Covering Approximate Shortest Paths with DAGs

Abstract

We define and study analogs of probabilistic tree embedding and tree cover for directed graphs. We define the notion of a DAG cover of a general directed graph G: a small collection D1,… Dg of DAGs so that for all pairs of vertices s,t, some DAG Di provides low distortion for dist(s,t); i.e. distG(s, t) i ∈ [g] distDi(s, t) ≤ α · distG(s, t), where α is the distortion. As a trivial upper bound, there is a DAG cover with n DAGs and α=1 by taking the shortest-paths tree from each vertex. When each DAG is restricted to be a subgraph of G, there is a matching lower bound (via a directed cycle) that n DAGs are necessary, even to preserve reachability. Thus, we allow the DAGs to include a limited number of additional edges not in the original graph. When n2 additional edges are allowed, there is a simple upper bound of two DAGs and α=1. Our first result is an almost-matching lower bound that even for n2-o(1) additional edges, at least n1-o(1) DAGs are needed, even to preserve reachability. However, the story is different when the number of additional edges is O(m), a natural setting where the sparsity of the DAG collection nearly matches the original graph. Our main upper bound is that there is a near-linear time algorithm to construct a DAG cover with O(m) additional edges, polylogarithmic distortion, and only O( n) DAGs. This is similar to known results for undirected graphs: the well-known FRT probabilistic tree embedding implies a tree cover where both the number of trees and the distortion are logarithmic. Our algorithm also extends to a certain probabilistic embedding guarantee. Lastly, we complement our upper bound with a lower bound showing that achieving a DAG cover with no distortion and O(m) additional edges requires a polynomial number of DAGs.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…