTED GRAPHS 431 Exercises 1. Give the adjacency matrix for the transitive closure of the example dag given in this chapter. 2. What would be the result of running the transitive closure algorithms on an undirected graph which is represented with an adjacency matrix? 3. Write a program to determine the number of edges in the transitive closure of a given directed graph, using the adjacency list representation. 4. Discuss how Warshall’s algorithm compares with the transitive closure algorithm derived from using the depth-first search technique described in the text, but using the adjacency matrix form of visit and removing the recursion. 5. Give the topological ordering produced for the example dag given in the text when the suggested method is used with an adjacency matrix representation, but dfs scans the vertices in reverse order (from V down to 1) when looking for unvisited vertices. 6. Does the shortest path algorithm from Chapter 31 work for directed graphs? Explain why or give an example for which it fails. 7. Write a program to determine whether or not a given directed graph is a dag. 8. How many strongly connected components are there in a dag? In a graph with a directed cycle of size V? 9. Use your programs from Chapters 29 and 30 to produce large random directed graphs with V vertices. How many strongly connected com- ponents do such graphs tend to have? 10. Write a program that is functionally analogous to find from Chapter 30, but maintains strongly connected components of the directed graph described by the input edges. (This is not an easy problem: you certainly won’t be able to get as efficient a program as find.) . represent terms to be defined in a programming language manual (or a book on algorithms! ) with an edge from x to y if the definition of x uses y. In this. this chapter. 2. What would be the result of running the transitive closure algorithms on an undirected graph which is represented with an adjacency matrix?