MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554407673 · doi:10.1109/sffcs.1999.814580

Fully dynamic algorithms for maintaining all-pairs shortest paths and transitive closure in digraphs

2003· article· en· W1554407673 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie King

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransitive closureAmortized analysisCombinatoricsBinary logarithmInteger (computer science)AlgorithmMathematicsShortest path problemClosure (psychology)Discrete mathematicsData structureTime complexityComputer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the first fully dynamic algorithms for maintaining all-pairs shortest paths in digraphs with positive integer weights less than b. For approximate shortest paths with an error factor of (2+/spl epsiv/), for any positive constant /spl epsiv/, the amortized update time is O(n/sup 2/ log/sup 2/ n/log log n); for an error factor of (1+/spl epsiv/) the amortized update time is O(n/sup 2/ log/sup 3/ (bn)//spl epsiv//sup 2/). For exact shortest paths the amortized update time is O(n/sup 2.5/ /spl radic/(b log n)). Query time for exact and approximate shortest distances is O(1); exact time and approximate paths can be generated in time proportional to their lengths. Also presented is a fully dynamic transitive closure algorithm with update time O(n/sup 2/ log n) and query time O(1). The previously known fully dynamic transitive closure algorithm with fast query time has one-sided error and update time O(n/sup 2.28/). The algorithms use simple data structures, and are deterministic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations228
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207