# Difference between revisions of "Bellman–Ford algorithm"

m (categorize) |
(→Intuitive explanation) |
||

(16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

− | The '''Bellman-Ford algorithm''' finds [[ | + | The '''Bellman-Ford algorithm''' finds [[Shortest_path#Single-source_shortest_paths|single-source shortest paths]] in a directed, weighted graph which contains no negative-weight cycles. That is, unlike [[Dijkstra's algorithm]], it is guaranteed to correctly compute shortest paths even when some edge weights are negative. (Note however that it is still a requirement that no negative-weight ''cycle'' occurs; finding shortest paths in such a graph becomes either meaningless if non-simple paths are allowed, or computationally difficult when they are not.) When single-source shortest paths are all that which is needed, and not [[Shortest path#All-pairs_shortest_paths|all-pairs shortest paths]], The Bellman–Ford algorithm, with time complexity <math>\mathcal{O}(VE)</math>, outperforms the [[Floyd–Warshall algorithm]] at <math>\mathcal{O}(V^3)</math> in sparse graphs. It may also be combined with Dijkstra's algorithm to yield [[Johnson's algorithm]], which again outperforms Floyd–Warshall in sparse graphs. |

+ | |||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

input G,v | input G,v | ||

for each u ∈ V(G) | for each u ∈ V(G) | ||

Line 17: | Line 15: | ||

<i>G</i> is the directed, weighted graph in question, and <i>v</i> the source. The output is the array <i>dist</i>; at the completion of the algorithm, <i>dist[x]</i> contains the shortest-path distance from <i>v</i> to <i>x</i>. If the graph contains a cycle of negative weight, an error message is generated to that effect. | <i>G</i> is the directed, weighted graph in question, and <i>v</i> the source. The output is the array <i>dist</i>; at the completion of the algorithm, <i>dist[x]</i> contains the shortest-path distance from <i>v</i> to <i>x</i>. If the graph contains a cycle of negative weight, an error message is generated to that effect. | ||

− | =Theory of the algorithm= | + | ==Theory of the algorithm== |

− | + | ||

− | The algorithm works by performing a series of <i>relaxations</i>. A relaxation occurs whenever the current shortest distance from node <i>v</i> to node <i>w</i> is improved because, by travelling from <i>v</i> to some intermediate vertex <i>u</i>, and then from <i>u</i> to <i>w</i>, a shorter path is obtained. (Floyd–Warshall and Dijkstra's algorithms rely upon this same technique.) The key is that, after <i> | + | The algorithm works by performing a series of <i>relaxations</i>. A relaxation occurs whenever the current shortest distance from node <i>v</i> to node <i>w</i> is improved because, by travelling from <i>v</i> to some intermediate vertex <i>u</i>, and then from <i>u</i> to <i>w</i>, a shorter path is obtained. (Floyd–Warshall and Dijkstra's algorithms rely upon this same technique.) The key is that, after <i>n</i> passes of the main loop in Bellman–Ford have completed, at least <i>n</i>+1 of the shortest-path distances in <i>dist</i> are correct. (We consider all pairs of vertices to be connected, so that all "missing" edges are assigned a weight of positive infinity.) |

− | ==Proof of correctness for graphs containing no negative-weight cycles== | + | |

+ | ===Proof of correctness for graphs containing no negative-weight cycles=== | ||

We proceed by induction: | We proceed by induction: | ||

* When <math>N=0</math>, there is at least 1 correct entry in <i>dist</i>, the one stating that the distance from the source to itself is zero. | * When <math>N=0</math>, there is at least 1 correct entry in <i>dist</i>, the one stating that the distance from the source to itself is zero. | ||

Line 26: | Line 25: | ||

Thus, when a negative-weight cycle does not exist, after the main loop has finished, all distances in <i>dist</i> are correct. Now, if an edge <i>(u,w)</i> still exists such that <code>dist[w] > dist[u]+wt(u,w)</code>, then the distances could not possibly have been correct, because relaxation of <i>(u,w)</i> would give a shorter path to <i>w</i>. Since this is a contradiction, the assumption of the non-existence of negative-weight cycles must be incorrect in this case. We see then that as long as there are no negative-weight cycles, the algorithm always computes all distances correctly and terminates successfully. | Thus, when a negative-weight cycle does not exist, after the main loop has finished, all distances in <i>dist</i> are correct. Now, if an edge <i>(u,w)</i> still exists such that <code>dist[w] > dist[u]+wt(u,w)</code>, then the distances could not possibly have been correct, because relaxation of <i>(u,w)</i> would give a shorter path to <i>w</i>. Since this is a contradiction, the assumption of the non-existence of negative-weight cycles must be incorrect in this case. We see then that as long as there are no negative-weight cycles, the algorithm always computes all distances correctly and terminates successfully. | ||

− | ==Proof of detection of negative-weight cycles== | + | ===Proof of detection of negative-weight cycles=== |

Suppose vertices <math>v_0, v_1,..., v_{n-1}</math> vertices form a negative-weight cycle, that at some point their entries in the <i>dist</i> array are <math>d_0, d_1,\ldots, d_{n-1}</math>, and that the numbers <math>w_0, w_1,\ldots, w_{n-1}</math> represent the weights of edges in the cycle, where <math>w_i</math> is the weight of the edge from <math>v_i</math> to <math>v_{i+1}</math>. Now, because the cycle has negative weight, we know that <math>w_0+w_1+\ldots+w_{n-1}<0</math>. We show by contradiction that it is always possible to relax one of the edges.<br/> | Suppose vertices <math>v_0, v_1,..., v_{n-1}</math> vertices form a negative-weight cycle, that at some point their entries in the <i>dist</i> array are <math>d_0, d_1,\ldots, d_{n-1}</math>, and that the numbers <math>w_0, w_1,\ldots, w_{n-1}</math> represent the weights of edges in the cycle, where <math>w_i</math> is the weight of the edge from <math>v_i</math> to <math>v_{i+1}</math>. Now, because the cycle has negative weight, we know that <math>w_0+w_1+\ldots+w_{n-1}<0</math>. We show by contradiction that it is always possible to relax one of the edges.<br/> | ||

<br/> | <br/> | ||

Suppose we assume the opposite: that there exists no <math>i</math> such that <math>d_i + w_i < d_{i+1}</math>. Then, we have <math>d_0 + w_0 \ge d_1, d_1 + w_1 \ge d_2,\ldots, d_{n-1} + w_{n-1} \ge d_0</math>. Adding yields <math>(d_0 + d_1 + \ldots + d_{n-1}) + (w_0 + w_1 + \ldots + w_{n-1}) \ge (d_0 + d_1 + \ldots + d_{n-1})</math>, which, after cancelling the <math>d</math>'s, is a contradiction. So our assumption must be false, and it must always be possible to relax at least one of the edges in a negative-weight cycle. Thus, if there is a negative-weight cycle, it will always be detected at the end of the algorithm, because at least one edge on that cycle must be capable of relaxation. | Suppose we assume the opposite: that there exists no <math>i</math> such that <math>d_i + w_i < d_{i+1}</math>. Then, we have <math>d_0 + w_0 \ge d_1, d_1 + w_1 \ge d_2,\ldots, d_{n-1} + w_{n-1} \ge d_0</math>. Adding yields <math>(d_0 + d_1 + \ldots + d_{n-1}) + (w_0 + w_1 + \ldots + w_{n-1}) \ge (d_0 + d_1 + \ldots + d_{n-1})</math>, which, after cancelling the <math>d</math>'s, is a contradiction. So our assumption must be false, and it must always be possible to relax at least one of the edges in a negative-weight cycle. Thus, if there is a negative-weight cycle, it will always be detected at the end of the algorithm, because at least one edge on that cycle must be capable of relaxation. | ||

+ | |||

+ | ==References== | ||

+ | * Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein. ''Introduction to Algorithms'', Second Edition. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN 0-262-03293-7. Section 24.1: The Bellman-Ford algorithm, pp.588–592. | ||

[[Category:Algorithms]] | [[Category:Algorithms]] | ||

+ | [[Category:Graph theory]] |

## Latest revision as of 00:35, 3 November 2017

The **Bellman-Ford algorithm** finds single-source shortest paths in a directed, weighted graph which contains no negative-weight cycles. That is, unlike Dijkstra's algorithm, it is guaranteed to correctly compute shortest paths even when some edge weights are negative. (Note however that it is still a requirement that no negative-weight *cycle* occurs; finding shortest paths in such a graph becomes either meaningless if non-simple paths are allowed, or computationally difficult when they are not.) When single-source shortest paths are all that which is needed, and not all-pairs shortest paths, The Bellman–Ford algorithm, with time complexity , outperforms the Floyd–Warshall algorithm at in sparse graphs. It may also be combined with Dijkstra's algorithm to yield Johnson's algorithm, which again outperforms Floyd–Warshall in sparse graphs.

input G,v
for each u ∈ V(G)

let dist[u] = ∞

let dist[v] = 0 for each i ∈ [1..V-1]

for each (u,w) ∈ E(G) dist[w] = min(dist[w],dist[u]+wt(u,w))

for each (u,w) ∈ E(G)

if dist[w] > dist[u]+wt(u,w) error "Graph contains negative-weight cycles"

</pre>
*G* is the directed, weighted graph in question, and *v* the source. The output is the array *dist*; at the completion of the algorithm, *dist[x]* contains the shortest-path distance from *v* to *x*. If the graph contains a cycle of negative weight, an error message is generated to that effect.

## Contents

## Theory of the algorithm[edit]

The algorithm works by performing a series of *relaxations*. A relaxation occurs whenever the current shortest distance from node *v* to node *w* is improved because, by travelling from *v* to some intermediate vertex *u*, and then from *u* to *w*, a shorter path is obtained. (Floyd–Warshall and Dijkstra's algorithms rely upon this same technique.) The key is that, after *n* passes of the main loop in Bellman–Ford have completed, at least *n*+1 of the shortest-path distances in *dist* are correct. (We consider all pairs of vertices to be connected, so that all "missing" edges are assigned a weight of positive infinity.)

### Proof of correctness for graphs containing no negative-weight cycles[edit]

We proceed by induction:

- When , there is at least 1 correct entry in
*dist*, the one stating that the distance from the source to itself is zero. - Now suppose that passes have occurred and that we know the shortest-path distances from the source to of the vertices. Now, either is equal to , and we are done, or the vertices may be partitioned into two sets: , which contains vertices for which we already know shortest-path distances (with any being chosen if there are more than this number), and , which contains the rest. Now, since a shortest-paths tree exists (it always does when there are no negative-weight cycles; the proof is in the Shortest path article), there must exist some vertex
*w*in whose parent*u*in the shortest-paths tree is in . Then, when the edge*(u,w)*is relaxed, the*dist*array will contain the correct shortest-path distance to*w*. Thus, after the next pass of the outer loop has occurred, passes will have occurred in total, and the shortest-path distances to at least vertices will be correctly known.

Thus, when a negative-weight cycle does not exist, after the main loop has finished, all distances in *dist* are correct. Now, if an edge *(u,w)* still exists such that `dist[w] > dist[u]+wt(u,w)`

, then the distances could not possibly have been correct, because relaxation of *(u,w)* would give a shorter path to *w*. Since this is a contradiction, the assumption of the non-existence of negative-weight cycles must be incorrect in this case. We see then that as long as there are no negative-weight cycles, the algorithm always computes all distances correctly and terminates successfully.

### Proof of detection of negative-weight cycles[edit]

Suppose vertices vertices form a negative-weight cycle, that at some point their entries in the *dist* array are , and that the numbers represent the weights of edges in the cycle, where is the weight of the edge from to . Now, because the cycle has negative weight, we know that . We show by contradiction that it is always possible to relax one of the edges.

Suppose we assume the opposite: that there exists no such that . Then, we have . Adding yields , which, after cancelling the 's, is a contradiction. So our assumption must be false, and it must always be possible to relax at least one of the edges in a negative-weight cycle. Thus, if there is a negative-weight cycle, it will always be detected at the end of the algorithm, because at least one edge on that cycle must be capable of relaxation.

## References[edit]

- Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein.
*Introduction to Algorithms*, Second Edition. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN 0-262-03293-7. Section 24.1: The Bellman-Ford algorithm, pp.588–592.