skip to main content
article
Free Access

Recontamination does not help to search a graph

Published:01 April 1993Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper is concerned with a game on graphs called graph searching. The object of this game is to clear all edges of a contaminated graph. Clearing is achieved by moving searchers, a kind of token, along the edges of the graph according to clearing rules. Certain search strategies cause edges that have been cleared to become contaminated again. Megiddo et al. [9] conjectured that every graph can be searched using a minimum number of searchers without this recontamination occurring, that is, without clearing any edge twice. In this paper, this conjecture is proved. This places the graph-searching problem in NP, completing the proof by Megiddo et al. that the graph-searching problem is NP-complete. Furthermore, by eliminating the need to consider recontamination, this result simplifies the analysis of searcher requirements with respect to other properties of graphs.

References

  1. 1 ~BIENSTOCK, D., AND SEYMOUR, P. Monotonicity m graph searching. J. Algorithms 12 (1991), ~239-245. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 ~BRElSCH, R. An intuitive approach to speleotopology. Southwestern Cat:ers (A publication of ~the Southwestern Region of the National Speleological Society) VI, 5 (Dec. 1967), 72-78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3 ~ELLIS, J. A., SUDBOROUGH, I. H., AND TURNER, J.S. Graph separation and search number. ~In Proceedings of the Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Compuung. Coordi- ~nated Sci. Lab., Univ. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, I11., 1983, pp. 224 233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 ~GAREY, M. R., AND JOHNSON, D.S. Compttlers and bltractabiliO': A Guide to the Theoo' of ~NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif., 1979. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5 ~KIROUSIS, L., AND PAPADIMITRIOU, C. Searching and pebbling. Theoret. Comput. Set. 47 ~(1986), 205 218. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6 ~MAKEDON, F. Layout problems and their complexity. Ph.D. dissertation. Dept. of Electrical ~Engineering and Computer Science, Northwestern Univ., Chicago, Ill., 1982. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7 ~MAKEDON, F., PAPADIMITRIOU, C., AND SUDBOROUGH, I.H. Topological bandwidth. SIAM J. ~Al~: Disc. Meth. 6 (1985), 418-444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8 ~MAKEDON, F., AND SUDBOROUGH, I.H. On minimizing width in linear layouts. Disc. Appl. ~ Math. 23 (1989), 243 265. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9 ~MEGiDDO, N., HAKIMI, S. L., GAREY, M. R., JOHNSON, D. S., AND PAPADINiITRIOU, C.H. The ~complexity of searching a graph, J. ACM 35, 1 (Jan. 1988), 18-44. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10 ~PARSONS, T.D. Pursuit-evasion in a graph. In Theory and ,4pphcattons of Graphs. Y. Alavi ~ and D. R. Lick, eds. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976, pp. ~ 426-441.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 ~PARSONS, T. D. The search number of a connectcd graph. In Proceedtngs of the 9th ~Southeastern Conference on Combinatodcs, Graph Theoly and Cotnputing. Utilitas Mathemat- ~ica Publishing, Winnipeg, Canada, 1978, pp. 549 554.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Recontamination does not help to search a graph

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Daniel P. Bovet

        Lapaugh proves the truth of a conjecture raised by Megiddo et al. [1] that the edges of a graph can be cleared by an efficient one-pass algorithm without ever having to reclear an edge already cleared. This places the graph-searching problem in NP, completing the proof by the earlier authors that the problem is NP-complete. The rules of the game are the following: initially all edges are contaminated. An edge (u,v) can be cleared by sliding a pebble from u to v, while shielding u from contaminated (that is, uncleared) edges with appropriately placed pebbles (for example, by keeping a second pebble at u). An edge-clearing strategy is optimal if it minimizes the number of require d pebbles. The proof described is rather involved and requires over ten pages. A simpler proof of the same result has been published [2], thus placing me in an uncomfortable position. It is fair to say that the long refereeing process (the paper was submitted in January 1985) has limited the interest of this paper.

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        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