Shortest path — where it appears
Named by 14 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The precondition that removes the queue
Dijkstra maintains a priority queue to discover which vertex is safe to finalise next, and on a directed acyclic graph 65% of its counted work goes into that queue. The order it is discovering is already known. Relaxing in topological order makes exactly one relaxation per arc — 1,536 arcs, 1,536 relaxations — with no queue at all, and negative weights are fine.
The precondition on a function the caller writes
Dijkstra expands 1,582 cells to find a path of 98 across a fifty-square grid. The same loop, with the straight-line distance to the goal added to each key, expands 405 and finds the same 98. The estimate has to be a function the caller supplies, and the guarantee holds only while that function never overestimates — a condition on somebody else's code, not on the graph.
A distance that is a path through a grid
How far apart two strings are is a shortest-path problem on a grid whose every edge is drawn by the recurrence — and finding a string in a text costs 4,988 character comparisons where measuring how far it is from one costs 96,000.
A graph is as hard as its largest cycle
Negative arcs rule out Dijkstra's algorithm and leave Bellman–Ford, which on a thousand vertices does three million units of work. Stopping it when a pass changes nothing brings that to 78,496. Finding the strongly connected components first and running it inside each one brings it to 38,549 — and to a quarter of the early-exit cost when the components are small, because every cycle lives inside one.
An estimate borrowed from an easier problem
On a grid where every step costs one, the straight-line distance to the goal cuts a search from 543 cells to 325. On terrain where steps cost between one and nine it cuts 1,572 to 1,550, because it still believes every step costs one. Four exact distance tables, computed once, cut the same search to 252 — and cost 6,328 reads to build, so they pay for themselves on the fifth query.
An estimate is a reweighting
Reprice every arc by the estimate's drop across it and run plain Dijkstra, and it expands the same 325 cells A* does, in the same order, because the two are one algorithm. Replace the estimate with one that is still never too high but drops too fast between neighbours, and 215 arcs go below zero — and on a stated grid the search that refuses to reopen a finished cell returns a path of 178 where the shortest is 169.
Where two searches should stop
Search from both ends of a shortest-path query at once and the two frontiers meet somewhere in the middle, having expanded about two thirds of what one search would. Stop at the first vertex both searches have finished, and on five of forty weighted grids the path returned is longer than the shortest. The rule that is always right stops on a different condition, and on one of those grids it also stops sooner.
Two estimates that must agree
Run A* from both ends of a query at once, each search guided by its own straight-line estimate, and stop by the rule that is correct for two-ended Dijkstra. On 40 weighted grids it expands 1,002 cells on average and returns a longer path than the shortest on 12 of them. Give both searches one potential, half of one estimate minus half of the other, and the same rule is correct again — on all 40 grids, for 1,041 cells. Two estimates that measure different things cannot share a stopping rule until they are made to measure the same thing.
One Bellman–Ford buys every Dijkstra
A directed graph of 256 vertices with a third of its arcs negative needs shortest paths between every pair. Running Bellman–Ford from every source costs 25.8 million counted operations on the densest graph drawn; running it once, repricing every arc by what it found, and then running Dijkstra from every source costs 13.1 million, and the one Bellman–Ford is under one per cent of that. Floyd–Warshall's 16.8 million is never the cheapest count on the plate. On the sparsest graphs the repeated Bellman–Ford wins, because its early exit makes nine passes rather than 255.
Where the landmarks stand
Four tables of exact distances, each from a chosen cell, turn a straight-line estimate that barely helps on rough terrain into one that cuts a search by a factor of six. Averaged over 1,200 queries on eight maps, the same four tables expand 126 cells a query when their cells are the map's corners and 423 when they are near its centre. The standard choice, each landmark as far as possible from the ones before, expands 141 and loses to the corners on all eight maps. Moving four landmarks to the right places buys more than doubling their number.
What the queries know that the map does not
A greedy rule that chooses landmark cells by rerunning a sample of past queries needs two hundred of them to draw level with a rule that reads only the map — and what it finally chooses, on map after map, is the four corners. Give the queries a destination instead of scattering them, and twenty are enough to beat the corners by 29% on eight maps out of eight. A query log is worth reading exactly to the extent that it is not uniform.
A stop that is correct and never sooner
A two-ended search can stop when the two frontiers' keys together reach the best route found, and it can also stop when either frontier's own estimate reaches it alone. Both rules are safe, so a search may use whichever fires first. On forty weighted grids the second never fires: at the moment the first one stops the search, the larger of the two own-keys stands at 64% of the route. The extra rule costs 60% more counted work and a second priority queue to find that out.
How long a reweighting stays true
Johnson's one Bellman–Ford run costs under one per cent of an all-pairs computation because it is divided over every source. Asked one query at a time it is divided over nothing, and it still repays itself after 2.7 queries — because the preparation is one Bellman–Ford and every query saves a third of another. What decides the trade is not the query count but whether the graph holds still: at half a per cent of arcs redrawn between queries the stored potential is worth exactly nothing, and its life is geometric at a per-arc failure rate of 6.6%.
A potential mended where it broke
A stored reweighting on a 256-vertex graph with negative arcs costs 10,045 relaxations to rebuild, and rebuilding it every time an update breaks it stops paying once half a per cent of arcs change between queries. Mending it from the arcs that broke costs 16 to 442 relaxations instead, and the stored potential stays at two thirds of the per-query cost at every rate of change. When the change is a vertex whose costs all move together, a repair reaches nearly every vertex. It still costs a third of a rebuild.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Dijkstra's algorithmHeuristic searchPotential functionAdmissibilityNegative weightRelaxationSearch frontierBreak-evenReweightingTriangle inequalityBellman–FordPreprocessing