Counting and Sampling Orientations on Chordal Graphs

Abstract

AbstractWe study counting problems for several types of orientations of chordal graphs: source-sink-free orientations, sink-free orientations, acyclic orientations, and bipolar orientations, and, for the latter two, we also present linear-time uniform samplers. Counting sink-free, acyclic, or bipolar orientations are known to be #P-complete for general graphs, motivating our study on a restricted, yet well-studied, graph class. Our main focus is source-sink-free orientations, a natural restricted version of sink-free orientations related to strong orientations, which we introduce in this work. These orientations are intriguing, since despite their similarity, currently known FPRAS and sampling techniques (such as Markov chains or sink-popping) that apply to sink-free orientations do not seem to apply to source-sink-free orientations. We present fast polynomial-time algorithms counting these orientations on chordal graphs. Our approach combines dynamic programming with inclusion-exclusion (going two levels deep for source-sink-free orientations and one level for sink-free orientations) throughout the computation. Dynamic programming counting algorithms can be typically used to produce a uniformly random sample. However, due to the negative terms of the inclusion-exclusion, the typical approach to obtain a polynomial-time sampling algorithm does not apply in our case. Obtaining such an almost uniform sampling algorithm for source-sink-free orientations in chordal graphs remains an open problem.Little is known about counting or sampling of acyclic or bipolar orientations, even on restricted graph classes. We design efficient (linear-time) exact uniform sampling algorithms for these orientations on chordal graphs. These algorithms are a byproduct of our counting algorithms, but unlike in other works that provide dynamic-programming-based samplers, we produce a random orientation without computing the corresponding count, which leads to a faster running time than the counting algorithm (since it avoids manipulation of large integers).