skip to main content
article

An optimal minimum spanning tree algorithm

Published:01 January 2002Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We establish that the algorithmic complexity of the minimum spanning tree problem is equal to its decision-tree complexity. Specifically, we present a deterministic algorithm to find a minimum spanning tree of a graph with n vertices and m edges that runs in time O(T*(m,n)) where T* is the minimum number of edge-weight comparisons needed to determine the solution. The algorithm is quite simple and can be implemented on a pointer machine.Although our time bound is optimal, the exact function describing it is not known at present. The current best bounds known for T* are T*(m,n) = Ω(m) and T*(m,n) = O(m ∙ α(m,n)), where α is a certain natural inverse of Ackermann's function.Even under the assumption that T* is superlinear, we show that if the input graph is selected from Gn,m, our algorithm runs in linear time with high probability, regardless of n, m, or the permutation of edge weights. The analysis uses a new martingale for Gn,m similar to the edge-exposure martingale for Gn,p.

References

  1. AHO, A. V., HOPCROFT, J. E., AND ULLMAN, J. D. 1974. The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. ALON, N., AND SPENCER, J. 1992. The Probabilistic Method. Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. BORUVKA, O. 1926. O jistem problemu minimaalnim. Moravske Prirodovedecke Spolecnosti 3, 37-58. (In Czech.)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. BUCHSBAUM, A. L., KAPLAN, H., ROGERS, A., AND WESTBROOK, J. R. 1998. Linear-time pointermachine algorithms for least common ancestors, MST verification, and dominators. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 279-288. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. CHAZELLE, B. 1997. A faster deterministic algorithm for minimum spanning trees. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computing Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 22-31. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. CHAZELLE, B. 2000a. The soft heap: An approximate priority queue with optimal error rate. J. ACM 47, 6, 1012-1027. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. CHAZELLE, B. 2000b. A minimum spanning tree algorithm with inverse-Ackermann type complexity. J. ACM 47, 6, 1028-1047. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. CHONG, K. W., HAN, Y., AND LAM, T. W. 2001. Concurrent threads and optimal parallel minimum spanning trees algorithm. J. ACM 48, 2, 297-323. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. DIJKSTRA, E. W. 1959. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer. Math. 1, 269-271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. DIXON, B., RAUCH, M., AND TARJAN, R. E. 1992. Verification and sensitivity analysis of minimum spanning trees in linear time. SIAM J. Comput. 21, 1184-1192. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. ERD~S, P., AND RENYI, A. 1961. On the evolution of random graphs. Bull. Inst. Internat. Statist. 38, 343-347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. FREDMAN, M. L., AND TARJAN, R. E. 1987. Fibonacci heaps and their uses in improved network optimization algorithms. J. ACM 34, 596-615. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. FREDMAN, M., AND WILLARD, D. E. 1994. Trans-dichotomous algorithms for minimum spanning trees and shortest paths. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 48, 3, 533-551. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. GABOW, H. N., GALIL, Z., SPENCER, T., AND TARJAN, R. E. 1986. Efficient algorithms for finding minimum spanning trees in undirected and directed graphs. Combinatorica 6, 109-122. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. GRAHAM, R. L., AND HELL, P. 1985. On the history of the minimum spanning tree problem. Ann. Hist. Comput. 7, 43-57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. GODDARD, W., KENYON, C., KING, V., AND SCHULMAN, L. 1993. Optimal randomized algorithms for local sorting and set-maxima. SIAM J. Comput. 22, 2, 272-283. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. JARNIK, V. 1930. O jistem problemu minimaalnim. Moravske Prirodovedecke Spolecnosti 6, 57-63. (In Czech.)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. JONES, N. 1997. Computability and Complexity: From a Programming Perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. KARGER, D. R., KLEIN, P. N., AND TARJAN, R. E. 1995. A randomized linear-time algorithm to find minimum spanning trees. J. ACM 42, 321-328. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. KARP, R. M., AND TARJAN, R. E. 1980. Linear expected-time algorithms for connectivity problems. J. Algorithms 1, 4, 374-393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. KING, V. 1997. A simpler minimum spanning tree verification algorithm. Algorithmica 18, 2, 263-270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. LARMORE, L. L. 1990. An optimal algorithm with unknown time complexity for convex matrix searching. Infor. Process. Lett. 36, 147-151. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. PETTIE, S. 1999. Finding minimum spanning trees in O(m(m; n)) time. Tech. Rep. TR99-23. Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. PETTIE, S., AND RAMACHANDRAN, V. 1999. A randomized time-work optimal parallel algorithm for finding a minimum spanning forest. In Proceedings of RANDOM'99. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1671. Springer-Verlag, New York, 233-244. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. PETTIE, S., AND RAMACHANDRAN, V. 2002a. Computing shortest paths with comparisons and additions. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM, New York, 267-276. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. PETTIE, S., AND RAMACHANDRAN, V. 2002b. Minimizing randomness in minimum spanning tree, parallel connectivity, and set maxima algorithms. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM, New York, 713-722. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. PRIM, R. C. 1957. Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 36, 1389- 1401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. TARJAN, R. E. 1979a. A class of algorithms which require nonlinear time to maintain disjoint sets. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18, 2, 110-127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. TARJAN, R. E. 1979b. Applications of path compression on balanced trees. J. ACM 26, 4, 690-715. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An optimal minimum spanning tree algorithm

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader