MATHEMATICAL

AND
COMPUTER
MODELLING
PERGAMON Mathematical and Computer Modelling 35 (2002) 1453-1458
www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm

A n A l g o r i t h m to G e n e r a t e All
S p a n n i n g Trees W i t h F l o w
YI-KuEI LIN
Department of Information Management, Van Nung Institute of Technology
Chung-Li, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan 320, R.O.C.

(Received November 2001; accepted December 2001)

A b s t r a c t - - S p a n n i n g tree enumeration in undirected graphs is an important issue and task in

many problems encountered in computer network and circuit analysis. This paper discusses the
spanning tree with flow for the case that there are flow requirements between each node pair. An
algorithm based on minimal paths (MPs) is proposed to generate all spanning trees without flow.
The proposed algorithm is a structured approach, which splits the system into structural MPs first,
and also all steps in it are easy to follow. (~) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

K e y w o r d s - - S p a n n i n g tree, Flow, Minimal path, Undirected network.

1. INTRODUCTION

T h e s p a n n i n g tree of a network is a minimal subnetwork which connects all nodes b u t w i t h o u t

circle. M a n y approaches [1-13] had been proposed to generate all spanning trees of an undirected
network. B u t no flow is considered in such spanning trees. However, it is an i m p o r t a n t issue
to consider the flows (or traffic) between node pairs in m a n y real-life systems such as c o m p u t e r
systems, t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n systems, etc. For instance, a telecommunication system has multiple
switches (nodes), transmission lines (arcs), and calls between all switches (flow requirements).
Hence, this paper discusses the problem a b o u t the spanning tree with flow under the condition
t h a t there are flow requirements between each node pair. Here, a spanning tree with flow is
defined to be subnetwork with flow parameter, which connects all nodes, contains no cycle and
fulfills the flow requirement between each node pair.
A minimal p a t h (MP) between the node pair (i,j) is a set of arcs and no proper subset of it
is a p a t h between (i,j), see [14]. A necessary condition for a subnetwork H of an undirected
network G to be a spanning tree is that, for each node pair (i,j), there exists exactly one M P
between (i, j) in H . Using this p r o p e r t y of MPs, this paper, thus, first presents an algorithm to
generate all spanning trees in terms of M P s in Section 3. In Section 4, another algorithm is t h e n
p r o p o s e d to generate all spanning trees with flow for the case t h a t there are flow requirements
between each node pair.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C., under Grant No. NSC 89-
2213-E-238-002.

0895-7177/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Typeset by ~4~4$-TEX
PII: S0895-7177(02)00096-1
 1454 Y.-K. LIN

2. M I N I M A L PATHS AND SPANNING TREES

Let G = (N, A) be an undirected network where N is the set of n nodes and A = {hi [ 1 <
i < IA[} is the set of all arcs. Let E ( i , j ) denote the set of M P s between node pair (i,j) and
m =- ~ i < j IE(i,j)[ be the n u m b e r of M P s between all node pairs, where IE(i,j)l is the n u m b e r
of M P s between (i, j). T h e vector X = ( x l , x 2 , . . . , X l A i ) and F = ( f l , f ~ , . . . , f m ) denote the
s u b n e t w o r k s t h r o u g h deleting arcs and M P s from G, respectively, where x~ = 0 and fj = 0
(respectively, xi = 1 and fj = 1) denote t h a t the arc ai and M P mpj are deleted (respectively,
not deleted) from G, respectively. Hence, X is the same as (N, A x ) and F is the s a m e as
(N, AF), where A x = {hi I xi = 1 for 1 < i < IAI} and AF = {hi I ai E mpj for an j s.t.
f j = 1} = Ul<j<m{mpj I fj = 1}. Also, F m a y be denoted as ZF = (Zl,Z~ . . . . ,ZlAi), where
zi = 1 for e a c h a i E AF and zi = 0 for e a c h a i ~ AF. F (or ZF) i s a s u b n e t w o r k o f X if and
only if AF C_ A x . Or equivalently, ZF (or F ) is a subnetwork of X if and only if ZF <_ X , where
Z F _< X if and only if zi _< xi for each i = 1,2 . . . . ,IAI and ZF < X if and only if ZF <_ X and
zi < xi for at least one i.
Given a s u b n e t w o r k F = ( f l , f 2 , . . . , fro) of G, fi,j which is defined by fi,j = ~mpkeE(ij) fk
denotes the n u m b e r of M P s between (i,j) in F. F is a connected s u b n e t w o r k if fi,j k 1 for each
(i, j ) . Hence, X is a connected subnetwork if and only if there exists a s u b n e t w o r k F of X s.t.
fi,j k 1 for each ( i , j ) . A m i n i m a l connected s u b n e t w o r k X (i.e., a n y s u b n e t w o r k Y < X is not
connected) is called a s p a n n i n g tree in general. Such a spanning tree should further satisfy the
following fact.

LEMMA 1. / f X = (Xl,X2,...,XlAI) is a spanning tree, then there exists a subnetwork F =

( f l , f 2 , . . . ,fin) of X s.t. fi,j = 1 for each (i,j).
PROOF. As X is connected, there exists an F = ( f l , f 2 , . . . ,fro) o f X s.t. fi,j k 1 for each (i,j).
It is known t h a t any spanning tree contains no cycle. Hence, fi,j = 1 for each (i, j ) (note t h a t
fi,j k 2 implies there is a cycle in F and also in X ) .
A b e t t e r and necessary condition for a spanning tree is shown in the following lemma.

LEMMA 2. Let X be a spanning tree. Then X = ZF for each subnetwork F of X s.t. fi,j = 1,
V(i,j).
PROOF. Given a s u b n e t w o r k F = ( f l , f 2 , . . - , fro) o f X s.t. fi,j = 1 for each (i,j). Suppose to the
c o n t r a r y t h a t X ~ ZF (i.e., ZF <_ X ) . T h e n there exists an ak ZF s.t. Xk = 1, b u t zk = 0 (note
t h a t Zp = Xp = 1 for each a p c ZF since ZF <_ X). Set Y = (Yl,Y2,... , Y k - l , Y k , Y k + l , . . . ,YIAI) =
( X l , X 2 , . . . , X k - l , X k -- 1 , X k + l , . . . ,XIAj) < X . T h a t is, Y is the s u b n e t w o r k o b t a i n e d from X by
deleting ak only. However, AF C_ A y and so Y is a connected subnetwork. This contradicts to
t h a t X is a m i n i m a l connected subnetwork. Hence, X = ZF.
For convenience, let F = { F I F = ( f l , f 2 , . . . ,fro) s.t. f~,j = 1, V ( i , j ) } and p = {ZF [ F E F}.
B y L e m m a 2, p contains all spanning trees. Let Pmin = {ZF ] ZF is m i n i m a l w.r.t. < in p}. It
is obvious t h a t Pmin = {spanning trees}. Hence, Pmin can be o b t a i n e d by further a p p l y i n g
c o m p a r i s o n a l g o r i t h m to delete those n o n m i n i m a l ones in p. However, it is known t h a t each
s p a n n i n g tree has e x a c t l y n - 1 arcs. Hence, Pmin can also be o b t a i n e d by a p p l y i n g the following
lemma.
n
LEMMA 3. Pmin = {ZF E p [ [ZF[ = n -- 1}, where [ZF[ -- ~-~i=1 Zi.

In order to generate F, let E = E ( 1 , 2 ) x E ( 1 , 3 ) x . . . x E(1, n) x E ( 2 , 3 ) x . . . x E ( n - 1,n) be

the C a r t e s i a n p r o d u c t of n ( n - 1)/2 sets of E(i, j) first. Each c o m p o n e n t Ew of E represents t h a t
one and only one M P is chosen from E ( i , j ) for each i < j, where w = 1, 2 , . . . , 1-[i<j IE(i,J)l. For
each Ew, we g e n e r a t e the corresponding Fw = ( f l , f 2 , . . . , fro) s.t. fk = 1 if mpk a p p e a r s in Ew
and fk = 0 if otherwise. Hence, F = {F~ I Ew E E}.
T h e p r o p o s e d procedure to find all spanning trees in t e r m s of M P s is concluded in Figure 1.
 Spanning Trees With Flow 1455

Determine the Cartesian product of n(n-1)/2 sets of MPs

E = E(1,2) x E(1,3) x . . . x E(1,n) x E(2,3) x ... x E(n-l,n)

Generate F =
1
{FwlEweN} = {FIF = (f l, fi ..... fm) s.t. fi.j = 1 V ( i, j) l

1
Generate 0 = {ZFIFeF}

Determine Pmin = {ZFE pl IZFI = n-1 }

Figure 1. The proposed procedure to find all spanning trees.

3. A L G O R I T H M TO G E N E R A T E ALL
S P A N N I N G TREES ( W I T H O U T FLOW)
S t e p 1. List all M P s in E ( i , j ) in t h e o r d e r ( 1 , 2 ) , ( 1 , 3 ) , . . . , ( 1 , n ) , ( 2 , 3 ) , . . . , ( n - 1, n).
S t e p 2. D e t e r m i n e t h e C a r t e s i a n p r o d u c t E of n(n - 1)/2 sets of M P s

E = E ( 1 , 2 ) x E ( 1 , 3 ) x . . . x E ( 1 , n ) x E(2,3) x . . . x E ( n - 1,n).

S t e p 3. T r a n s f o r m each c o m p o n e n t E ~ of E to t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g Fw = ( f l , f2 . . . . . fro) s.t.

fk = 1 if mpk a p p e a r s in Ew a n d fk = 0 if otherwise. T h u s , F is o b t a i n e d .
S t e p 4. T r a n s f o r m each Fw c F to t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g ZF, o = ( z l , z 2 , . . . , ZlAI) s.t. zk = 1 if
ak e Ul<_j<_m {mpj I fJ = 1} a n d zk = 0 if ak ~ Ul<j<m {mpj I fj = 1}. T h u s , p is
obtained.
S t e p 5. C h e c k each ZF~ E p w h e t h e r IZF~, [ is n -- 1 or not. If yes, t h e n ZF,,, is a s p a n n i n g
tree. O t h e r w i s e , it is n o t a s p a n n i n g tree.

3.1. E x a m p l e 1
W e use t h e n e t w o r k in F i g u r e 2 t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e p r o p o s e d a l g o r i t h m .

1< 3 a4 ~ as

Figure 2. A simple undirected network.

S T E P 1. rap1 : { a l } , glzp2 = { a 4 , a 3 } , mp3 = {a4,ah, a2}, E ( 1 , 2 ) = {?'D.pl,mp2,~tp3 }.

rap4 = { a l , a 2 } , rap5 : { a 4 , a h } , rap6 = { a l , a 3 , a h } ~ rap7 = { a 4 , a 3 , a2}, E ( 1 , 3 ) : {?rip4 ,rnph,
rrtp6 , mp7 }.
raps = {a4}, rap9 = { a l , a3}, mplo = { a l , a2, a s } , E ( 1 , 4 ) = {raps, rap9, m p l o } .
rap11 = {a2}, mpl2 = { a 3 , a h } , mpl3 = { a l , a 4 , a h } , E ( 2 , 3 ) = { m p l l , m p 1 2 , m p 1 3 } .
1456 Y.-K. LIN

?riP14 ~- {a3}, m p l 5 = {al, a4}, mp16 = {a2, as}, E(2, 4) = {mpl4, m p 1 5 , raP16}.
rapt7 = {as}, rnpls = {a2, a3}, rap19 = {a2, al, an}, E(3, a) = {rnp17, topis, 77/.p19}.
STEP 2. E = E ( 1 , 2 ) E ( 1 , 3 ) E ( 1 , 4 ) E ( 2 , 3 ) E ( 2 , 4 ) E ( 3 , 4 ) = { m p l , m p 2 , m p 3 }
{rap4, mph, rap6, rapT} . . . {rnp17, rnpls, mptg} = (mplmp4mpsmpllmp14mp17, m p l m p 4 m p s
m p l l m p 1 4 m p l s , . . . ,mp3mpTrnplomp13mp16mp19). Thus, E has 972 (3 4 3 3 3 3) com-
ponents.
STEP 3. For E t = m p l m p 4 m p s m p l l m p 1 4 m p 1 7 , generate F1 = ( f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f 1 9 ) s.t. f l = f4 =
fs = f l l = f14 = f17 = 1 and fk = 0 for others. For E2 = m p l m p 4 m p g m p l l m p 1 4 m p l s , generate
F2 = ( f l , f 2 , . . . , f19) s.t. f l = f4 = f9 = f l l -- f14 = f l s = 1 and fk = 0 for others.

For E972 = mp3mp7mplomp13mp16mp19, generate/;'972 -= ( f l , f 2 , . . . , f19) s.t. f3 = f7 = flo =

f13 --- f16 --- f19 --- 1 and fk = 0 for others.
STEP 4 AND 5. In F1, rap1 U rap4 t2 raps U m p l l U mpx4 t2 mpl7 = {al, a2, a3,a4, as}. T h u s
ZF1 = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) and IZF, I = 5 and so ZFx is not a spanning tree. In F2, m p l tJ rap4 t2
mp9 t_J rap11 t2 mpla t2 m p l s = {al,a2,a3}. T h u s ZF2 = (1, 1, 1,0,0) and IZF=I = 3 and so ZF~
is a s p a n n i n g tree. After calculating, all spanning trees are (1,1,0,1,0), (1,1,1,0,0), (1,1,0,0,1),
(1,0,0,1,1), (1,0,1,0,1), (0,0,1,1,1), (0,1,1,1,0), and (0,1,0,1,1). In other terminology, all spanning
trees are {al,a2,a4}, ( a l , a 2 , a 3 } , {al,a2,ah}, (al,a4, ah}, {al,a3,ah}, (a3,a4,ah}, (a2,aa,a4},
and {a2, a4, as}.

4. A L G O R I T H M TO GENERATE ALL
SPANNING TREES WITH FLOW
W h e n e v e r there are flow requirements between each node pair, all spanning trees with flow can
be g e n e r a t e d as follows.
Step 1. A p p l y the algorithm in Section 3 to generate all spanning trees (without flow).
Step 2. For each spanning tree (without flow), generate the corresponding spanning tree with
flow as the following steps.
(2.1) T h e flow on the unique M P of each node pair ( i , j ) is set to be the required flow
of ( i , j ) .
(2.2) T h e flow ui on arc ai is equal to the s u m of flows on those M P s containing ai. T h e
spanning tree with flow is represented as an IA[-tuple vector: (ut, u2 . . . . , UlAi).

4.1. E x a m p l e 2

S u p p o s e t h a t there are flow requirements in E x a m p l e 1 as follows: 2 for node pair (1,2), 1 for
(1,3), 3 for (1,4), 1 for (2,3), 2 for (2,4), and 1 for (3,4). T h e spanning trees with flow can be
g e n e r a t e d as follows.
STEP 1. All s p a n n i n g trees w i t h o u t flow are generated in E x a m p l e 1.
STEP 2. One s p a n n i n g tree is (1,1,0,1,0) with mpl for node pair (1,2), mp4 for (1,3), mps for
(1,4), mp11 for (2,3), mp15 for (2,4) and rap19 for (3,4).
STEP 2.1. T h e flow on rap1 is 2, on mp4 is 1, on mps is 3, on rap11 is 1, on rap15 is 2 and on
mp19 is 1. (See Table 1.)
STEP 2.2. Since m p l , rap4, mp15, and mp19 all contain al, the flow Ul on al is the s u m of flows
on these M P s (i.e., 2 + 1 + 2 + 1). Similarly, u2 = 1 + 1 + 1, u3 = 0, u4 -- 3 + 2 + 1, and u5 --- 0.
Hence, we o b t a i n one spanning tree with flow: (6,3,0,6,0). (See Table 2.)
All s p a n n i n g trees with flow can be generated similarly as Step 2 (see Table 3).
 Spanning Trees With Flow 1457

Table 1. Required flow for each node pair and the corresponding MP.

Node Pair Required Flow Selected Minimal Path*

(1,2) 2 mpl ={al}
(1,3) 1 m p 4 = {al,a2}
(1,4) 3 m p s ={a4}
(2,3) 1 m p l l = {a2}
(2,4) 2 rnp15 = {al, a4}
(3,4) 1 mpl9 ={al,a2,a4}
*The selected minimal path is chosen from the spanning tree (1,1,0,1,1).

Table 2. The flow on MP corresponding to the flow on arc.

mpl mpa raps mpll mp15 mpl9 Flow on Arc

al 2 1 2 1 6 (6 ----2 + 1 + 2 + 1)
a2 1 1 1 3 (3----1+1+1)
as 0
a4 3 2 1 6 (6=3+2+1)
a5 0
Flow on MP 2 1 3 1 2 1

Table 3. The spanning trees corresponding to the spanning trees with flow.

The Spanning Tree The Spanning Tree with Flow

{al, a2, a4} (6,3,0,6,0)
{al, a2, a3} (6,3,6,0,0)
{al, a4, as} (5,0,0,7,3)
{al, a2, as} (6,7,0,0,6)
{al, a3, a5} (6,0,7,0,3)
{a3, a4, as} (0,0,5,6,3)
{a2, a4, as} (0,5,0,6,6)

5. C O N C L U S I O N S AND FUTURE RESEARCH

First, this p a p e r proposes an a l g o r i t h m to g e n e r a t e all s p a n n i n g trees ( w i t h o u t flow) in t e r m s
of m i n i m a l paths. I n each s p a n n i n g tree t h e r e is exactly one m i n i m a l p a t h b e t w e e n each n o d e
pair. We use this p r o p e r t y to assign the flow to t h e s p a n n i n g tree for t h e case t h a t t h e r e are
flow r e q u i r e m e n t s b e t w e e n all node pairs. T h e n all s p a n n i n g trees w i t h flow are t h u s o b t a i n e d .
T h e proposed a l g o r i t h m is in fact a s t r u c t u r e d approach t h a t splits the s y s t e m into s t r u c t u r a l
MPs, a n d also all steps in it are easy to follow. If each arc has several capacities (i.e., each arc
is m u l t i s t a t e ) w i t h some p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d there are flow r e q u i r e m e n t s b e t w e e n each
n o d e pair, we c a n t r y to e x t e n d the proposed approach to calculate t h e p r o b a b i l i t y (or called
reliability) t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s are fulfilled in t h e f u t u r e research.

REFERENCES
1. K.K. Aggarwal and S. Rai, Reliability evaluation in computer-communication, I E E E T r a n s a c t i o n s on Reli-
ability 30, 32-35, (1981).
2. V.B. Basnal and K.B. Misra, Hardware approach for generating spanning trees in reliability studies, Micro-
electronics and Reliability 21 (2), 243-253, (1981).
3. V.B. Basnal, K.B. Misra and M.P. Jain, Improved implementation of search technique to find spanning trees,
Microelectronics and Reliability 23 (1), 141-147, (1983).
4. J.P. Char, Generation of trees, two-trees, and storage of master forests, I E E E Transactions on Circuit T h e o r y
15 (3), 228-238, (1968).
5. H.N. Gabow and E.W. Myers, Finding all spanning trees of directed and undirected graphs, S I A M J o u r n a l
on C o m p u t i n g 7 (3), 280-287, (1978).
1458 Y.-K. LIN

6. R. Jayakumar, K. Thuslasiraman and M.N.S. Swamy, MOD-CHAR: An algorithm for Char's spanning trees
enumeration algorithm and its complexity analysis, I E E E Transactions on Circuits and Systems 36 (2),
219-228, (1989).
7. S. Kapoor and H. Ramesh, Algorithms for enumerating all spanning trees of undirected and weighted graphs,
S I A M Journal on Computing 24 (2), 247-265, (1995).
8. V. Kumar and K.K. Aggarwal, A Petri net approach to determine all spanning trees for overall reliability
analysis of general networks, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 25, 283-291, (1989).
9. T. Matsui, A flexible algorithm for generating all the spanning trees in undirected graphs, Algorithmica 18,
530-544, (1997).
10. R.B. Misra, An algorithm for enumerating all simple paths in a communication network, Microelectronics
and Reliability 19, 363-366, (1979).
11. V.V.B. Rao and V.G.K. Murti, Enumeration of all trees of a graph, Electronics Letters 5 (13), 282-283,
(1969).
12. A Shioura, A. Tanura and T. Uno, An optimal algorithm for scanning all spanning trees of undirected graphs,
S I A M Journal on Computing 26 (3), 678-692, (1997).
13. W. Xu and X. Lin, A new algorithm for the reliability evaluation of computer-communication network,
Microelectronics and Reliability 26 (6), 1013-1017, (1986).
14. K.K. Aggarwal, Y.C. Chopra and J.S. Bajwa, Capacity consideration in reliability analysis of communication
systems, I E E E Transactions on Reliability 31, 177-180, (1982).
15. R. Jayakumar, K. Thuslasiraman and M.N.S. Swamy, Complexity of computation of a spanning tree enu-
meration algorithm, I E E E Transactions on Circuits and Systems 31 (10), 853-860, (1984).