You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Domination is one of the most central concepts in (algorithmic) graph theory, but there's not a lot of support for domination in IGraphM. As a start, to extend the family consisting of IGDominatorTree and IGImmediateDominators, I'd suggest adding utility functions to verify whether a given subset of vertices form a dominating set.
To check if S is a dominating set in G, we can check if S intersects the neighborhood of each vertex not in S. In Mathematica, one could write this as:
Ultimately, I think it would be great if IGraphM also had functionality to find a minimum (connected) dominating set, the (connected) domination number and so on, but I think this should be a fine addition and a good start. At the very least, it makes it very easy for the user to write a brute-force algorithm for either problem applicable for tiny graphs.
Do you think adding these functions would make sense?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
These are all good suggestions. Thanks! I'll also make a few changes to make it easier to get started with development, and will send you an email during next week.
Domination is one of the most central concepts in (algorithmic) graph theory, but there's not a lot of support for domination in IGraphM. As a start, to extend the family consisting of
IGDominatorTree
andIGImmediateDominators
, I'd suggest adding utility functions to verify whether a given subset of vertices form a dominating set.To check if S is a dominating set in G, we can check if S intersects the neighborhood of each vertex not in S. In Mathematica, one could write this as:
It also not at all common to be interested in connected dominating sets, for which a similar check could then by constructed as:
Ultimately, I think it would be great if IGraphM also had functionality to find a minimum (connected) dominating set, the (connected) domination number and so on, but I think this should be a fine addition and a good start. At the very least, it makes it very easy for the user to write a brute-force algorithm for either problem applicable for tiny graphs.
Do you think adding these functions would make sense?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: