Advertisement

Tight bounds for finding degrees from the adjacency matrix

  • R. Balasubramanian
  • Venkatesh Raman
  • G. Srinivasaraghavan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 911)

Abstract

King and Smith-Thomas[5] have shown that to find a sink (a vertex with outdegree 0 and indegree n−1) in an n vertex directed graph, 3n-⌊log n⌋-3 probes to its adjacency matrix are necessary and sufficient in the worst case. We first generalize this result to show that for any integer k between 0 and n−1,
  • to find a vertex of outdegree k in a simple n vertex directed graph, Θ(n(n−k)) probes to its adjacency matrix are necessary and sufficient in the worst case, and

  • to find a vertex of degree k in an n vertex undirected graph, Θ(n2) probes to its adjacency matrix are necessary and sufficient in the worst case.

Then we study this problem on a special class of directed graphs called tournaments (between every pair of vertices, there is exactly one directed edge). Recently[1] it has been shown that nk/2 probes are necessary and (4k+2)n probes are sufficient to test whether a tournament has a vertex with outdegree k≤(n−1)/2 (The case when k>(n−1)/2 is symmetric since we can find a vertex of indegree n−1−k). We improve the lower bound, and the upper bound for k=0 and k=1, all by a constant factor to show that if T n is a tournament on n vertices,
  • to test whether T n has a vertex of outdegree k≤(n−1)/2, (2k+2)n+O(k log k) probes to the adjacency matrix are necessary in the worst case, and

  • to test whether T n has a vertex of outdegree k, for k=0 and 1, (2k+2)n+o(n) probes to the adjacency matrix are sufficient, by exhibiting two different algorithms, one for k=0 and k=1.

We conjecture that this lower bound for tournaments is optimal (up to lower order terms) for most k≤(n−1)/2.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Balasubramanian, Venkatesh Raman and G. Srinivasaraghavan, The Complexity of Finding Certain Trees in Tournaments, Proceedings of the third Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Springer Verlag 709 (1993) 142–150.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. W. Beinke and R. S. Wilson, (Eds), Selected Topics in Graph Theory, Academic Press, New York/London 1978.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Bar-Noy and J. Naor, Sorting, Minimal Feedback Sets, and Hamiltonian Paths in Tournaments, SIAM Jl. Discrete Math. 3(1), (1990) 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Hell and M. Rosenfeld, The Complexity of Finding Generalized Paths in Tournaments, Jl. Algorithms 4, 1983, pp 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.N. King and B. Smith-Thomas, An optimal algorithm for sink finding, Information Processing Letters 14 (1982) 109–111.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. W. Moon, Topics on Tournaments, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. L. Rivest and J. Vuillemin, On recognizing graph properties from adjacency matrices, Theoretical Computer Science 3 (1976) 371–384.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. van Leeuwen, Graph Algorithms, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, (Ed) J. van Leeuwen, Elsevier Science 1990, pp 584.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. C. Yao, Monotone Bipartite Graphs are Evasive, SIAM J. of Computing 17 (1988) 517–520.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Balasubramanian
    • 1
  • Venkatesh Raman
    • 1
  • G. Srinivasaraghavan
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Mathematical SciencesMadrasIndia

Personalised recommendations