Opened 10 months ago
Closed 10 months ago
#26148 closed defect (fixed)
infinite loop in spectral_radius for trees
Reported by:  dcoudert  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.4 
Component:  graph theory  Keywords:  
Cc:  vdelecroix, maurimo  Merged in:  
Authors:  Vincent Delecroix  Reviewers:  David Coudert 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  7c8240d (Commits)  Commit:  7c8240d7c4c034c33dab4de89b3ee8673f56d0f0 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description
Issue raised on https://ask.sagemath.org/question/43496/whycantifindthespectralradiusofatree/
The following instruction will never end
sage: g = graphs.CompleteBipartiteGraph(1,3) sage: g.spectral_radius()
Adding a print in the while loop to get e_max
, e_min
, c_prec
, e_maxe_min
, e_max * c_prec
, we get
sage: g.spectral_radius() 3.0 1.0 1e10 2.0 3e10 3.0 1.0 1e10 2.0 3e10 3.0 1.0 1e10 2.0 3e10 ...
and its the same for every tree. It's working well if the graph has a single edge, but for the path graph of order 3, we already get the infinite loop.
Change History (18)
comment:1 Changed 10 months ago by
comment:2 Changed 10 months ago by
Indeed, this is very bad for any bipartite graph because the two eigenvalues are lambda1
(the spectral radius) and lambda1
. Something special needs to be done in that case. One simple option is to consider the square of the adjacency matrix (reduced to one of the bi partition). I will try to provide a fix.
comment:3 Changed 10 months ago by
Though, in the case of trees as requested on ask I am sure there are much more clever things to do.
comment:4 Changed 10 months ago by
More precisely, here is the problem. Iterating the incidence matrix gets you into a cycle of length two
sage: g = graphs.CompleteBipartiteGraph(1,3) sage: A = g.adjacency_matrix().change_ring(RDF) sage: v = vector([1,2,3,4]) sage: v = A*v; v/= v.norm(); v (0.9819805060619657, 0.1091089451179962, 0.1091089451179962, 0.1091089451179962) sage: v = A*v; v/= v.norm(); v (0.18898223650461365, 0.566946709513841, 0.566946709513841, 0.566946709513841) sage: v = A*v; v/= v.norm(); v (0.9819805060619656, 0.10910894511799618, 0.10910894511799618, 0.10910894511799618) sage: v = A*v; v/= v.norm(); v (0.18898223650461363, 0.5669467095138409, 0.5669467095138409, 0.5669467095138409)
But with A^2
everything is fine
sage: w = A**2 * v sage: [w[i] / v[i] for i in range(4)] [3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0]
(and the eigenvalue is indeed sqrt(3) for the initial graph).
comment:5 followup: ↓ 7 Changed 10 months ago by
@dcoudert: do you know why is_bipartite
is not there on directed graph? The notion of bipartiteness does not care about orientation at all.
comment:6 Changed 10 months ago by
 Branch set to u/vdelecroix/26148
 Commit set to cb000cd3bd5b0ca05cbec61b9d3ce6f7a8e335ca
 Status changed from new to needs_review
New commits:
cb000cd  26148: fix spectral radius for bipartite graphs

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 10 months ago by
Replying to vdelecroix:
@dcoudert: do you know why
is_bipartite
is not there on directed graph? The notion of bipartiteness does not care about orientation at all.
It's certainly because noone asked for this feature yet?
We can move the method to generic_graph.py
. The part that tests bipartiteness is the same. However, we must update the method for finding a cycle when the digraph is not bipartite as shortest path methods care about orientation.
comment:8 followup: ↓ 9 Changed 10 months ago by
The test if not G
treats the empty graph only, so it's not appropriate for graph without edges. The correct test is if not G.size()
.
The current behavior is that a graph without edges is considered bipartite. I agree with that. For the empty graph, it's always ambiguous in definitions...
Concerning the method you propose for bipartite graphs in fact you use a method similar to project_left
in BipartiteGraph
, except that the projection don't accept loops/multiedges.
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 10 months ago by
Replying to dcoudert:
The test
if not G
treats the empty graph only, so it's not appropriate for graph without edges. The correct test isif not G.size()
.The current behavior is that a graph without edges is considered bipartite. I agree with that. For the empty graph, it's always ambiguous in definitions...
Concerning the method you propose for bipartite graphs in fact you use a method similar to
project_left
inBipartiteGraph
, except that the projection don't accept loops/multiedges.
Indeed. Note that project_left
also produces a graph and not a digraph. Why on earth is this called project_left
?
comment:10 Changed 10 months ago by
Well, there is also method project_right
;)
comment:11 Changed 10 months ago by
 Commit changed from cb000cd3bd5b0ca05cbec61b9d3ce6f7a8e335ca to c4aeaca9d4b88c1ced0beb1571d4e1abff339eda
comment:12 Changed 10 months ago by
I removed the call to shortest path.
comment:13 Changed 10 months ago by
 Reviewers set to David Coudert
 Why not writing directly
return sqrt(e_min), sqrt(e_max)
?
while s is not None:
>while s:
u_to_root
>v_to_root
(you start from v) before the loop
while u_to_root and w_to_root and u_to_root[1] == w_to_root[1]
you could add a comment like# Search for the nearest common ancestor of v and w
. No obligation.
 You must add special case for the graph with a single vertex and no edge (don't know the expected result).
sage: Graph(1).spectral_radius()  ValueError Traceback (most recent call last) <ipythoninput8c8d7e35649a7> in <module>() > 1 Graph(Integer(1)).spectral_radius() /home/dcoudert/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/graphs/base/static_sparse_graph.pyx in sage.graphs.base.static_sparse_graph.spectral_radius (build/cythonized/sage/graphs/base/static_sparse_graph.cpp:12977)() 984 H.add_edge(u0, u2) 985 > 986 e_min, e_max = spectral_radius(H, prec) 987 e_min = sqrt(e_min) 988 e_max = sqrt(e_max) /home/dcoudert/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/graphs/base/static_sparse_graph.pyx in sage.graphs.base.static_sparse_graph.spectral_radius (build/cythonized/sage/graphs/base/static_sparse_graph.cpp:12235)() 957 """ 958 if not G: > 959 raise ValueError("empty graph") 960 if G.is_directed(): 961 if not G.is_strongly_connected(): ValueError: empty graph
Note thatGraph([(0, 0)], loops=True).spectral_radius()
returns(1.0, 1.0)
comment:14 Changed 10 months ago by
 Commit changed from c4aeaca9d4b88c1ced0beb1571d4e1abff339eda to 7c8240d7c4c034c33dab4de89b3ee8673f56d0f0
comment:15 followup: ↓ 16 Changed 10 months ago by
Replying to dcoudert:
I did implement everything excepted
while s is not None:
>while s:
Nope, s = 0
or s = False
may be valid vertices.
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 10 months ago by
Nope,
s = 0
ors = False
may be valid vertices.
Right :P
comment:18 Changed 10 months ago by
 Branch changed from u/vdelecroix/26148 to 7c8240d7c4c034c33dab4de89b3ee8673f56d0f0
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
I don't know how to fix that.