A Fast Minimum Degree Algorithm and Matching Lower Bound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The minimum degree algorithm is one of the most widely-used heuristics for reducing the cost of solving large sparse systems of linear equations. It has been studied for nearly half a century and has a rich history of bridging techniques from data structures, graph algorithms, and scientific computing. In this paper, we present a simple but novel combinatorial algorithm for computing an exact minimum degree elimination ordering in O(nm) time, which improves on the best known time complexity of O(n3) and offers practical improvements for sparse systems with small values of m. Our approach leverages a careful amortized analysis, which also allows us to derive output-sensitive bounds for the running time of , where m+ is the number of unique fill edges and original edges that the algorithm encounters and Δ is the maximum degree of the input graph. Furthermore, we show there cannot exist an exact minimum degree algorithm that runs in O(nm1 – ∊) time, for any ∊ > 0, assuming the strong exponential time hypothesis. This fine-grained reduction goes through the orthogonal vectors problem and uses a new low-degree graph construction called U-fillers, which act as pathological inputs and cause any minimum degree algorithm to exhibit nearly worst-case performance. With these two results, we nearly characterize the time complexity of computing an exact minimum degree ordering.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".