Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:10:16.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting a Directed Hamilton Cycle Two Times Faster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2012

CHOONGBUM LEE ,
BENNY SUDAKOV  and
DAN VILENCHIK
CHOONGBUM LEE
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
BENNY SUDAKOV
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
DAN VILENCHIK
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consider the random graph process where we start with an empty graph on n vertices and, at time t, are given an edge et chosen uniformly at random among the edges which have not appeared so far. A classical result in random graph theory asserts that w.h.p. the graph becomes Hamiltonian at time (1/2+o(1))n log n. On the contrary, if all the edges were directed randomly, then the graph would have a directed Hamilton cycle w.h.p. only at time (1+o(1))n log n. In this paper we further study the directed case, and ask whether it is essential to have twice as many edges compared to the undirected case. More precisely, we ask if, at time t, instead of a random direction one is allowed to choose the orientation of et, then whether or not it is possible to make the resulting directed graph Hamiltonian at time earlier than n log n. The main result of our paper answers this question in the strongest possible way, by asserting that one can orient the edges on-line so that w.h.p. the resulting graph has a directed Hamilton cycle exactly at the time at which the underlying graph is Hamiltonian.

Keywords

Primary 05C2005C4505C80
Type
Paper
Information
Combinatorics, Probability and Computing , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , September 2012 , pp. 773 - 801
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Alon, N. and Spencer, J. (2000) The Probabilistic Method, second edition, Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Azar, Y., Broder, A., Karlin, A. and Upfal, E. (1999) Balanced allocations. SIAM J. Comput. 29 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Balogh, J., Bollobás, B., Krivelevich, M., Muller, T. and Walters, M. (2011) Hamilton cycles in random geometric graphs. Ann. Appl. Probab. 21 1053–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Bohman, T. and Frieze, A. (2001) Avoiding a giant component. Random Struct. Alg. 19 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Bohman, T.Frieze, A. and Wormald, N. (2004) Avoidance of a giant component in half the edge set of a random graph. Random Struct. Alg. 25 432–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Bohman, T. and Kravitz, D. (2006) Creating a giant component. Combin. Probab. Comput. 15 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Bollobás, B. (1984) The evolution of sparse graphs. In Graph Theory and Combinatorics: Proc. Cambridge Combinatorial Conference in Honour of Paul Erdős, 1984 (Bollobás, B., ed.), pp. 335–357.Google Scholar
[8]Bollobás, B., Fenner, T. and Frieze, A. (1985) An algorithm for finding Hamilton cycles in random graphs. In Proc. 17th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1985, pp. 430–439.Google Scholar
[9]Cooper, C. and Frieze, A. (1994) Hamilton cycles in a class of random directed graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 62 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Cooper, C. and Frieze, A. (2000) Hamilton cycles in random graphs and directed graphs. Random Struct. Alg. 16 369–401.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Diestel, R. (2005) Graph Theory, Vol. 173 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, third edition, Springer.Google Scholar
[12]Erdős, P. and Rényi, A. (1960) On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. 5A 17–61.Google Scholar
[13]Erdős, P. and Turán, P. (1965) On some problems of a statistical group-theory I. Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete 4 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Flaxman, A., Gamarnik, D. and Sorkin, G. (2005) Embracing the giant component. Random Struct. Alg. 27 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Frieze, A. (1988) An algorithm for finding Hamilton cycles in random directed graphs. J. Algorithms 9 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Frieze, A. Personal communication.Google Scholar
[17]Komlós, J. and Szemerédi, E. (1983) Limit distribution for the existence of Hamilton cycles in random graphs. Discrete Math. 43 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Korshunov, A. (1976) Solution of a problem of Erdős and Rényi on Hamilton cycles in non-oriented graphs. Soviet Math. Dokl. 17 760–764.Google Scholar
[19]Krivelevich, M., Loh, P. and Sudakov, B. (2009) Avoiding small subgraphs in Achlioptas processes. Random Struct. Alg. 34 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Krivelevich, M., Lubetzky, E. and Sudakov, B. (2010) Hamiltonicity thresholds in Achlioptas processes. Random Struct. Alg. 37 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Pósa, L. (1976) Hamiltonian circuits in random graphs. Discrete Math. 14 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Robinson, R. and Wormald, N. C. (1994) Almost all regular graphs are Hamiltonian. Random Struct. Alg. 5 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Sinclair, A. and Vilenchik, D. (2010) Delaying satisfiability for random 2SAT. In APPROX-RANDOM, pp. 710–723.Google Scholar
[24]Spencer, J. and Wormald, N. (2007) Birth control for giants. Combinatorica 27 587–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar