We will review some of the major results in random graphs and some of the more challenging open problems. We will cover algorithmic and structural questions. We will touch on newer models, including those related to the WWW.

Random graphs

This paper addresses the problem of segmenting an image into regions. We define a predicate for measuring the evidence for a boundary between two regions using a graph-based representation of the image. We then develop an efficient segmentation algorithm based on this predicate, and show that although this algorithm makes greedy decisions it produces segmentations that satisfy global properties. We apply the algorithm to image segmentation using two different kinds of local neighborhoods in constructing the graph, and illustrate the results with both real and synthetic images. The algorithm runs in time nearly linear in the number of graph edges and is also fast in practice. An important characteristic of the method is its ability to preserve detail in low-variability image regions while ignoring detail in high-variability regions.

/pdf/efficient-graph-based-image-segmentation-tyi8hqdokm.pdf

Efficient Graph-Based Image Segmentation

Usually, a proof of a theorem contains more knowledge than the mere fact that the theorem is true. For instance, to prove that a graph is Hamiltonian it suffices to exhibit a Hamiltonian tour in it; however, this seems to contain more knowledge than the single bit Hamiltonian/non-Hamiltonian.In this paper a computational complexity theory of the “knowledge” contained in a proof is developed. Zero-knowledge proofs are defined as those proofs that convey no additional knowledge other than the correctness of the proposition in question. Examples of zero-knowledge proof systems are given for the languages of quadratic residuosity and 'quadratic nonresiduosity. These are the first examples of zero-knowledge proofs for languages not known to be efficiently recognizable.

/pdf/the-knowledge-complexity-of-interactive-proof-systems-31apre0ecf.pdf

The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems

The theory of directed graphs has developed enormously over recent decades, yet this book (first published in 2000) remains the only book to cover more than a small fraction of the results. New research in the field has made a second edition a necessity. Substantially revised, reorganised and updated, the book now comprises eighteen chapters, carefully arranged in a straightforward and logical manner, with many new results and open problems. As well as covering the theoretical aspects of the subject, with detailed proofs of many important results, the authors present a number of algorithms, and whole chapters are devoted to topics such as branchings, feedback arc and vertex sets, connectivity augmentations, sparse subdigraphs with prescribed connectivity, and also packing, covering and decompositions of digraphs. Throughout the book, there is a strong focus on applications which include quantum mechanics, bioinformatics, embedded computing, and the travelling salesman problem. Detailed indices and topic-oriented chapters ease navigation, and more than 650 exercises, 170 figures and 150 open problems are included to help immerse the reader in all aspects of the subject. Digraphs is an essential, comprehensive reference for undergraduate and graduate students, and researchers in mathematics, operations research and computer science. It will also prove invaluable to specialists in related areas, such as meteorology, physics and computational biology.

Digraphs Theory Algorithms And Applications

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

This book documents the state of the art in combinatorial optimization, presenting approximate solutions of virtually all relevant classes of NP-hard optimization problems. The wealth of problems, algorithms, results, and techniques make it an indispensible source of reference for professionals. The text smoothly integrates numerous illustrations, examples, and exercises.

Complexity and Approximation: Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Their Approximability Properties

Complexity and Approximation

We show that the protein folding problem in the two-dimensional H-P model is NP-complete.

On the complexity of protein folding

Completing the genome sequence of an organism is an important task in comparative, functional and structural genomics. However, this remains a challenging issue from both a computational and an experimental viewpoint. Genome scaffolding (i.e. the process of ordering and orientating contigs) of de novo assemblies usually represents the first step in most genome finishing pipelines. In this paper, we present MeDuSa (Multi-Draft based Scaffolder), an algorithm for genome scaffolding. MeDuSa exploits information obtained from a set of (draft or closed) genomes from related organisms to determine the correct order and orientation of the contigs. MeDuSa formalises the scaffolding problem by means of a combinatorial optimisation formulation on graphs and implements an efficient constant factor approximation algorithm to solve it. In contrast to currently used scaffolders, it does not require either prior knowledge on the microrganisms dataset under analysis (e.g. their phylogenetic relationships) or the availability of paired end read libraries. This makes usability and running time two additional important features of our method. Moreover, benchmarks and tests on real bacterial datasets showed that MeDuSa is highly accurate and, in most cases, outperforms traditional scaffolders. The possibility to use MeDuSa on eukaryotic datasets has also been evaluated, leading to interesting results. MeDuSa web server: http://combo.dbe.unifi.it/medusa A stand-alone version of the software can be downloaded from https://github.com/combogenomics/medusa/releases. All results presented in this work have been obtained with MeDuSa v. 1.3. marco.fondi@unifi.it.

MeDuSa: a multi-draft based scaffolder

1. Mathematical Preliminaries. 2. Elements of Computability Theory. 4. The Class P. 5. The Glass NP. 6. The Complexity of Optiimzation Problems. 7. Beyond NP. 8. Space-Complexity Classes. 9. Probabiillistic. 10. Algorithms and Complexity Classes. 11. Interactivite Proof. 12. Systems. 13. Models of Parallel Computer. 14. Parallel Algorithms.

/pdf/introduction-to-the-theory-of-complexity-2yrtyd1srg.pdf

Pierluigi Crescenzi

Papers

Complexity and Approximation: Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Their Approximability Properties

Complexity and Approximation

On the complexity of protein folding

MeDuSa: a multi-draft based scaffolder

Introduction to the theory of complexity