A Greedy Approach to Answer Reachability Queries on DAGs

November 08, 2016 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Nicolas Boria, Gianpiero Cabodi, Paolo Camurati, Marco Palena, Paolo Pasini, Stefano Quer arXiv ID 1611.02506 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 2 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Several modern applications involve huge graphs and require fast answers to reachability queries. In more than two decades since first proposals, several approaches have been presented adopting on-line searches, hop labelling or transitive closure compression. Transitive closure compression techniques usually construct a graph reachability index, for example by decomposing the graph into disjoint chains. As memory consumption is proportional to the number of chains, the target of those algorithms is to decompose the graph into an optimal number \width\ of chains. However, commonly used techniques fail to meet general expectations, are exceedingly complex, and their application on large graphs is impractical. The main contribution of this paper is a novel approach to construct such reachability indexes. The proposed method decomposes the graph into a sub-optimal number $\widehat{c}$ of chains by following a greedy strategy. We show that, given a vertex topological order, such a decomposition is obtained in $\mathcal{O}(\widehat{c} m)$ time, and requires $\mathcal{O}(\widehat{c} n)$ space, with $\widehat{c}$ bounded by $[c \log(\frac{n}{c})]$. We provide experimental evidence suggesting that, on different categories of automatically generated benchmarks as well as on graphs arising from the field of logic synthesis and formal verification, the proposed method produces a number of chains very close to the optimum, while significantly reducing computation time.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted