arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 27 Feb 2018

Transcription

1 Incremental Strong Connectivity and 2-Connectivity in Directed Graph Louka Georgiadi 1, Giueppe F. Italiano 2, and Niko Parotidi 2 arxiv: v1 [c.ds] 27 Feb Univerity of Ioannina, Greece. 2 Univerity of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy. Abtract In thi paper, we preent new incremental algorithm for maintaining data tructure that repreent all connectivity cut of ize one in directed graph (digraph), and the trongly connected component that reult by the removal of each of thoe cut. We give a conditional lower bound that provide evidence that our algorithm may be tight up to a ub-polynomial factor. A an additional reult, with our approach we can alo maintain dynamically the 2-vertex-connected component of a digraph during any equence of edge inertion in a total of O(mn) time. Thi matche the bound for the incremental maintenance of the 2-edge-connected component of a digraph. 1 Introduction A dynamic graph algorithm aim at updating efficiently the olution of a problem after each update, fater than recomputing it from cratch. A dynamic graph problem i aid to be fully dynamic if the update operation include both inertion and deletion of edge, and it i aid to be incremental (rep., decremental) if only inertion (rep., deletion) are allowed. In thi paper, we preent new incremental algorithm for ome baic connectivity problem on directed graph (digraph), which were recently conidered in the literature [20]. Before defining the problem and tating our bound, we need ome definition. Let G = (V, E) be a digraph. G i trongly connected if there i a directed path from each vertex to every other vertex. The trongly connected component (in hort SCC) of G are it maximal trongly connected ubgraph. Two vertice u, v V are trongly connected if they belong to the ame SCC of G. An edge (rep., a vertex) of G i a trong bridge (rep., a trong articulation point) if it removal increae the number of SCC in the remaining graph. See Figure 1. Given two vertice u and v, we ay that an edge (rep., a vertex) of G i a eparating edge (rep., a eparating vertex) for u and v if it removal leave u and v in different SCC. Let G be trongly connected: G i 2-edge-connected (rep., 2-vertex-connected) if it ha no trong bridge (rep., no trong articulation point). Two vertice u, v V are aid to be 2-edge-connected (rep., 2-vertex-connected), denoted by u 2e v (rep., u 2v v), if there are two edge-dijoint (rep., internally vertex-dijoint) directed path from u to v and 1

2 G G\(a, c) a b a b c d c d e f g h e f g h i i j k l j k l m m Figure 1: A trongly connected digraph G with trong bridge hown in red (better viewed in color), and the SCC of G \ e after the deletion of the trong bridge e = (a, c). two edge-dijoint (rep., internally vertex-dijoint) directed path from v to u. (Note that a path from u to v and a path from v to u need not be edge-dijoint or internally vertex-dijoint). A 2-edge-connected component (rep., a 2-vertexconnected component) of a digraph G = (V, E) i defined a a maximal ubet B V uch that u 2e v (rep., u 2v v) for all u, v B. Given a digraph G, we denote by G \ e (rep., G \ v) be the digraph obtained after deleting edge e (rep., vertex v) from G. Let G = (V, E) be a trongly connected graph. In very recent work [20], we preented an O(n)-pace data tructure that, after a linear-time preproceing, i able to anwer in aymptotically optimal (wort-cae) time all the following querie on a tatic digraph: Report in O(1) time the total number of SCC in G \ e (rep., G \ v), for any query edge e (rep., vertex v) in G. Report in O(1) time the ize of the larget and of the mallet SCC in G \ e (rep., G \ v), for any query edge e (rep., vertex v) in G. Report in O(n) time all the SCC of G \ e (rep., G \ v), for any query edge e (rep., vertex v). Tet in O(1) time whether two query vertice u and v are trongly connected in G \ e (rep., G \ v), for any query edge e (rep., vertex v). For any two query vertice u and v that are trongly connected in G, report all edge e (rep., vertice v) uch that u and v are not trongly connected in G \ e (rep., G \ v) in time O(k + 1), where k i the number of eparating edge (rep., eparating vertice). A pointed out in [20, 37], thi data tructure i motivated by application in many area, including computational biology [21, 34] ocial network analyi [30, 44], network reilience [40] and network immunization [4, 7, 32]. A dynamic verion of the aforementioned data tructure can be ued to monitor the critical component (i.e., edge and vertice) whoe removal dirupt the 2

3 underlying graph, in graph that change over time. An ideal cenario i to deign efficient algorithm in the fully dynamic etting. However, we how that no data tructure that can anwer any of the querie that we conider in ublinear time in the number of edge, can be maintained fater than recomputing the data tructure from cratch unle a widely believed conjecture i proved wrong. There are real-word dynamic network where edge deletion occur rarely, in which cae the incremental etting find application. Such network include, for intance, communication network, road network, the power grid. Our Reult. We how a conditional lower bound for the fully dynamic verion of thi problem. More pecifically, let G = (V, E) be a digraph with n vertice that undergoe m edge update from an initially empty graph. We prove that any fully dynamic algorithm that can anwer any of the querie conidered here require either Ω(m 1 o(1) ) amortized update time, or Ω(m 1 o(1) ) query time, unle the Strong Exponential Time Hypothei [27, 28] i fale. Motivated by thi hardne reult, we focu on the incremental verion of thi problem. We preent an incremental verion of the data tructure introduced in [20], which can be maintained throughout a equence of edge inertion. In particular, we how how to maintain a digraph G undergoing edge inertion in a total of O(mn) time, where n i the number of vertice and m the number of edge after all inertion, o that all the querie we conider can be anwered in aymptotically optimal (wort-cae) time after each inertion. A an additional reult, with our approach we can alo maintain the 2-vertex-connected component of a digraph during any equence of edge inertion in a total of O(mn) time. After every inertion we can tet whether two query vertice are 2-vertex-connected and, whenever the anwer i negative, produce a eparating vertex (or an edge) for the two query vertice. Thi matche the bound for the incremental maintenance of the 2-edge-connected component of a digraph [19]. Before our work, no algorithm for all thoe problem wa fater than recomputing the olution from cratch after each edge inertion, which yield a total of O(m 2 ). Our algorithm improve ubtantially over thoe bound. In addition, we how a conditional lower bound for the total update time of an incremental data tructure that can anwer querie of the form are u and v trongly connected in G \ e, where u, v V, e E. In particular, we prove that the exitence of a data tructure that upport the aforementioned querie with total update time O((mn) 1 ɛ ) (for ome contant ɛ > 0). Therefore, a polynomial improvement of our bound lead to a breakthrough. Related Work. Many efficient algorithm for everal dynamic graph problem have been propoed in the literature, including dynamic connectivity [24, 26, 35, 36, 42], minimum panning tree [12, 14, 25, 26, 35], edge/vertex connectivity [12, 26] on undirected graph, and tranitive cloure [10, 23, 31, 39] and hortet path [2, 9, 31, 43] on digraph. Dynamic problem on digraph are known to be harder than on undirected graph and mot of the dynamic algorithm on undirected graph have polylog update bound, while dynamic algorithm on digraph have higher polynomial update bound. The hardne of dynamic algorithm on digraph ha been recently upported alo by conditional lower bound [1]. In [15], the decremental verion of the data tructure conidered in thi paper i preented. The total time and pace required to maintain decrementally the data tructure i O(mn log n) and O(n 2 log n), repectively: here m i the num- 3

4 ber of edge in the initial graph. We remark that our incremental algorithm are ubtantially different from decremental algorithm of [15], and indeed the technique that we ue here are ubtantially different from [15]. More pecifically, the main approach of [15] i to maintain the SCC in G \ v for each v V, by carefully combining n appropriate intance of the decremental SCC algorithm from [33]. Thi allow to maintain decrementally the dominator tree in O(mn log n) total time and O(n 2 log n) pace. On the contrary, in the incremental etting it i already known how to maintain dominator tree, and the main challenge i to maintain efficiently information about neting loop throughout edge inertion. Thi allow u to achieve better bound than in the decremental etting [15]: namely, O(mn) total time and O(m + n) pace. In [19] we preented an incremental algorithm that maintain the 2-edgeconnected component of a directed graph with n vertice through any equence of edge inertion in a total of O(mn) time, where m i the number of edge after all inertion. After each inertion, we can tet in contant time if two query vertice v and w are 2-edge-connected, and if not we can produce in contant time a witne of thi property, by exhibiting an edge that i contained in all path from v to w or in all path from w to v. Our Technical Contribution. Our fit contribution i to dynamize the recent data tructure in [20], which hinge on two main building block: dominator tree and loop neting tree (which are reviewed in Section 2). While it i known how to maintain efficiently dominator tree in the incremental etting [18], the incremental maintenance of loop neting tree i a challenging tak. Indeed, loop neting tree are heavily baed on depth-firt earch, and maintaining efficiently a df tree of a digraph under edge inertion ha been an eluive goal: no efficient olution are known up to date, and incremental algorithm are available only in the retricted cae of DAG [13]. To overcome thee inherent difficultie, we manage to define a new notion of trongly connected ubgraph of a digraph, which i till relevant for our problem and i independent of depth firt earch. Thi new notion i baed on ome pecific neting loop, which define a laminar family. One of the technical contribution of thi paper i to how how to maintain efficiently thi family of neting loop during edge inertion. We believe that thi reult might be of independent interet, and perhap it might hed further light to the incremental df problem on general digraph. Our econd contribution, the incremental maintenance of the 2-vertex-connected component of a digraph, complete the picture on incremental 2-connectivity on digraph by complementing the recent 2-edge connectivity reult of [19]. We remark that 2-vertex connectivity in digraph i much more difficult than 2-edge connectivity, ince it i plagued with everal degenerate pecial cae, which are not only more tediou but alo more cumberome to deal with. For intance, 2-edge-connected component partition the vertice of a digraph, while 2-vertex-connected component do not. Furthermore, two vertice v and w are 2-edge-connected if and only if the removal of any edge leave v and w in the ame SCC. Unfortunately, thi property no longer hold for 2-vertex connectivity, a for intance two mutually adjacent vertice are alway left in the ame trongly connected component by the removal of any other vertex, but they are not necearily 2-vertex-connected. 4

5 2 Dominator tree, loop neting tree and auxiliary component In thi ection we review the two main ingredient ued by the recent framework in [20]: dominator tree and loop neting tree. A already mentioned in the introduction, one of the main technical difficultie behind our approach i that the incremental maintenance of loop neting tree eem an eluive goal. We then review the notion of auxiliary component, which i ued in Section 3 to overcome thi difficulty. We remark that both dominator tree and auxiliary component can be maintained efficiently during edge inertion [18, 19]. Throughout, we aume that the reader i familiar with tandard graph terminology, a contained for intance in [8]. Given a rooted tree, we denote by T (v) the et of decendant of v in T. Given a digraph G = (V, E), and a et of vertice S V, we denote by G[S] the ubgraph induced by S. Moreover, we ue V (S) and E(S) to refer to the vertice of S and to the edge adjacent to S, repectively. The revere digraph of G, denoted by G R = (V, E R ), i obtained by revering the direction of all edge. A flow graph F i a directed graph (digraph) with a ditinguihed tart vertex V (F ), where all vertice in V (F ) are reachable from in F. We denote by G the ubgraph of G induced by the vertice that are reachable from ; that i, G i a flow graph with tart vertex. Repectively, we denote by G R the ubgraph of G R induced by the vertice that are reachable from. If G i trongly connected, all vertice are reachable from and reach, o we can view both G and G R a flow graph with tart vertex. Dominator tree. A vertex v i a dominator of a vertex w (v dominate w) if every path from to w contain v. The dominator relation in G can be repreented by a tree rooted at, the dominator tree D, uch that v dominate w if and only if v i an ancetor of w in D. See Figure 2. We denote by dom(w) the et of vertice that dominate w. Alo, we let d(w) denote the parent of a vertex w in D. Similarly, we can define the dominator relation in the flow graph G R, and let D R denote the dominator tree of G R, and d R (v) the parent of v in D R. The dominator tree of a flow graph can be computed in linear time, ee, e.g., [3, 6]. An edge (u, v) i a bridge of a flow graph G if all path from to v include (u, v). 1 Let be an arbitrary tart vertex of G. A hown in [29], an edge e = (u, v) i trong bridge of G if and only if it i either a bridge of G or a bridge of G R. A a conequence, all the trong bridge of G can be obtained from the bridge of the flow graph G and G R, and thu there can be at mot 2(n 1) trong bridge overall. After deleting from the dominator tree D and D R repectively the bridge of G and G R, we obtain the bridge decompoition of D and D R into foret D and D R. Throughout the paper, we denote by D u (rep., Du R ) the tree in D (rep., D R ) containing vertex u, and by r u (rep., ru R ) the root of D u (rep., Du R ). The following lemma from [17] hold for a flow graph G of a trongly connected digraph G (and hence alo for the flow graph G R of G R ). Lemma 2.1. ([17]) Let G be a trongly connected digraph and let (u, v) be a trong bridge of G. Alo, let D be the dominator tree of the flow graph G, for 1 Throughout the paper, to avoid confuion we ue conitently the term bridge to refer to a bridge of a flow graph and the term trong bridge to refer to a trong bridge in the original graph. 5

6 D D a b a b c d c d e f g h e f g h i i j k m l j k m l Figure 2: The dominator tree D (on the left) of the digraph of Figure 1 with tart vertex, and it bridge decompoition D (on the right). an arbitrary tart vertex. Suppoe u = d(v). Let w be any vertex that i not a decendant of v in D. Then there i path from w to v in G that doe not contain any proper decendant of v in D. Moreover, all imple path in G from w to any decendant of v in D mut contain the edge (d(v), v). Loop neting foret. Let G be a digraph, and G the flow graph with an arbitrary tart vertex. A loop neting foret repreent a hierarchy of trongly connected ubgraph of G [41], defined with repect to a df tree T of G, rooted at, a follow. For any vertex u, loop(u) i the et of all decendant x of u in T uch that there i a path from x to u in G containing only decendant of u in T. Any two vertice in loop(u) reach each other. Therefore, loop(u) induce a trongly connected ubgraph of G; it i the unique maximal et of decendant of u in T that doe o. The loop(u) et form a laminar family of ubet of V : for any two vertice u and v, loop(u) and loop(v) are either dijoint or neted. The loop neting foret H of G, with repect to T, i the foret in which the parent of any vertex v, denoted by h(v), i the nearet proper ancetor u of v in T uch that v loop(u) if there i uch a vertex u, and null otherwie. Then loop(u) i the et of all decendant of vertex u in H, which we alo denote a H(u) (the ubtree of H rooted at vertex u). A loop neting foret can be computed in linear time [6, 41]. When G i trongly connected, each vertex i contained in a loop, and H i a tree, rooted at. Therefore, we refer to H a the loop neting tree of G (ee Figure 3). Auxiliary component. Let G be a flow graph and D and D be the dominator tree and the bridge decompoition of G, repectively. Let e = (u, v) be a bridge of the flow graph G. We ay that an SCC C in G[D(v)] i an e-dominated component of G. We alo ay that C V i a bridge-dominated component if it i an e-dominated component for ome bridge e: bridge-dominated component form a laminar family [19]. An auxiliary component of G i a maximal ubet of vertice C D v uch that C i a ubet of a (d(r v ), r v )-dominated component. Each auxiliary component C i repreented by an arbitrarily choen vertex u C, which we call the canonical vertex of C. For each vertex v C, we refer to the canonical vertex of C by c v. That i, if u i the canonical vertex of an auxiliary component then c u = u. Following the bridge decompoition D of the dominator tree D of G, the auxiliary component are defined with repect to 6

7 a G b a H d c c L c c e c d c d c f b h c l c i e f g h e m i g j k l i m l k j Figure 3: The flow graph G of the graph of Figure 1 with olid df edge (left); the loop neting tree H of G generated by the df traveral on the left (middle); the hyperloop neting tree L of G (right). The bridge of G are hown red. The grouped vertice in both G and L repreent the auxiliary component of G. the tart vertex. 3 Hyperloop neting foret In thi ection, we introduce the new notion of hyperloop neting foret, which, differently from loop neting foret, can be maintained efficiently during edge inertion, a we how in Section 5. Given a canonical vertex v c, we define the hyperloop of v, and denote it by hloop(v), a the et of canonical vertice that are in the ame (d(r v ), r v )-dominated component a v. A a pecial cae, all canonical vertice that are trongly connected to are in the hyperloop hloop(c ). It can be hown that hyperloop form a laminar family of ubet of V, with repect to the tart vertex : for any two canonical vertice u and v, hloop(u) and hloop(v) are either dijoint or neted (i.e., one contain the other). Thi property allow u to define the hyperloop neting foret L of G a follow. The parent l(v) of a canonical vertex v in L i the (unique) canonical vertex u, u / D(r v ), with the larget depth in D, uch that v hloop(u). If there i no vertex u / D(r v ), uch that v hloop(u), then l(v) = ; notice that in thi cae v i not trongly connected to a well. See Figure 3. Then, hloop(u) i the et of all decendant of a canonical vertex u in L, which we alo denote a L(u) (the ubtree of L rooted at vertex u). Similarly to the loop neting foret, the hyperloop neting foret of a trongly connected digraph i a tree. We begin the tudy of the hyperloop neting foret by howing that it i unique, and thu, depend olely on the tructure of the graph. (We conider a fixed choice of the canonical vertice of the auxiliary component.) Lemma 3.1. The hyperloop neting foret of a flowgraph G i unique. Proof. Let v be a canonical vertex of G. By the definition of the hyperloop neting foret L, the parent l(v) of v in L i the canonical vertex u D(r v ) with maximum depth in D, uch that u and v are in the ame (d(r u ), r u )-dominated component. Then, the fact that both u and v are decendant of r u implie that u i unique and o the lemma follow. 7

8 D r l(v) l(v) p q d r v r v v Figure 4: A repreentation of the relation between a canonical vertex v and it parent in L with repect to the bridge decompoition of D. Given a vertex u in a flow graph G, we define it level, denoted by level(u), to be the number of bridge (v, w) of G uch that w i an ancetor of u in D. In other word, the level of u equal the number of trong bridge that appear in all path from to u in G. A a reult, all vertice in the ame tree of the bridge decompoition have the ame level. In the next lemma we how that each canonical vertex ha at mot one ancetor in L at each level. Lemma 3.2. Let G a flow graph and let u be a canonical vertex of G. All ancetor of u in the hyperloop neting foret have unique level. Proof. Let w and v be two ditinct ancetor of u in L uch that level(w) = level(v). By the definition of the hyperloop neting foret both r w and r v are ancetor of u in D. Then, r w = r v. Aume by contradiction that u i trongly connected with both w and v in G[D(r w )]. Then w and v are trongly connected in G[D(r w )]. By the definition of the auxiliary component, w and v are in the ame auxiliary component, and thu c w = c v. A contradiction to the fact that both w and v are canonical vertice. The lemma follow. The following lemma characterize the relationhip between the loop neting foret H and the hyperloop neting foret L of a flow graph G. More pecifically, it how that L can be obtained from H by contracting all the vertice of each auxiliary component into their canonical vertex. Thi yield immediately a linear-time algorithm to compute the hyperloop neting foret of a flow graph G : we firt compute a loop neting foret H of G [6, 41] and then contract each vertex v to c v in H. In the following we denote by h v the unique ancetor of v in H, uch that h v D v and h(h v ) / D v. If v D, it follow that h v =. We can compute h v, for all v V in O(n) time [20]. Lemma 3.3. For every vertex v, the following hold: The canonical vertice of v and h v are the ame. 8

9 The canonical vertex of the parent of c v in L i the canonical vertex of the parent of h v in H, including the cae where h(h v ) =. Proof. Let T be the df traveral that generated H. In the cae where v D, it trivially follow that c hv = c v = c. Now aume that v / D. Note that r v i an ancetor of h v in T ince all path from to h v go through r v by Lemma 2.1. Therefore, alo all the decendant of h v in H are decendant of r v in T. The fact that h v i an ancetor of v in H it mean that v i a decendant of h v in T and v ha a path P to h v uing only decendant of h v in T. The path P cannot contain vertice that are not in D(r v ) ince otherwie by Lemma 2.1 they contain r v, which contradict the fact that all vertice on P contain decendant of h v in T (recall that r v i an ancetor of h v in T ). It follow that h v ha a path to v in G[D(r v )] and v ha a path to h v in G[D(r v )]. Thu, c v = c hv by the definition of the auxiliary component. Exactly the ame argument can be applied on the revere graph to how that c R h = c R R v. v Conider now h(h v ). In the cae where v D, it trivially follow that h(c hv ) = h(c v ) =. Therefore in the following we aume that v / D. Firt, we deal with the cae where c h(hv) =. Since v / D, the only cae that thi can happen i when h(h v ) =. That mean, there i no ancetor w of h v in T, uch that h v ha a path to w uing only vertice in T (w). We how that thi mean, there i alo no vertex z / D(r v ), uch that v and z are trongly connected in G. Aume, for the ake of contradiction that there i uch vertex z, and let C be the SCC containing both h v, and therefore alo v, and z. Moreover, let vertex z C, z h v be the vertex that i viited firt by the df that generated T. Then all vertice in C are decendant of z in T ince they are all reachable from z and they were not viited by the df before z. Hence, h v i a decendant of z in T. A contradiction to the fact that h(h v ) =. Therefore, there i no vertex z / D(r v ), uch that v and z are trongly connected in G G[D(r z )]. Thu, l(c v ) =. Now we conider the cae where c hv = c v. The fact that r h(hv) i an ancetor of h(h v ) in D implie that r h(hv) i an ancetor of h(h v ) alo in T. By the definition of H it follow that h v i a decendant of h(h v ) in T, and h v ha a path P to h(h v ) uing only decendant of h(h v ) in T. The path P cannot contain vertice that are not in D(r h(hv)) ince otherwie, by Lemma 2.1, they contain r h(hv), which contradict the fact that all vertice on P contain decendant of h(h v ) in T (recall that r h(hv) i an ancetor of h(h v ) in T ). Therefore h(h v ) and h v are trongly connected in G[r h(hv)], and by definition o do c h(hv) and c hv. Hence, c h(hv) i an ancetor of c hv in L. Now we how that there i no other canonical vertex w h(h v ) uch that level(c w ) > level(h(h v )) and c w i an ancetor of c hv in L. Thi implie that l(c v ) = c h(hv). Aume, for the ake of contradiction, that there i uch a vertex w. Then h v and c w are in the ame SCC C in G[D(r cw )]. Let z C be the firt among the vertice in C viited by the df that generated T. Then all vertice in C are decendant of z in T ince they are all reachable from z and they were not viited by the df before z. Thu, h v i a decendant of z in H. Now we how that thi implie that z i alo a decendant of h(h v ) in H. By the definition of the hyperloop neting foret r z and r h(hv) are ancetor of h v in D. Furthermore, ince level(z) > level(h(h v )) it hold that r h(hv) i an ancetor of r z in D. By the fact that h(h v ) and z are ancetor of h v in T it hold that h(h v ) and z have ancetor-decendant relation, and hence, z i a decendant of h(h v ) in T (a r z and r h(hv) are ancetor of h v in D and level(z) > level(h(h v ))). 9

10 Since h v ha a path to h(h v ) uing only decendant of h(h v ) in T, it follow that z alo ha a path to h(h v ) uing only decendant of h(h v ) in T. Thu, z i a decendant of h(h v ) in H. In ummary, z if an ancetor of h v and a decendant of h(h v ) in H; a contradiction to the definition of h(h v ) z. Thi conclude the lemma. 4 Updating the dominator tree after an edge inertion In thi ection, we briefly review the algorithm from [18] that update the dominator tree of a flow graph G after an edge inertion. Let G be a flow graph with tart vertex. Let (x, y) be the edge to be inerted. Let D be the dominator tree of G before the inertion; we let D be the the dominator tree of G. In general, for any function f on V, we let f be the function after the update. We ay that vertex v i D-affected by the update if d(v) (it parent in D) change, i.e., d (v) d(v). We let nca D (x, y) denote the nearet common ancetor of x and y in the dominator tree D. Lemma 4.1. ([38]) If v i D-affected, then it become a child of nca D (x, y) in D, i.e., d (v) = nca D (x, y). We ay that a vertex i D-canned if it i a decendant of a D-affected vertex after an edge inertion. Note that every D-affected vertex i alo D-canned ince each vertex i a decendant of itelf in D. There are two key idea behind the incremental dominator algorithm. Firt, the algorithm update D in time proportional to number of the edge incident to D-canned vertice. Second, after an edge inertion, all D-canned vertice decreae their depth in D by at leat one. Since throughout a equence of edge inertion the depth of a vertex can only decreae, each vertex can be D-canned at mot n 1 time, and thu the algorithm examine at mot (n 1) time the adjacency lit of each vertex. Thi implie that the algorithm ha O(mn) total update time, where m i the number of edge in the graph after all inertion. We now prove the following lemma, which how that after the inertion of an edge (x, y), the ancetor and decendant of the vertice v / D (nca D (x, y)) do not change. We ue thi later later on in our incremental algorithm for maintaining the hyperloop neting foret of a flow graph. Lemma 4.2. Let u be a vertex that i not a decendant of nca D (x, y) in D. Then dom(u) = dom (u) and D (u) = D(u). Moreover, if (d(u), u) wa a bridge in G, then it remain a bridge in G. Proof. The claim that D (u) = D(u) follow immediately from the fact that all D-canned vertice (which were the only vertice v for which dom(v) dom (v)) were in D(nca D (x, y)) and therefore remain in D (nca D (x, y)) = D(nca D (x, y)). Thi alo implie that dom(u) = dom (u), a for each w dom(u) it hold that w / D(nca D (x, y)). Now let (d(u), u) be a bridge in G, and aume by contradiction that (d(u), u) i no longer a bridge in G. Thi implie there i a path from to u avoiding (d(u), u) in G. Since (d(u), u) wa the only incoming edge to D(u) = D (u), the path in G mut contain and edge (w, z) uch that 10

11 Algorithm 1: Initialize(G, ) 1 Set to be the deignated tart vertex of G. 2 Compute the dominator tree D and the et of bridge Br of the correponding flow graph G. 3 Compute the bridge decompoition D of D, and the auxiliary component of G. 4 Compute the loop neting foret H of the G. 5 Contruct the hyperloop neting foret L from H by contacting each vertex w into c w. w / D(u), z D(u). Thi contradict the fact that the only new edge i (x, y) and that either x, y D(u) or x, y / D(u), a otherwie D(nca D (x, y)) i an ancetor of u in D (which we aume i not). 5 Updating the hyperloop neting foret after an edge inertion Let G be a directed graph and let G be the flow graph of G with an arbitrary tart vertex. In thi ection we how how to maintain the hyperloop neting foret L of G under a equence of edge inertion. We aume that D and L are rooted at and c, repectively. For implicity, we alo aume that all vertice of G are reachable from, o m n 1. If thi i not true, then we can imply recompute D and L from cratch, in linear time, every time a vertex become reachable from after an edge inertion. Since there can be at mot n 1 uch event, the total running time for thee recomputation i O(mn). Throughout the equence of edge inertion, we maintain a additional data tructure only the dominator tree D (with the incremental dominator algorithm in [18]), the bridge decompoition and the auxiliary component of G (with the algorithm in [19]). Initialization and retart. To initialize the algorithm, we compute the dominator tree D, bridge decompoition and auxiliary component, which can be done in linear time [3, 19]. We alo compute the hyperloop neting foret L of G in linear time, a uggeted by Lemma 3.3. The peudocode for the initialization i given in Algorithm 1. After the firt initialization, in ome pecial cae we initialize our algorithm again, in order to implify the analyi. We call thi a retart. We retart our algorithm whenever a bridge e = (u, v) of G i canceled after the inertion of a new edge (x, y) but we till have d (v) = u, i.e., (u, v) i no longer a trong bridge in G but the parent of u in the dominator tree D doe not change. In thi cae, we ay that the bridge e = (u, v) i locally canceled. Thi i a difficult cae to analyze: the incremental dominator algorithm doe not pend any time, ince there are no D-affected vertice, while the bridge decompoition and the auxiliary component of G might change. Fortunately, there are at mot O(n) locally canceled bridge throughout a equence of edge inertion [19]. Hence, we retart our algorithm at mot O(n) time. Conequently, the total time pent 11

12 G D L (i) (ii) (iii) G D L (iv) (v) (vi) Figure 5: A detailed example demontrating the different type of vertice that we conider after an edge inertion. In (i), a digraph G before the inertion of (22, 19) (dahed edge). In (ii), the dominator tree of G where vertice in the ame auxiliary component are grouped together. In (iii), the hyperloop neting tree of G. In (i)-(iii) we color the D-affected with red the D-canned but not D-affected vertice with blue, and the L-affected but not D-canned vertice with green. Finally, in (iv), (v), and (vi) we repreent G, D where vertice in the ame auxiliary component are grouped together, and L. in retart i O(mn). High-level overview of the update. Let (x, y) be the new edge to be inerted. Similarly to Section 4, for any function f, we ue the notation f to denote the ame function after the inertion of (x, y), e.g., we denote by l (v), the parent of a canonical vertex v in the hyperloop neting foret, after the 12

13 Algorithm 2: SCInertEdge(G, e) 1 Let be the deignated tart vertex of G, and let e = (x, y). 2 Update the dominator tree D. Let S be the et of D-canned vertice. 3 Update the bridge decompoition D, and the auxiliary component of G 4 if a bridge i locally canceled in G then 5 Execute Initialize(G, ). 6 ele 7 Execute Update-D-canned(D, L, x, y, S) and Update-L-affected(D, L, x, y, S). 8 end inertion of (x, y), and by L the reulting hyperloop neting foret. Once again, we denote by D-canned the vertice that decreae their depth in the dominator tree D after an edge inertion. Moreover, we denote by D-affected the vertice that change their parent in D and by L-affected the vertice for which it hold l (v ) c l(v), i.e., when the parent of v in L i not in the ame auxiliary component a l(v) (the parent of v in L). After the inertion of a new edge (x, y), if not involved in a retart, our algorithm perform the following update, a hown in the peudocode of Algorithm 2: 1) Compute the new dominator tree D, the correponding bridge decompoition D, and the new auxiliary component. 2) Compute l (v) for the D-canned canonical vertice v D y. 3) Compute l (v) for the D-canned canonical vertice v / D y. 4) Compute l (v) for the L-affected canonical vertice v that are not D- canned. A already mentioned, the dominator tree D, the bridge decompoition and the auxiliary component of G can be maintained during edge inertion within our claimed bound [18, 19]. To complete the algorithm, it remain to how how to update efficiently the parent in the hyperloop neting foret of the D-canned and the L-affected vertice. Thi i non-trivial, and the low-level technical detail of the method are pelled out in Section 5.1 and 5.2, repectively. Before giving the detail of our algorithm, we how that we only need to conider the vertice D (r y). Lemma 5.1. No canonical vertex v / D (r y) i L-affected. Proof. We have that nca D (x, y) D (r y). Aume l (v ) = w. The fact that v / D (r y) implie that r w / D (r y). By Lemma 4.2, r w = r w and D (r w) = D(r w ). Therefore, G[D(r w )] = G [D (r w)]\(x, y). A w and v are not trongly connected in G[D(r w )] = G[D (r w)] but they are trongly connected in G [D (r w)] = G[D(r w )] \ (x, y), if follow that either all path from w to v or from v to w in G [D (r w)] contain (x, y). Thu, all path from w or from v to y in G [D (r w)] contain (x, y). A w, v / D (nca D (x, y)), by Lemma 2.1, all path from w or v to y in G [D (r w)] contain nca D (x, y). Note that there i path from nca D (x, y) to y in G [D (nca D (x, y))] avoiding (x, y) (a y D(nca D (x, y)) = D (nca D (x, y)), 13

14 and G[D(nca D (x, y))] = G [D (nca D (x, y))]\(x, y)). A contradiction to the fact that all path from w or from v to y in G [D (r w)] contain (x, y). 5.1 Updating the D-canned vertice Let S be the et of D-canned vertice containing alo the D-affected vertice. After the inertion of the edge (x, y), all the D-affected vertice become children of nca D (x, y) in D, by Lemma 4.1. In thi ection we deal with the update of the parent in the hyperloop neting foret l (v ), for all canonical vertice v S. From now on, in order to implify the notation, we aume without lo of generality that v = c v for any vertex of interet v; we alo denote c v by v. After the inertion of the edge (x, y) only a ubet of the ancetor in L of an L-affected canonical vertex v change. In particular, Lemma 5.2 how that the ancetor w of v in L uch that w / D (r y) remain ancetor of v in L. However, the inertion of (x, y) might create a new path from v to a canonical vertex z uch that v D (r z), containing only vertice in D (r z). In uch a cae, z become an ancetor of v in L. Lemma 5.2. Let v D(r y) be a canonical vertex in G. For each ancetor z of v in L, uch that z / D (r y), the canonical vertex z remain ancetor of v in L. Moreover, D (r z ) = D(r z). Proof. By Lemma 4.2 and the fact that r z i an ancetor of D (r y), it follow that D (r z ) = D(r z) and (d(r z ), r z ) remain a bridge in G. Then, the fact that z i an ancetor of v in L follow from the fact that v and z are trongly connected in G [D (r z )] and D (r z ) = D(r z). The following lemma identifie the new parent in L of y. Lemma 5.3. It hold that l (y ) = w, where w i the nearet ancetor of y in L uch that w / D (r y). Proof. By Lemma 5.2, for all ancetor z of y in L, uch that z / D (r y), vertex z remain ancetor of y in L. We how that all ancetor of y in L were ancetor of y in L before the edge inertion. Aume by contradiction that there exit a canonical vertex z that i an ancetor of y in L, but z i not an ancetor of y in L. By the definition of hyperloop neting foret, r z mut be a proper ancetor of r y. Lemma 4.2 and the fact that (x, y) i not locally canceled imply that dom (r y) = dom(r y ), r z i an ancetor of r y in D, and D (r z) = D(r z ). Following our aumption we have that z and y are trongly connected in G [D (r z)] but not in G[D(r z )] = G [D(r z )] \ (x, y). Therefore, there i no path from x to y in G[D(r z )]. By the fact that y D(nca D (x, y)), there exit a path from nca D (x, y) to y in G[D(nca D (x, y))] avoiding x. A nca D (x, y) D(r z ), there i a path from z to y through nca D (x, y) in G[D(r z )] avoiding x; a contradiction. The lemma follow. We now compute l (v ) for each canonical vertex v S D y, that i, the D-affected vertice that are in the ame tree of the canonical decompoition of D with y. Note that all the new path that are introduced by the inertion of 14

15 the edge (x, y) mut contain y. We ue thi obervation to compute l (v ), for v S D y, baed on l (y ) a hown in the following lemma. Lemma 5.4. Let v D y be D-canned. If v and y are in different auxiliary component then l (v ) = w, where w i the nearet ancetor of v in L uch that w / D (r y). Proof. By Lemma 5.2 for each ancetor z of v in L, uch that z / D (r y), vertex z remain ancetor of v in L. Aume by contradiction that l (v ) = z with level (z ) > level (w ), that i, r w i a proper ancetor of r z in D. Since v D y, it follow that r z / D (r y), and therefore D (r z) = D(r z ) by Lemma 4.2. By our aumption, v and z are trongly connected in G [D(r z )]. Lemma 2.1 implie that all path from z to v in G [D(r z )] contain d (r v) = d (r y). Let P zv = P zd (r y ) P d (r y )v be uch a path, where P zd (r y ) i the ubpath from z to d (r y) and P d (r y )v the ubpath from d (r y) to v. Since, P zd (r y ) doe not contain (x, y) and we alo have that v D(r y) it follow that z ha a path to v in G[D(r z )]. A v and z are not trongly connected in G[D(r z )], all path from v to z in G [D(r z )] contain (x, y). Moreover, due to the fact that v y, any path from v to z contain a vertex out of D (r y), and therefore, alo r y by Lemma 2.1. By the lat two argument, all path from v to z contain both firt r y and then (x, y). That implie that all path from r y to y in G contain the edge (x, y), and a all path from to y in G contain r y (by Lemma 2.1) it follow that all path from to y contain (x, y). Thi i ufficient for (x, y) to be a bridge in G, which i a contradiction a y i reachable from in G. Thu, our aumption about z led u to a contradiction. The lemma follow. With the help of Lemma 5.4, we can iterate over the vertice v S D y etting l (v ) appropriately. Recall that S (the et of D-canned vertice) i provided to u by the incremental dominator algorithm. Next, we deal with the canonical vertice v S \ D y. We begin with the computation of l (v ), for the canonical vertice v in S for which level (l (v )) > level (r y), that i, their new parent in L i in D (r y) \ D y. Let G canned be the graph induced by the D-canned vertice, and let H canned be the loop neting foret rooted at y of G canned. (Note that y reache all vertice in G canned.) By contracting every vertex v into c v in H canned, we obtain a foret H. Let h(v) be the parent in H of a canonical vertex v S \ D y. A tated in Lemma 5.5, the parent in H of each canonical vertex v uch that h(v) S \ D y i the parent of v in L. Lemma 5.5. Let H be the loop neting foret rooted at y of Gcanned after contracting each vertex v into c v. For every canonical vertex v uch that h(v) S \ D y, it hold that l (v ) = h(v). Proof. Let v S\D y. A all path from y to v contain r v and v i D-canned, all vertice in D (r v) are D-canned. Hence, G canned [D (r v)] = G [D (r v)]. Therefore, if l (v ) S\D y then v and l (v ) are trongly connected in G [D (r l (v) )] = G canned [D (r l (v) )], which implie that l (v ) i an ancetor of v in H. (For a viualization of the relation of v, y, l (v), and ee Figure 6 (i).) To complete the proof we how that if a canonical vertex z i the parent of v in H, where v S \ D y, then z i the parent of v in L. Aume by contradiction that l (v ) h(v ). Then, there i a vertex w uch that level (l (v )) < level (w) < 15

16 D D D r l(v) r y y r y y r z r w w z l v r y y r v v d r v r v v r v v (i) (ii) (iii) Figure 6: Intance of the updated dominator tree D after the inertion of (x, y). In (i) v i a D-canned vertex where v, l (v) S \ D y. For all uch vertice, we apply Lemma 5.5 to compute l (v). In (ii), v ha a path to y in G [D (r y)] and i D-affected, which i ufficient for y to be ancetor of v in L. In (iii) vertex w i an ancetor of v in L, a w and v are trongly connected in G[D(r w )], and therefore w remain an ancetor of v in L. The intance viualize the relation of the vertice of interet in the proof of Lemma 5.5 and 5.6. level (v), and w and v are trongly connected in G [D (r w)] = G canned [D (r w)]. Note that w contradict the definition of l (v ), and thu the lemma follow. Finally, for the vertice v S \ D y for which l (v ) / S \ D y, we compute l (v ) according to the following lemma. Lemma 5.6. Let v / D y be a D-canned vertex uch that level (l (v )) level (r y). If v ha a path to y in G [D (r y)], then l (v ) = y in L. Otherwie, l (v ) = w, where w i the nearet ancetor of v in L uch that level (w) level (r y). If there i no uch vertex l (v ) = Proof. Firt, we aume v ha a path to y in G [D (r y)]. Since v i D-canned, it mean that y ha a path to v in G [D (nca D (x, y))], and therefore, in G [D (r y)]. Hence, y and v are trongly connected in G [D (r y)]. By the definition of the hyperloop neting foret, y i an ancetor of v in L, and ince level (l (v )) level (r y) it follow that l (v ) = y. (For a viualization of the relation of v, y, in D ee Figure 6 (ii).) Now we aume v doe not contain a path to y in G [D (r y)]. Firt aume that w D y. In thi cae v and w were trongly connected in G[D(r w )] before the inertion of (x, y). Since D(r w ) D (r y), if follow that v and w are trongly connected in G [D (r y)]. By the definition of L, w i an ancetor of v in L, and by the aumption of the lemma that level (l (v )) level (r y), and Lemma 3.2, it follow that l (v ) = w. 16

17 Algorithm 3: Update-D-canned(D, L, x, y, S) 1 Set l (c y) = c w, where w i the nearet ancetor of c y in L uch that w / D (r y). 2 Let S be the et of D-canned vertice, and G canned = G [V (S)]. Compute the loop neting foret H canned of G canned with tart vertex y. Contract every vertex v V (G canned ) into c v in H canned, forming H. 3 foreach canonical vertex v V (G canned ) do 4 Let v = c v and y = c y. 5 if v D y then 6 if v y then l (v ) = c w, where w i the nearet ancetor of v in L uch that w / D (r y). 7 ele 8 if h(v ) S \ D y then l (v ) = h(v ) 9 ele if v ha a path to y in G [D (r y)] then l (v ) = l (y ). 10 ele l (v ) = c w, where w i the nearet ancetor of v in L uch that level (w) level (r y). 11 end 12 end Finally, for the ret of the proof we aume w / D (r y). By Lemma 5.2, w remain an ancetor of v in L. (For a viualization of the relation of v, y, w, z, in D ee Figure 6 (iii).) Aume, by contradiction, that l (v ) = z and level (w ) < level (z ) < level (r y) and c z i not an ancetor of v in L. By Lemma 2.1 all path from z to v contain r y. A v D(r y) there i a path from r y to v in G[D(r y)]. Since D(r y) D (r z), there i a path from z to v in G [D (r z)] \ (x, y) (= G[D(r z )] by Lemma 5.2). Thi fact, combined with our aumption that c z i not an ancetor of v in L, implie that there i no path from v to z in G[D(r z )]. Since v and z are trongly connected in G [D (r z)] but not in G[D(r z )] = G [D (r z)] \ (x, y) all path from v to z contain (x, y); let P vz be uch a path from v to z and let P vx and P yz be it ubpath from v to x and from y to z, repectively. Note that P vx and P yz exit alo in G[D(r z )] = G [D (r z)] \ (x, y). Since we deal with the cae where v doe not have a path to y in G [D (r y)], the path P vx hould contain a vertex u D (r z)\d (r y) (a otherwie all vertice are in D (r y) and the path P vx (x, y) i a path from v to y in G [D (r y)]). By Lemma 2.1, P vx contain r y; let P vr y be the ubpath of P vx from v to r y. Since y D(r y) there i a path P r y y from r y to y in G[D(r y)] G[D(r z)] avoiding (x, y). Oberve that the path P vr y,p r y y, and P yz all exit in G[D(r z)]. Collectively, we have that P vr y P r y y P yz i a path from v to z in G[D(r z)] = G[D(r z )]. A we argued z alo ha a path to v in G[D(r z )], and therefore z and v are trongly connected in G[D(r z )]. Since r z i an ancetor of r v in D, by the definition of L, c z i an ancetor of v in L. Thi i a contradiction to our aumption that w i the nearet ancetor of v in L uch that w / D (r y) and level (w) < level (z) < level (r y). The lemma follow. 17

18 Lemma 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 provide the tool to update the parent in L of the D-canned vertice S. The peudocode of thi update i detailed in Algorithm 3. The challenging part i to determine whether v ha a path to y in G [D (r y)] (Line 9 of Algorithm 3). We how how we can anwer the querie of Line 9 of Algorithm 3, and thu how to update the parent in L of all the canonical D-canned vertice in time linear in the number of D-canned vertice and their adjacent edge. Lemma 5.7. For all D-canned vertice v, we can compute l (v ) in time O( V (S) + E(S) ). Proof. The loop neting foret of the graph induced by the D-canned vertice can be computed in linear time to the ize of S, i.e., O( V (S) + E(S) ). The nearet ancetor w of each D-canned canonical vertex v in L, uch that level (w ) level (r y), can be computed in total O( V (S) ) a follow. We find all canonical vertice v S uch that level (l(v)) level (r y) and we aign to each decendant of v in L the vertex l(v). All the neceary tet of Lemma 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 can be performed in contant time per vertex. Now we how that we can determine in time O( V (S) + E(S) ) all vertice v S \ D y that have a path to y in G [D (r y)], a required by Lemma 5.6. We mark all vertice in S that have outgoing edge to vertice v uch that c v = c y. Then, the vertice in S that reach y in G [D (r y)] are the vertice that can reach a marked vertex in G [S]. Thee vertice can be determined in time O( E(S) ), by executing backward traveral from the marked vertice without viiting the ame vertice twice. Now we how that the above procedure i correct by howing that a vertex v S \ D y ha a path to y in G [D (r y)] if and only if it ha a path to a marked vertex in G [S]. We tart with the forward direction. If a vertex v S \D y ha a path to y in G [D (r y)] uing only vertice in S, then clearly v reache y in G [S]. If on the other hand, there i a path from v that ue vertice outide S, then let w be the firt vertex on that path uch that w / S, and let z be it predeceor on the path. Then c w = c y ince: (i) by the fact that w / S, it hold that either r w / D (r y) or r w = r y, where only the econd cae i intereting ince in the firt it hold that w / G [D (r y)], (ii) w reache y in G [D (r y)] (by our aumption that a path from v to y exit in G [D (r y)] uing w) and (iii) y reache v ince v i D-canned (which mean y ha a path to v in G [D (r y)]). Therefore, v ha a path to the marked vertex z S. We continue with the revere direction of the claim, that i, if v doe not have a path to y in G [D (r y)] then there i not path to a marked vertex in G [S]. Thi i true for the path containing only vertice in S. Alo there i no path from v to a marked vertex z in G [S], ince otherwie, there i a path from v to a vertex w uch that c w = c y and therefore to y in G [D (r y)] uing the edge (z, w), while we aumed that no uch path exit. Thu, we howed how to compute all the vertice that have a path to y in G [D (r y)] in time O( E(S) ), which conclude the lemma. 5.2 Updating the L-affected vertice that are not D-canned Now we conider updating the parent in the hyperloop neting foret of the vertice that are L-affected but not D-affected. We tart with the following lemma that i ued throughout the ection. The lemma ugget that we can 18

19 find all the L-affected vertice via a backward traveral from y viing all vertice in G [D (r y)] that have a path to y. In the wort cae we pend O(m) time to execute the traveral, which our algorithm cannot afford. Later, we how how to peed up thi proce by exploiting ome key propertie of the L-affected vertice. Lemma 5.8. For every L-affected vertex v that i not D-canned, every path from v to l (v ) in G [D (r l (v ))] contain (x, y). Moreover, v ha a path to x in G[D (r y)] = G [D (r y)] \ (x, y). Proof. Aume by contradiction that there exit a L-affected vertex v / S uch that v ha a path P to l (v ) in G [D (r l (v ))] \ (x, y). Since v i not D-canned the ancetor of v in D and D are the ame and the edge (d(r l(v) ), r l(v) ) i a trong bridge in G uch that v D (r l(v) ). Therefore, c l(v) i an ancetor of v in L. Notice that level (l (v )) > level (l(v)) a v i L-affected and c l(v) remain an ancetor of v in L by Lemma 5.2. If l (v ) / D (r y), by Lemma 5.2, l (v ) i an ancetor of v in L, contradicting the fact that level (l (v )) > level (l(v)). Now we aume l (v ) D (r y). All D-canned vertice become children of nca D (x, y), and by Lemma 4.2 no vertex outide of nca D (x, y) i D-canned. Therefore, vertice can only move out of D (r l (v ) ) and hence D (r l (v ) ) D(r l (v ) ). Collectively we have that l (v ) and v are trongly connected in G [D (r l (v ) )] \ (x, y) = G[D(r l (v ) )], and moreover r l (v ) i a proper ancetor of v in D (a it i in D). A r l (v ) D (r l(v) ), we have r l (v ) D(r l(v)) a non of the ancetor of v in D are D-canned. That mean r l (v ) i a ancetor of v in L and a decendant of r l(v), which contradict the fact that level (l (v )) > level (l(v)). Thu, all path from a L-affected vertex v / S to l (v ) contain (x, y). Now we prove the econd part of the lemma. Aume by contradiction that v doe not have a path to x in G[D (r y)]. Then, all path contain a vertex w / D (r y), and by Lemma 2.1 alo vertice (d (r y), r y). Therefore, all path in G [D (r l (v ) )] from v to x contain r y (clearly avoiding (x, y)); let P vr y be the ubpath from v to r y of any uch path. By the fact that y D y it follow that there i a path from r y to y avoiding (x, y); let P r y y be uch a path. Then, P vr y P r y y i a path in G [D (r l (v ))] from v to y avoiding (x, y), which contradict the fact that all path from v to l (v ) contain (x, y). Notice that we only need to conider the vertice that are in D (r y) and are not D-canned, by Lemma 5.1. Lemma 5.9. Let (x, y) be the newly inerted edge. The canonical vertex v of a vertex v D (r y) that i not D-canned and ha a path to x in G [D (r y)], change it parent l (v ) a follow: (1) Cae v D y: if level (l(v)) < level (l (y )) or l(v) = then l (v ) = l (y ). Otherwie, l (v ) = c l(v). (2) Cae v / D y: let (p, q) the trong bridge uch that p D y and q i an ancetor of v in D. (2.1) Cae c p = y : if level (l(v)) < level (c p) or l(v) =, then l (v ) = c p. Otherwie, l (v ) = c l(v). 19