# Constructing Trees from a Distance Matrix

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and author of many science books. In The Blind Watchmaker he explains how complex systems can exist without the need of an intelligent design.

Chapter 10 of that book delves into the tree of life. He argues that the tree of life is not arbitrary taxonomy like the classification of animals into kingdoms or families, but it is more like a family tree, where the branching of the tree uniquely describes the true ancestry relationship between the nodes.

Even though we made great strides in genetics and mapped the DNA from several different species, determining the structure of the tree is very difficult. First, we need to define a suitable metric that would encode the ancestry proximity of two species. In other words, if species A evolved into B and C, we need a metric that would lead us to link A-B and A-C but not B-C. Another problem is that internal nodes can be missing (e.g. ancestor species went extinct without fossils).

David Hill’s tree of life based on sequenced genomes. Source: Wikipedia

In this post we’ll deal with a much simpler version of this problem, in which we have the metric well defined, we know the distance between every pair of nodes (perfect information), and all our nodes are leaves, so we have the freedom to decide the internal nodes of the tree.

This simplified problem can be formalized as follows:

Constructing a tree for its distance matrix problem. Suppose we are given a n x n distance matrix D. Construct a tree with n leaves such that the distance between every pair of leaves can be represented by D.

To reduce the amount of possible solutions, we will assume a canonical representation of a tree. A canonical tree doesn’t have any nodes with degree 2. We can always reduce a tree with nodes with degree 2 into a canonical one. For example:

Nodes with degree 2 can be removed and the edges combined.

### Terminology

Let’s introduce the terminology necessary to define the algorithm for solving our problem. A distance matrix D is a square matrix where d_ij represents the distance between elements i and j. This matrix is symmetric (d_ij = d_ji), all off-diagonal entries are positive, the diagonal entries are 0, and a triplet (i, j, k) satisfy the triangle inequality, that is,

d_ik <= d_ij + d_jk

A distance matrix is additive if there is a solution to the problem above.

We say two leaves are neighbors if they share a common parent. An edge connecting a leaf to its parent is called limb (edges connecting internal nodes are not limbs).

### Deciding whether a matrix is additive

We can decide whether a matrix is additive via the 4-point theorem:

Four-point Theorem. Let D be a distance matrix. If, for every possible set of 4 indexes (i, j, k, l), the following inequality holds (for some permutation):

(1) d_ij + d_kl <= d_ik + d_jl = d_il + d_jk

Sketch of proof. We can derive the general idea from the example tree below:

We can see by inspection that (1) is true by inspecting the edges on the path between each pair of leaves. This will be our base case for induction.

Now, we’ll show that if we’re given a distance matrix satisfying (1), we are able to reconstruct a valid tree from it. We have that d_ik = a + e + c, d_jl = b + e + d, d_ij = a + b and d_kl = c + d. If we add the first two terms and subtract the last two, we have d_ik + d_jl - d_ij + d_kl = 2e, so we have

e = (d_ik + d_jl - d_ij + d_kl) / 2

We know from (1) that d_ik + d_jl >= d_kl + d_ij > d_kl, so e is positive.

If we add d_ik and d_ij and subtract d_jl, we get d_ik + d_ij - d_jk = 2a, so

a = (d_ik + d_ij - d_jk) / 2

To show that a is positive, we need to remember that a distance matrix satisfy the triangle inequality, that is, for any three nodes, x, y, z, d_xy + d_yz >= d_xz. In our case, this means d_ij + d_jk >= d_ik, hence d_ij >= d_ik - d_jk and a is positive. We can use analogous ideas to derive the values for b, c and d.

To show this for the more general case, if we can show that for every possible set of 4 leaves (i, j, k, l) this property is held, then we can show there’s a permutation of these four leaves such that the tree from the induced paths between each pair of leaves looks like the specific example we showed above.

For at least one one of these quadruplets, i and j will be neighbors in the reconstructed tree. With the computed values of a, b, c, d, e, we are able to merge i and j into its parent and generate the distance matrix for n-1 leaves, which we can keep doing until n = 4. We still need to prove that this modified n-1 x n-1 satisfies the 4-point theorem if and only if the n x n does.

### Limb cutting approach

We’ll see next an algorithm for constructing a tree from an additive matrix.

The general idea is that even though we don’t know the structure of the tree that will “yield” our additive matrix, we are able to determine the length of the limb of any leaf.  Knowing that, we can remove the corresponding leaf (and limb) from our unknown tree by removing the corresponding row and column in the distance matrix. We can then solve for the n-1 x n-1 case. Once we have the solution (a tree) for the smaller problem we can “attach” the leaf into the tree.

To compute the limb length and where to attach it, we can rely on the following theorem.

Limb Length Theorem: Given an additive matrix D and a leaf j, limbLength(j) is equal to the minimum of

(2) (d_ij + d_jk - d_ik)/2

over all pairs of leaves i and k.

The idea behind the theorem is that if we remove parent(j) from the unknown tree, it will divide it into at least 3 subtrees (one being leaf j on its own). This means that there exists leaves i and k that are in different subtrees. This tells us that the path from i to k has to go through parent(j) and also that the path from i to j and from j to k are disjoint except for j‘s limb, so we can conclude that:

d_ik = d_ij + d_jk - 2*limbLength(j)

which yields (2) for limbLength(j). We can show now that for i and k on the same subtree d_ik <= d_ij + d_jk - 2*limbLength(j), and hence

limbLength(j) <= (d_ij + d_jk - d_ik)/2

This means that finding the minimum of (2) will satisfy these constraints.

Attaching leaf j back in. From the argument above, there are at least one pair of leaves (i, k) that yields the minimum limbLength(j) that belongs to different subtrees when parent(j) is removed. This means that parent(j) lies in the path between i and k. We need to plug in j at some point on this path such that when computing the distance from j to i and from j to k, it will yield d_ij and d_jk respectively. This might fall in the middle of an edge, in which case we need to create a new node. Note that as long as the edges all have positive values, there’s only one location within the path from i to k that we can attach j.

Note: There’s a missing detail in the induction argument here. How can we guarantee that no matter what tree is returned from the inductive step, it is such that attaching j will yield consistent distances from j to all other leaves besides i and k?

This constructive proof gives us an algorithm to find a tree for an additive matrix.

Runtime complexity. Finding limbLength(j) takes O(n^2) time since we need to inspect every pair of entries in D. We can generate an n-1 x n-1 matrix in O(n^2) and find the attachment point in O(n). Since each recursive step is proportional to the size of the matrix and we have n such steps, the total runtime complexity is O(n^3).

Detecting non-additive matrices. If we find a non-positive limbLength(j), this condition is sufficient for a matrix to be considered non-additive, since if we have a corresponding tree we know it has to represent the length of j’s limb. However, is this necessary? It could be that we find a positive value for limbLength(j) but when trying to attach j back in the distances won’t match.

The answer to this question goes back to the missing detail on the induction step and I don’t know how to answer.

### The Neighbor-Joining Algorithm

Naruya Saitou and Masatoshi Nei developed an algorithm, called Neighbor Joining, that also constructs a tree from an additive matrix, but has the additional property that for non-additive ones it serves as heuristic.

The idea behind is simple: It transforms the distance matrix D into another n x n matrix, D*, such that the minimum non-diagonal entry, say d*_ij, in that matrix corresponds to neighboring vertices (i ,j) in the tree, which is generally not true for a distance matrix.

The proof that D* has this property is non-trivial and will not provide here. Chapter 7 of [1] has more details and the proof.

Given this property, we can find i and j such that d*_ij is minimal and compute the limbs distances limbLength(i) and limbLength(j), replace them with a single leaf m, and solve the problem recursively. With the tree returned by the recursive step we can then attach i and j into m, which will become their parents.

### Conclusion

In this post we saw how to construct a tree from the distance between its leaves. The algorithms are relatively simple, but proving that they work is not. I got the general idea of the proofs but didn’t get with 100% of detail.

The idea of reconstructing the genealogical tree of all the species is fascinating and is a very interesting application of graph theory.

### References

[1] Bioinformatics Algorithms: An Active Learning Approach – Compeau, P. and Pevzner P. – Chapter 10

[2] The Blink Watchmaker – Richard Dawkins

# De Bruijn Graphs and Sequences

Nicolaas Govert de Bruijn was a Dutch mathematician, born in the Hague and taught University of Amsterdam and Technical University Eindhoven.

Irving John Good was a British mathematician who worked with Alan Turing, born to a Polish Jewish family in London. De Bruijn and Good independently developed a class of graphs known as de Bruijn graphs, which we’ll explore in this post.

## Definition

A de Bruijn graph [1] is a directed graph defined over a dimension n and a set S of m symbols. The set of vertices in this graph corresponds to the m^n possible sequences of symbols with length n (symbols can be repeated).

There’s a directed edge from vertex u to v if the sequence from v can be obtained from u by removing u’s first element and then appending a symbol at the end. For example, if S = {A, B, C, D}, n = 3 and u = ABC, then there’s an edge from ABC to BC*, that is, BCA, BCB, BCC and BCD.

## Properties

We can derive some basic properties for de Bruijn graphs.

1) Every vertex has exactly m incoming and m outgoing edges.

We saw from the example above that ABC had edges to any vertex BC*, where * is any of the m symbols in S. Conversely, any sequence in the form *AB can be transformed into ABC, by dropping the first symbol and appending ‘C’.

2) Every de Bruijn graph is Eulerian.

In our last post we discussed about Eulerian graphs and learned that a necessary and sufficient condition for a directed graph to have an Eulerian cycle is that all the vertices in the graph have the same in-degree and out-degree and that it’s strongly connected. The first condition is clearly satisfied given the Property 1) above.

To see that a de Bruijn graph is strongly connected, we just need to note that it’s possible to convert any sequence into another by removing the first character and replacing the last with the appropriate one in at most n steps. For example, given the string ABC, we can convert it to BDD by doing ABC -> BCB -> CBD -> BDD. Since each such step corresponds to traversing an edge in the de Bruijn graph, we can see it’s possible to go from any vertex to another, making the graph strongly connected.

3) A de Bruijn graph over the set of symbols S and dimension n is the line graph of the de Bruijn graph over set S and dimension n – 1

A line graph of a given graph G has vertices corresponding to edges in G, and there are edges between two vertices if the corresponding edges in G share a vertex. More formally, let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph. The line graph of G, denoted by L(G) has a set of vertex V’ corresponding to E.  Let u’, v’ be two vertices from V’, corresponding to edges e1 and e2 in E. There’s an edge between u’ and v’ if e1 and e2 have one vertex in common.

It’s possible to generalize this to directed graphs by changing the definition of edges slightly: let u’, v’ be two vertices from V’, corresponding to the directed edges e1 = (a, b) and e2 = (c, d) in E. Then there’s a directed edge from u’ to v’ if and only if b = c.

We can gain an intuition on Property 3 by looking at an example with set S = {0, 1} and constructing a de Bruijn graph with n = 2 from one with n = 1. In Figure 1, the vertices from n = 2 are the labeled edges of n = 1. The edges in n = 2 correspond to the directed paths of length 2 in n = 1. We highlighted in red one of such paths. In n = 1, the path is given by (0, 1) and (1, 1), which became (01, 11) in n = 2.

Figure 1: Constructing a De Bruijn graph over  symbols{0, 1} and dimension n = 2 from one with dimension n = 1

4) Every de Bruijn graph is Hamiltonian

This follows from Properties 2 and 3. We claim that an Eulerian cycle in a De Bruijn graph in dimension n is a Hamiltonian path in dimension n + 1. That’s because we visit every edge exactly once and each edge corresponds to a vertex in the graph in dimension n + 1. Given two consecutive edges in the Eulerian cycle in dimension n, (u, v) and (v, w), from Property 3 we know that there’s an edge from the corresponding vertex (u, v)’ to vertex (v, w)’ in dimension n + 1.

## De Bruijn Sequence

The de Bruijn sequence of dimension n on a set of symbols S, denoted B(S, n), is a cyclic sequence in which every possible sequences of length n appears as substring. The length of such sequence is |S|^n.

Since |S|^n is also the number of distinct sequences of length n, we can conclude that this sequence is the shortest possible. To see why, let B be a de Bruijn sequence. We can assign an index p to each sequence s of length n based on where it appears in B such that the substring B[p, p + n – 1] represents s. Since each of the |S|^n sequences are distinct, they cannot have the same index p. Hence, there must be at least |S|^n indexes, and thus B must be at least that long.

It’s possible to construct a de Bruijn sequence B(S, n) from the Hamiltonian path of a de Bruijn graph over S and dimension n. Two adjacent nodes in the Hamiltonian path share n-1 symbols, so if we start with a vertex v, each new vertex in the path only adds one symbol. It would have a total of n + (|S|^n – 1), but since the last n-1 symbols of the sequence overlap with the beginning when we wrap in a cycle, the cyclic sequence has length |S|^n.

Note that we can construct an Hamiltonian cycle for a de Bruijn graph in polynomial time because it’s equivalent to the Eulerian path in one dimension below. Hence we have a polynomial time algorithm to construct the de Bruijn sequence.

## Applications

#### Cracking Locks

A de Bruijn sequence can be used to brute-force a lock without an enter key, that is, one that opens whenever the last n digits tried are correct. A naive brute force would need to try all |S|^n typing n digits every time, for a total of |S|^n. Using a de Bruijn sequence we would make use of the overlap between trials, and only need to type |S|^n digits in total.

#### Finding the Least Significant Bit

The other interesting application mentioned in [2] is to determine the index of the least significant bit in an unsigned int (32-bits). The code provided is given by:

Let’s understand what the code above is doing. For now, let’s assume v > 0 and we’ll handle v = 0 as a special case later.

In the code above, (v & -v) has the effect of “isolating” the least significant bit. Since v is unsigned, -v is its two’s complement, that is, we complement the digits of v (~v) and add one. Let p be the position of the least significant digit in v. The bits in positions lower than p will be 1 in ~v, and in position p it’s a 0. When incremented by 1, they’ll turn into 1 in position p and 0 in the lower positions. In the positions higher than p, v and -v will be have complementary bits. When doing a bitwise AND, the only position where both operands have 1 is p, hence it will be the number (1 << p) (or 2^p).

Then we multiply the result above by 0x077CB531U which is the de Bruijn sequence B({0, 1}, 5) in hexadecimal. In binary this is 00000111011111001011010100110001, which is a 32-bit number.  Because v & -v is a power of 2 (2^p), multiplying a number by it is the same as bit-shifting it to the left p positions. Then we shift it to the right by 27 positions, which has the effect of capturing the 5 most significant bits from the resulting multiplication. If we treat the number as a string of characters (note that most significant bits are the first characters), the left shift followed by the right shift is equivalent to selecting a “substring” from position p to p+5.

For example, if p = 13, a left shift on 00000111011111001011010100110001 would result in 10010110101001100010000000000000. Then a right shift of 27, would pick the 5 leftmost bits, 10010. If we treat 00000111011111001011010100110001 as a string, 10010 shows up as a substring 00000111011111001011010100110001 in positions [13, 17].

Since this is a de Bruijn sequence for n = 5, every substring of length 5 corresponds to a unique 5-bit number and conversely every 5-bit number is present in this sequence. Now we just need to keep a map from the 5-bit number we obtained via the bit manipulation to the actual number we wanted, which we store in MultiplyDeBruijnBitPosition. Since 10010 is 18, we’ll have an entry MultiplyDeBruijnBitPosition[18] = 13.

Finally, for the special case where v = 0, we have that v & -v is 0 and the algorithm will return 0.

#### Assembling DNA Fragments

In [3] Compeau and Pevzner proposed a method to assemble fragments of DNA into its original form. The problem can be modeled as the k-universal circular string problem.

Definition: Consider a list of sequences s_1, s_2, …, s_n, each of which having the same size k, having the property that s_i’ s suffix and s_i+1 ‘ s prefix overlap in k-1 positions. That is, the last k-1 characters in s_i are the same as the first k-1 characters in s_i+1. We are given the sequences in no particular order. The objective is to find a composed string S which is the result of the overlap of s_1, s_2, …, s_n in order.

This problem can be modeled as a de Bruijn graph where each sequence is associated with a vertex. If sequence s_i’s suffix and s_j’s prefix overlap in k-1 positions, we add a directed edge from vertex s_i to s_j. We then find an Hamiltonian path in the de Bruijn graph and the order in which the vertices are visited will give us the desired string.

## Variants: The Super-permutation

One variant to the de Bruijn sequence problem is to, instead of finding a universal sequence containing all possible sequences of length n, find one containing all the permutations of the symbols in S. Instead of the |S|^ n sequences as input, we’ll have |S|! sequences. This is know as the Super-permutation problem.

For example, for S = {1, 2}, it want to find a sequence containing: 12 and 21. The sequence 121 is a possible solution. For S = {1, 2, 3}, we have now 123, 132, 213, 231, 312 and 321. The shortest 123121321. John Carlos Baez tweets about this problem in [4]. Finding the shortest sequence that includes all permutations is an open problem!

We know optimal solution for n up to 5. The best known lower bound for this problem is n! + (n−1)! + (n−2)! + n − 3 while the upper bound is n! + (n−1)! + (n−2)! + (n−3)! + n − 3 [5].

## Conclusion

In this post I was mainly interested in learning more about de Bruijn graphs after reading about them in Bioinformatics Algorithms by Compeau and Pevzner [3]. I ended up learning about de Bruijn sequences and realized that the problem was similar to one I read about recently on John’s Twitter. It was a nice coincidence.

## References

[1] Wikipedia: De Bruijn graph
[2] Wikipedia: De Bruijn sequence
[3] Bioinformatics Algorithms: An Active Learning Approach – Compeau, P. and Pevzner P.
[5] Wikipedia: Superpermutation

# Eulerian Circuits

Leonhard Euler was a Swiss mathematician in the 18th century. His paper on a problem known as the Seven Bridges of Königsberg is regarded as the first in the history in Graph Theory.

The history goes that in the city of Königsberg, in Prussia, there were seven bridges connecting different mass of lands along the Pregel river (see Figure 1). The challenge was to find a path through the city that crossed the bridges exactly once. Euler showed that no such solution existed.

Interesting unrelated fact: Today Königsberg called Kaliningrad in Russia, and Kaliningrad is actually separated from Russia geographically, lying between Lithuania and Poland.

Figure 1: Map of Königsberg and the seven bridges. Source: Wikipedia

The solution to the Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem eventually led to a branch of Mathematics known as Graph Theory. In this post we’ll be talking about the theoretical framework that can be used to solve problems like the Seven Bridges of Königsberg, which is known as Eulerian Circuits.

We’ll provide a general definition to the problem, discuss a solution and implementation, and finally present some extensions and variations to the problem.

## Definition

Let G(V, E) be a connected undirected graph, where V is the set of vertices and E the set of directed edges, and where (v, w) denotes an edge between vertices v and w. The Eulerian circuit problem consists in finding a circuit that traverses every edge of this graph exactly once or deciding no such circuit exists.

An Eulerian graph is a graph for which an Eulerian circuit exists.

## Solution

We’ll first focus on the problem of deciding whether a connected graph has an Eulerian circuit. We claim that an Eulerian circuit exists if and only if every vertex in the graph has an even number of edges.

We can see this is a necessary condition. Let v be a node with an odd number of edges. Any circuit traversing all edges will have to traverse v. Moreover, it will have to use one edge to “enter” v and one edge to “leave” v. Since this circuit can traverse each edge no more than one time, it will have to use different edges each time, meaning it needs 2 edges every time it crosses v. If there are an odd number of edges, one edge will be left unvisited.

To show this is sufficient, we can provide an algorithm that always finds an Eulerian circuit in a graph satisfying these conditions. Start from any vertex v and keep traversing edges, deleting them from the graph afterwards. We can’t get stuck on any vertex besides v, because whenever we enter an edge there must be an exit edge since every node has an even number of edges. Thus eventually we’ll come back to v, and this path form a circuit.

This circuit doesn’t necessarily cover all the edges in the graph though, nor it means that are other circuits starting from v in the remaining graph. It must be however, that some node w in the circuit we just found has another circuit starting from it. We can repeat the search for every such node and we’ll always find another sub-circuit (this is a recursive procedure, and we might find sub-sub-circuits). Note that after we remove the edges from a circuit, the resulting graph might be disconnected, but each individual component is still Eulerian.

Once we have all the circuits, we can assemble them into a single circuit by starting the circuit from v. When we encounter a node w that has a sub-circuit, we take a “detour” though that sub-circuit which will lead us back to w, and we can continue on the main circuit.

## Implementation

We’ll use the algorithm first described by Hierholzer to efficiently solve the Eulerian circuit problem, based on the proof sketched in the previous session.

The basic idea is that given a graph and a starting vertex v, we traverse edges until we find a circuit. As we’re traversing the edges, we delete them from the graph.

Once we have the circuit, we traverse it once more to look for any vertices that still have edges, which means these vertices will have sub-circuits. For each of these vertices we merge the sub-circuit into the main one. Assume the main circuit is given by a list  of vertices $(v, p_2, ... , p_k-1, w, p_k+1, ..., p_n-1, v)$ and w is a vertex with a sub-circuit. Let $(w, q_1, ..., q_m-1, w)$ be the sub-circuit starting from w. We can construct a new circuit $(v, p_2, ..., p_k-1, w, q_1, ..., q_m-1, w, p_k+1, ..., p_n-1, v)$.

Let’s look at a specific implementation using JavaScript (with Flow). The core of the algorithm implements the ideas discussed above:

The complete code is on Github.

## Analysis

We’ll now demonstrate that the algorithm described above runs in linear time of the size of the edges (i.e. O(|E|)).

Note that find_circuit() is a recursive function, but we claim that the number of times the while() loop executes across all function calls is bounded by the number of edges. The key is in the function:

graph.getNextEdgeForVertex(vertex);

graph is a convenience abstraction to an adjacency list, where for each vertex we keep a pointer to the last edge visited. Because of this,  getNextEdgeForVertex() will visit each edge of the graph at most once and we never “go back”. Since the graph object is shared across all function calls (global), we can see that the number of calls to getNextEdgeForVertex() is bounded by O(|E|), so is the number of times all while() loops execute.

Now we just need to prove that every other operation in the while loop is O(1). The only non-obvious one is:

graph.deleteEdge(edge);

This is a lazy deletion, meaning that we just set a flag in edge saying it’s deleted and it will later be taken into account by callers like graph.getNextEdgeForVertex() and graph.getDegree(). Hence, this is an O(1) operation.

For getNextEdgeForVertex(), we must skip edges that have been deleted, so we might need to iterate over a few edges before we find an undeleted one (or none if the graph is not Eulerian – in which case we terminate the algorithm). Since we’re still always processing at least one edge in every call to getNextEdgeForVertex() the argument about the total calls being bounded by O(|E|) holds.

In order for getDegree() to be an O(1) operation, we need to keep a non-lazy count of the degree of a vertex, but we can do it in O(1) when deleting an edge.

Finally, let’s analyze the second loop. The number of iterations is proportional to the length of the circuit. Since every possible circuit found (including the ones found recursively) are disjoint, the total number of times we loop over the vertices from circuits (across all function calls) is also bounded by the number of edges.

We already saw getDegree() is O(1) even with lazy deletion. The remaining operation is

path.insertAtVertex(vertex, subPath);

if we store the paths as a linked list of vertices, inserting subPath at a given node can be done in O(1) if we keep a reference from each vertex to its last (any actually) occurrence in the path.

## Directed Graphs

We can extend the definition of Eulerian graphs to directed graphs. Let G(V, A) be a strongly connected graph, where V is the set of vertices and A the set of directed edges, and where (v, w) indicate a directed edge from v to w. The Eulerian circuit problem for a directed graph consists in finding a directed circuit that traverses every edge of this graph exactly once or deciding no such circuit exists.

It’s possible to show that such a circuit exists if and only if the strongly connected directed graph has, for each vertex v, the same in-degree and out-degree. The algorithm is essentially the same.

## Counting Eulerian Circuits in directed graphs

It’s possible to count the number of different Eulerian circuits in a directed graph. According to the BEST theorem (named after de Bruijn, van Aardenne-Ehrenfest, Smith and Tutte) [3], the number of Eulerian circuits in a directed graph can be given by [4]:

$ec(G) = t_w(G) \prod_{v \in V}(deg(v) - 1)!$ (1)

Where deg(v) represents the in-degree (or out-degree) or a vertex v and t_w(G) is the number of arborescences rooted in a vertex w (simply put, an arborescence is analogous to a spanning tree for a directed graph – but we can only include edges that are directed away from the root).

It’s possible to show that t_w(G) is the same for any vertex w if G is Eulerian. We can compute t_w(G) via the Matrix-Tree theorem [2], which says t_w(G) is equal to the determinant of the Laplacian of G without vertex w. Let’s try to understand the idea behind this equation.

The mapping from an arborescence to an Eulerian path can be made by the following. Let r be the root of a possible arborescence of G. Now, let r be the reference starting point for an Eulerian path in G (note this is just for reference, since there’s no starting point in a circuit).

We say that an Eulerian path is associated with a given arborescence if for each vertex v, the last edge passing through v, say (v, v’), belongs to the arborescence. This is more clear with an example. Consider the digraph from Figure 2. Here we’ll consider the arborescences rooted in A.

Figure 2: Directed Graph

This graph has 2 possible arborescences depicted on the left in Figures 3 and 4. In Figure 3, we can see that the edge (B, D) has to be visited before (B, C) because (B, C) is in the arborescence.

Figure 3: One of the arborescences of G and a corresponding Eulerian circuit

Now, in Figure 4, because it’s (B, D) that’s in the arborescence, it has to be visited after we visit (B, C).

Figure 4: Another of the arborescence of G and a corresponding Eulerian circuit

Note that there can be more than one Eulerian path to a given arborescence. If B had more out-edges, we’d have multiple choices, since the arborescence only specifies the last edge to be taken, not the intermediate ones. More specifically, imagine B had k out-edges. Then we could traverse the first k-1 in any combination of orders, which leads to a total of (k – 1)! ways of doing so.

The same applies to all other nodes. Due to properties of Eulerian circuits, the choice of the out-edge at a given node can be seen as independent of the choice at other nodes, so the total possible Eulerian circuits corresponding to any arborescence is given by the product of the degrees from equation (1), namely:

$\prod_{v \in V}(deg(v) - 1)!$ (2)

The key property of categorizing Eulerian circuits into arborescence classes is that they’re disjoint, that is, a Eulerian circuit corresponds to exactly one arborescence. This, in conjunction with the fact that the vertices degrees in Equation (2) are from the original graph, and hence independent of a arborescence, lead us to the two independent factors in equation (1).

## Counting Eulerian Circuits in undirected graphs

Counting Eulerian circuits in undirected graphs is a much harder problem. It belongs to a complexity class known as #P-complete. This means that:

1. It belongs to the #P class, which can informally be seen as the counting version of NP problems. For example: deciding whether a given graph has an Hamiltonian circuit (path that traverses all vertices exactly once) is a problem in the NP class. Counting how many Hamiltonian circuits existing in that graph is the corresponding problem in the #P class.
2. It belongs to the #P-hard class, which means that any problem in #P can be reduced to it via a polynomial-time transformation.

Valiant proved the first condition in [5] while Brightwell and Winkler proved the second in [6] by reducing another #P-complete problem (counting Eulerian orientations) to it.

Note that a problem in the #P class is as hard as the equivalent class in NP, because we can reduce a problem in NP to #P. For example, we can decide whether a graph has an Hamiltonian circuit (NP problem) by counting the number of circuits it has (#P problem). The answer will be “yes” if it the #P version returns a number greater than 0 and “no” otherwise.

Because the problem of counting Eulerian circuits in an undirected graph being in #P, we can conclude that there’s no efficient (polynomial time) algorithm to solve it unless P = NP.

## Conclusion

In this post we covered Eulerian circuits in an informal way and provided an implementation for it in JavaScript. I spend quite some time to setup the JavaScript environment to my taste. I strongly prefer using typed JavaScript (with Flow) and using ES6 syntax. I decided to write it in JavaScript with the potential to create a step-by-step interactive tool to demonstrate how the algorithm works.

I was familiar with the concept of Eulerian circuits, but I didn’t remember the algorithms to solve it, even though I was exposed to one of them in the past. It was a good learning experience to write the code from scratch to really understand what I was doing.

This is the first time I see the #P complexity class. It’s always nice to learn about new theories when digging further on a specific topic.

## References

[1] Bioinformatics Algorithms: An Active Learning Approach – Compeau, P. and Pevzner P.
[2] Matrix-Tree Theorem for Directed Graphs – Margoliash, J.
[3] Circuits and trees in oriented linear graphs – Aardenne-Ehrenfest, van T., Bruijn, de N.G.
[4] Wikipedia – BEST Theorem
[5] The complexity of computing the permanent – L. G. Valiant
[6] Counting Eulerian circuits is #P-complete – Brightwell, G. and Winkler, P.