Improved Algorithms for Computing the Cycle of
Minimum Cost-to-Time Ratio in Directed Graphs∗
Karl Bringmann†

Thomas Dueholm Hansen‡

Sebastian Krinninger§

arXiv:1704.08122v1 [cs.DS] 26 Apr 2017

Abstract
We study the problem of finding the cycle of minimum cost-to-time ratio in a directed
graph with n nodes and m edges. This problem has a long history in combinatorial optimization and has recently seen interesting applications in the context of quantitative
verification. We focus on strongly polynomial algorithms to cover the use-case where the
weights are relatively large compared to the size of the graph. Our main result is an algorithm with running time Õ(m 3/4n 3/2 ), which gives the first improvement over Megiddo’s
1
Õ(n 3 ) algorithm [JACM’83] for sparse graphs.
We further demonstrate how to obtain both
√
3 Ω( log n)
an algorithm with running time n /2
on general graphs and an algorithm with
running time Õ(n) on constant treewidth graphs. To obtain our main result, we develop a
parallel algorithm for negative cycle detection and single-source shortest paths that might
be of independent interest.

1

Introduction

We revisit the problem of computing the cycle of minimum cost-to-time ratio (short: minimum
ratio cycle) of a directed graph in which every edge has a cost and a transit time. The problem
has a long history in combinatorial optimization and has recently become relevant to the
computer-aided verification community in the context of quantitative verification and synthesis
of reactive systems [Cha+ 03, CDH10, DKV09, Blo+ 09, Cer+ 11, Blo+ 14, CIP15]. The shift from
quantitative to qualitative properties is motivated by the necessity of taking into account the
resource consumption of systems (such as embedded systems) and not just their correctness.
For algorithmic purposes, these systems are usually modeled as directed graphs where vertices
correspond to states of the system and edges correspond to transitions between states. Weights
on the edges model the resource consumption of transitions. In our case, we allow two types of
resources (called cost and transit time) and are interested in optimizing the ratio between the two
quantities. By giving improved algorithms for finding the minimum ratio cycle we contribute
∗

Accepted to the 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017).
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus, Germany. Work partially done while visiting
Aarhus University.
‡
Aarhus University, Denmark. Supported by the Carlsberg Foundation, grant no. CF14-0617.
§
University of Vienna, Faculty of Computer Science, Austria. Work partially done while at Max Planck Institute
for Informatics and while visiting Aarhus University.
1
We use the notation Õ(⋅) to hide factors that are polylogarithmic in n.
†

1

to the algorithmic progress that is needed to make the ideas of quantitative verification and
synthesis applicable.
From a purely theoretic point of view, the minimum ratio problem is an interesting generalization of the minimum mean cycle problem.2 A natural question is whether the running time
for the more general problem can match the running time of computing the minimum cycle
mean (modulo lower order terms). In terms of weakly polynomial algorithms, the answer to this
question is yes, since a binary search over all possible values reduces the problem to negative
cycle detection. In terms of strongly polynomial algorithms, with running time independent
of the encoding size of the edge weights, the fastest algorithm for the minimum ratio cycle
problem is due to Megiddo [Meg83] and runs in time Õ(n3 ), whereas the minimum mean cycle
can be computed in O(mn) time with Karp’s algorithm [Kar78]. This has left an undesirable
gap in the case of sparse graphs for more than three decades.
Our results. We improve upon this situation by giving a strongly polynomial time algorithm for computing the minimum ratio cycle in time O(m3/4n3/2 log2 n) (Theorem 4.3 in
Section 4). We obtain this result by designing a suitable parallel negative cycle detection algorithm and combining it with Megiddo’s parametric search technique [Meg83]. We first present
a slightly simpler randomized version of our algorithm with one-sided error and the same
running time (Theorem 3.6 in Section 3).
As a side result, we develop a new parallel algorithm for negative cycle detection and
single-source shortest paths (SSSP) that we use as a subroutine in the minimum ratio cycle
algorithm. This new algorithm has work Õ(mn + n3h −3 ) and depth O(h) for any log n ≤ h ≤ n.
Our algorithm uses techniques from the parallel transitive closure algorithm of Ullman and
Yannakakis [UY91] (in particular as reviewed in [KS97]) and our contribution lies in extending
these techniques to directed graphs with positive and negative edge weights. In particular, we
partially answer an open question by Shi and Spencer [Spe97] who previously gave similar
trade-offs for single-source shortest paths in undirected graphs with positive edge weights. We
further demonstrate how the parametric search technique can be applied to obtain minimum
ratio cycle algorithms with running time Õ(n) on constant treewidth graphs (Corollary 5.3 in
Section 5). Our algorithms do not use fast matrix multiplication. We finally show that if fast
matrix multiplication
is allowed then slight further improvements are possible, specifically we
√
3 Ω( log n)
present an n /2
time algorithm on general graphs (Corollary 6.2 in Section 6).
Prior Work. The minimum ratio problem was introduced to combinatorial optimization in
the 1960s by Dantzig, Blattner, and Rao [DBR67] and Lawler [Law67]. The existing algorithms
can be classified according to their running time bounds as follows: strongly polynomial
algorithms, weakly polynomial algorithms, and pseudopolynomial algorithms. In terms of
strongly polynomial algorithms for finding the minimum ratio cycle we are aware of the
following two results:
• O(n3 log n + mn log2 n) time using Megiddo’s second algorithm [Meg83] together with
Cole’s technique to reduce a factor of log log n [Col87],
2

In the minimum cycle mean problem we assume the transit time of each edge is 1.

2

• O(mn 2 ) time using Burn’s primal-dual algorithm [Bur91].
For the class of weakly polynomial algorithms, the best algorithm is to follow Lawler’s binary
search approach [Law67, Law76], which solves the problem by performing O(log (nW )) calls
to a negative cycle detection algorithm. Here W = O(CT ) if the costs are given as integers from
1 to C and the transit times are given as integers from 1 to T . Using an idea for efficient search
of rationals [Pap79], a somewhat more refined analysis by Chatterjee et al. [CIP15] reveals that
it suffices to call the negative cycle detection algorithm O(log(∣a ⋅ b∣)) times when the value
of the minimum ratio cycle is ba . Since the initial publication of Lawler’s idea, the state of the
art in negative cycle detection algorithms has become more diverse. Each of the following five
algorithms gives the best known running time for some range of parameters (and the running
times have to be multiplied by the factor log (nW ) or log(∣a ⋅ b∣) to obtain an algorithm for the
minimum ratio problem):
• O(mn) time using a variant of the Bellman-Ford algorithm [For56, Bel58, Moo59],
√

• n3 /2Ω( log n) time using a recent all-pairs shortest paths (APSP) algorithm by Williams [Wil14,
CW16],
• Õ(nωW ) time using fast matrix multiplication [San05, YZ05], where 2 ≤ ω < 2.3728639 is
the matrix multiplication coefficient [Gal14],
√
• O(m n logW ) time using Goldberg’s scaling algorithm [Gol95],
• Õ(m10/7 logW ) time using the interior point method based algorithm of Cohen et al. [Coh+ 17]
The third group of minimum ratio cycle algorithms has a pseudopolynomial running time
bound. After some initial progress [ILP91, GHH92, IP95], the state of the art is an algorithm by
Hartmann and Orlin [HO93] that has a running time of O(mnT ).3 Other algorithmic approaches,
without claiming any running time bounds superior to those reported above, were given by
Fox [Fox69], v. Golitschek [Gol82], and Dasdan, Irani, and Gupta [DIG99].
Recently, the minimum ratio problem has been studied specifically for the special case
of constant treewidth graphs by Chatterjee, Ibsen-Jensen, and Pavlogiannis [CIP15]. The
state of the art for negative cycle detection on constant treewidth graphs is an algorithm by
Chaudhuri and Zaroliagis with running time O(n) [CZ00], which by Lawler’s binary search
approach implies an algorithm for the minimum ratio problem with running time O(n log (nW )).
Chatterjee et al. [CIP15] report a running time of O(n log(∣a ⋅ b∣)) based on the more refined
binary search mentioned above and additionally give an algorithm that uses O(log n) space
(and hence polynomial time).
As a subroutine in our minimum ratio cycle algorithm, we use a new parallel algorithm
for negative cycle detection and single-source shortest paths. The parallel SSSP problem has
received considerable attention in the literature [Spe97, KS97, Coh97, BTZ98, SS99, Coh00,
MS03, Mil+ 15, Ble+ 16], but we are not aware of any parallel SSSP algorithm that works in the
presence of negative edge weights (and thus solves the negative cycle detection problem). To
3

Note that the more fine-grained analysis of Hartmann and Orlin actually gives a running time of
O(m(∑u∈V maxe=(u,v) t(e))).

3

the best of our knowledge, the only strongly polynomial bounds reported in the literature are
as follows: For weighted, directed graphs with non-negative edge weights, Broda, Träff, and
Zaroliagis [BTZ98] give an implementation of Dijkstra’s algorithm with O(m log n) work and
O(n) depth. For weighted, undirected graphs with positive edge weights, Shi and Spencer [SS99]
gave (1) an algorithm with O(n3t −2 log n log (nt −1 ) +m log n) work and O(t log n) depth and (2)
an algorithm with O((n3t −3 + mnt −1 ) log n) work and O(t log n) depth, for any log n ≤ t ≤ n.

2

Preliminaries

In the following, we review some of the tools that we use in designing our algorithm.

2.1

Parametric Search

We first explain the parametric search technique as outlined in [AST94]. Assume we are given
a property P of real numbers that is monotone in the following way: if P(λ) holds, then also
P(λ′ ) holds for all λ′ < λ. Our goal is to find λ∗ , the maximum λ such that P(λ) holds. In this
paper for example, we will associate with each λ a weighted graph G λ and P is the property
that G λ has no negative cycle. Assume further that we are given an algorithm A for deciding,
for a given λ, whether P(λ) holds. If λ were known to only assume integer or rational values,
we could solve this problem by performing binary search with O(logW ) calls to the decision
algorithm, where W is the number of possible values for λ. However, this solution has the
drawback of not yielding a strongly polynomial algorithm.
In parametric search we run the decision algorithm ‘generically’ at the maximum λ∗ . As the
algorithm does not know λ∗ , we need to take care of its control flow ourselves and any time the
algorithm performs a comparison we have to ‘manually’ evaluate the comparison on behalf of
the algorithm. If each comparison takes the form of testing the sign of an associated low-degree
polynomial p(λ), this can be done as follows. We first determine all roots of p(λ) and check if
P(λ′ ) holds for each such root λ′ using another instance of the decision algorithm A. This gives
us an interval between successive roots containing λ∗ and we can thus resolve the comparison.
With every comparison we make, the interval containing λ∗ shrinks and at the end of this
process we can output a single candidate. If the decision algorithm A has a running time of T ,
then the overall algorithm for computing λ∗ has a running time of O(T 2 ).
A more sophisticated use of the technique is possible, if in addition to a sequential decision
algorithm As we have an efficient parallel decision algorithm Ap . The parallel algorithm
performs its computations simultaneously on P p processors. The number of parallel computation
steps until the last processor is finished is called the depth D p of the algorithm, and the number
of operations performed by all processors in total is called the work Wp of the algorithm.4 For
parametric search, we actually only need parallelism w.r.t. comparisons involving the input
values. We denote by the comparison depth of Ap the number of parallel comparisons (involving
input values) until the last processor is finished.
4
To be precise, we use an abstract model of parallel computation as formalized in [FL16] to avoid distraction by
details such as read or write collisions typical to PRAM models.

4

We proceed similar to before: We run Ap ‘generically’ at the maximum λ∗ and (conceptually)
distribute the work among P p processors. Now in each parallel step, we might have to resolve
up to P p comparisons. We first determine all roots of the polynomials associated to these
comparisons. We then perform a binary search among these roots to determine the interval
of successive roots containing λ∗ and repeat this process of resolving comparisons at every
parallel step to eventually find out the value of λ∗ . If the sequential decision algorithm As has
a running time of Ts and the parallel decision algorithm runs on Pp processors in D p parallel
steps, then the overall algorithm for computing λ∗ has a running time of O(P p D p + D pTs log P p ).
Formally, the guarantees of the technique we just described can be summarized as follows.
Theorem 2.1 ([AST94, Meg83]). Let P be a property of real numbers such that if P(λ) holds,
then also P(λ′ ) holds for all λ′ < λ and let Ap and As be algorithms deciding for a given λ whether
P(λ) holds such that
• the control flow of Ap is only governed by comparisons that test the sign of an associated
polynomial in λ of constant degree,
• Ap is a parallel algorithm with work Wp and comparison depth D p , and
• As is a sequential algorithm with running time Ts .
Then there is a (sequential) algorithm for finding the maximum value λ such that P(λ) holds with
running time O(Wp + D pTs logWp ).
Note that Ap and As need not necessarily be different algorithms. In most cases however,
the fastest sequential algorithm might be the better choice for minimizing running time.

2.2

Characterization of Minimum Ratio Cycle

We consider a directed graph G = (V , E, c, t), in which every edge e = (u,v) has a cost c(e)
and a transit time t(e). We want to find the cycle C that minimizes the cost-to-time ratio
∑e∈C c(e)/ ∑e∈C t(e).
For any real λ define the graph G λ = (V , E, w λ ) as the modification of G with weight
w λ (e) = c(e) − λt(e) for every edge e ∈ E. The following structural lemma is the foundation of
many algorithmic approaches towards the problem.
Lemma 2.2 ([DBR67, Law76]). Let λ∗ be the value of the minimum ratio cycle of G.
• For λ > λ∗ , the value of the minimum weight cycle in G λ is < 0.
• The value of the the minimum weight cycle in G λ ∗ is 0. Each minimum weight cycle in G λ ∗
is a minimum ratio cycle in G and vice versa.
• For λ < λ∗ , the value of the minimum weight cycle in G λ is > 0.
The obvious algorithmic idea now is to find the right value of λ with a suitable search
strategy and reduce the problem to a series of negative cycle detection instances.

5

2.3

Characterization of Negative Cycle

Definition 2.3. A potential function p∶V → R assigns a value to each vertex of a weighted
directed graph G = (V , E, w). We call a potential function p valid if for every edge e = (u,v) ∈ E,
the condition p(u) + w(e) ≥ p(v) holds.
The following two lemmas outline an approach for negative cycle detection.
Lemma 2.4 ([EK72]). A weighted directed graph contains a negative cycle if and only if it has no
valid potential function.
Lemma 2.5 ([Joh77]). Let G = (V , E, w) be a weighted directed graph and let G ′ = (V ′ , E ′ , w ′ ) be
the supergraph of G consisting of the vertices V ′ = V ∪ {s ′ } (i.e. with an additional super-source s ′ ),
the edges E ′ = E ∪ {s ′ } ×V and the weight function w ′ given by w ′ (s ′ ,v) = 0 for every vertex v ∈ V
and w ′ (u,v) = w(u,v) for all pairs of vertices u,v ∈ V . If G does not contain a negative cycle, then
the potential function p defined by p(v) = dG ′ (s ′ ,v) for every vertex v ∈ V is valid for G.
Thus, an obvious strategy for negative cycle detection is to design a single-source shortest
paths algorithm that is correct whenever the graph contains no negative cycle. If the graph
contains no negative cycle, then the distances computed by the algorithm can be verified to be
a valid potential. If the graph does contain a negative cycle, then the distances computed by
the algorithm will not be a valid potential (because a valid potential does not exist) and we can
verify that the potential is not valid.

2.4

Computing Shortest Paths in Parallel

In our algorithm we use two building blocks for computing shortest paths in the presence of negative edge weights in parallel. The first such building block was also used by Megiddo [Meg83].
Observation 2.6. By repeated squaring of the min-plus matrix product, all-pairs shortest paths
in a directed graph with real edge weights can be computed using work O(n3 log n) and depth
O(log n).
The second building block is a subroutine for computing the following restricted version of
shortest paths.
Definition 2.7. The shortest h-hop path from a vertex s to a vertex t is the path of minimum
weight among all paths from s to t with at most h edges.
Note that a shortest h-hop path from s to t does not exist, if all paths from s to t use more
than h edges. Furthermore, if there is a shortest path from s to t with at most h edges, then the
h-hop shortest path from s to t is a shortest path as well. Shortest h-hop paths can be computed
by running h iterations of the Bellman-Ford algorithm [For56, Bel58, Moo59].5 Similar to
shortest paths, shortest h-hop paths need not be unique. We can enforce uniqueness by putting
some arbitrary but fixed order on the vertices of the graph and sorting paths according to the
induced lexicographic order on the sequence of vertices of the paths. Note that the Bellman-Ford
algorithm can easily be adapted to optimizing lexicographically as its second objective.
5

The first explicit use of the Bellman-Ford algorithm to compute shortest h-hop paths that we are aware of is in
Thorup’s dynamic APSP algorithm [Tho05].

6

Observation 2.8. By performing h iterations of the Bellman-Ford algorithm, the lexicographically
smallest shortest h-hop path from a designated source vertex s to each other vertex in a directed
graph with real edge weights can be computed using work O(mh) and depth O(h).
We denote by π (s, t) the lexicographically smallest shortest path from s to t and by π h (s, t)
the lexicographically smallest shortest h-hop path from s to t. We denote by V (π h (s, t)) and
E(π h (s, t)) the set of nodes and edges of π h (s, t), respectively.

2.5

Approximate Hitting Sets

Definition 2.9. Given a collection of sets S ⊆ 2U over a universe U , a hitting set is a set T ⊆ H
that has non-empty intersection with every set of S (i.e., S ∩ T ≠ ∅ for every S ∈ S).
Computing a hitting set of minimum size is an NP-hard problem. For our purpose however,
rough approximations are good enough. The first method to get a sufficiently small hitting set
uses a simple randomized sampling idea and was introduced to the design of graph algorithms
by Ullman and Yannakakis [UY91]. We use the following formulation.
Lemma 2.10. Let c ≥ 1, let U be a set of size s and let S = {S 1 , S 2 , . . . , Sk } be a collection of sets
over the universe U of size at least q. Let T be a subset of U that was obtained by choosing each
element of U independently with probability p = min(x/q, 1) where x = c ln (ks) + 1. Then, with
high probability (whp), i.e., probability at least 1 − 1/s c , the following two properties hold:
1. For every 1 ≤ i ≤ k, the set Si contains an element of T , i.e., Si ∩ T ≠ ∅.
2. ∣T ∣ ≤ 3xs/q = O(cs log (ks)/q).
The second method is to use a heuristic to compute an approximately minimum hitting set.
In the sequential model, a simple greedy algorithm computes an O(log n)-approximation [Joh74,
ADP80]. We use the following formulation.
Lemma 2.11. Let U be a set of size s and let S = {S 1 , S 2 , . . . , Sk } be a collection of sets over the
universe U of size at least q. Consider the simple greedy algorithm that picks an element u in U
that is contained in the largest number of sets in S and then removes all sets containing u from S,
repeating this step until S = ∅. Then the set T of elements picked by this algorithm satisfies:
1. For every 1 ≤ i ≤ k, the set Si contains an element of T , i.e., Si ∩ T ≠ ∅.
2. ∣T ∣ ≤ O(s log (k)/q).
Proof. We follow the standard proof of the approximation ratio O(log n) for the greedy set
cover heuristic. The first statement is immediate, since we only remove sets when they are
hit by the picked element. Since each of the k sets contains at least q elements, on average
each element in U is contained in at least kq/s sets. Thus, the element u picked by the greedy
algorithm is contained in at least kq/s sets. The remaining number of sets is thus at most
k − kq/s = k(1 − q/s). Note that the remaining sets still have size at least q, since they do not
contain the picked element u. Inductively, we thus obtain that after i iterations the number of
remaining sets is at most k(1 −q/s)i , so after O(log(k) ⋅s/q) iterations the number of remaining
sets is less than 1 and the process stops.


7

The above greedy algorithm is however inherently sequential and thus researchers have
studied more sophisticated algorithms for the parallel model. The state of the art in terms of
deterministic algorithms is an algorithm by Berger et al. [BRS94]6 .
Theorem 2.12 ([BRS94]). Let S = {S 1 , S 2 , . . . , Sk } be a collection of sets over the universe
U , let n = ∣U ∣ and m = ∑1≤i≤k ∣Si ∣. For 0 < ε < 1, there is an algorithm with work O((m +
n)ε −6 log4 n logm log6 (nm)) and depth O(ε −6 log4 n logm log6 (nm)) that produces a hitting set
of S of size at most (1 + ε)(1 + ln ∆) ⋅ OPT , where ∆ is the maximum number of occurrences of
any element of U in S and OPT is the size of a minimum hitting set.

3

Randomized Algorithm for General Graphs

3.1

A Parallel SSSP Algorithm

In the following we design a parallel SSSP algorithm that can be used to check for negative
cycles. Formally, we will in this subsection prove the following statement.
Theorem 3.1. There is an algorithm that, given a weighted directed graph G = (V, E, w) containing
no negative cycles, computes the shortest paths from a designated source vertex s to all other vertices
spending O(mn log n +n3h −3 log4 n) work with O(h +log n) depth for any 1 ≤ h ≤ n. The algorithm
is correct with high probability and all its comparisons are performed on sums of edge weights on
both sides.
The algorithm proceeds in the following steps:
1. Let C ⊆ V be a set containing each vertex v independently with probability p = min(3ch −1 ln n, 1)
for a sufficiently large constant c.
2. If ∣C∣ > 9cnh −1 ln n, then terminate.
3. For every vertex x ∈ C ∪ {s} and every vertex v ∈ V , compute the shortest h-hop path
from x to v in G and its weight dGh (x,v).
4. Construct the graph H = (C ∪ {s}, (C ∪ {s})2 , w H ) whose set of vertices is C ∪ {s}, whose
set of edges is (C ∪ {s})2 and for every pair of vertices x,y ∈ C ∪ {s} the weight of the
edge (x,y) is w H (x,y) = dGh (x,y).
5. For every vertex x ∈ C, compute the shortest path from s to x in H and its weight d H (s, x).
6. For every vertex t ∈ V , set δ (t) = minx ∈C∪{s} (d H (s, x) + dGh (x, t)).
6
Berger et al. actually give an approximation algorithm for the following slightly more general problem: Given a
hypergraph H = (V , E) and a cost function c∶V → R on the vertices, find a minimum cost subset R ⊆ V that covers
H , i.e., an R that minimizes c(R) = ∑v∈R c(v) subject to the constraint e ∩ R ≠ ∅ for all e ∈ E.

8

3.1.1

Correctness

In order to prove the correctness of the algorithm, we first observe that as a direct consequence
of Lemma 2.10 the randomly selected vertices in C with high probability hit all lexicographically
smallest shortest ⌊h/2⌋-hop paths of the graph.
Observation 3.2. Consider the collection of sets
⌊h/2⌋

S = {V (π ⌊h/2⌋ (u,v)) ∣ u,v ∈ V with dG

(u,v) < ∞ and ∣E(π ⌊h/2⌋ (u,v))∣ = ⌊h/2⌋}

containing the vertices of the lexicographically smallest shortest ⌊h/2⌋-hop paths with exactly ⌊h/2⌋
edges between all pairs of vertices. Then, with high probability, C is a hitting set of S of size at
most 9cnh −1 ln n.
Lemma 3.3. If G contains no negative cycle, then δ (t) = dG (s, t) for every vertex t ∈ V with high
probability.
Proof. First note that the algorithm incorrectly terminates in Step 2 only with small probability.
We now need to show that, for every vertex t ∈ V , δ (t) ∶= minx ∈C∪{s} (d H (s, x) + dGh (x, t)) =
dG (s, t). First observe that every edge in H corresponds to a path in G (of the same weight).
Thus, the value δ (t) corresponds to some path in G from s to t (of the same weight) which
implies that dG (s, t) ≤ δ (t) (as no path can have weight less than the distance).
Now let π (s, t) be the lexicographically smallest shortest path from s to t in G. Subdivide
π into consecutive subpaths π1 , . . . , πk such that πi for 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1 has exactly ⌊h/2⌋ edges,
and πk has at most ⌊h/2⌋ edges. Note that if π itself has at most ⌊h/2⌋ edges, then k = 1. Since
every subpath of a lexicographically smallest shortest path is also a lexicographically smallest
shortest path, the paths π 1 , . . . , πk are lexicographically smallest shortest paths as well. As the
subpaths π 1 , . . . , πk−1 consist of exactly ⌊h/2⌋ edges, each of them is contained in the collection
of sets S of Observation 3.2. Therefore, each subpath πi , for 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1, contains a vertex
x i ∈ C with high probability.
Set x 0 = s and x k = t, and observe that for every 0 ≤ i ≤ k −1, the subpath of π (s, t) from x i to
x i+1 is a shortest path from x i to x i+1 with at most h edges and thus dGh (x i , x i+1 ) = dG (x i , x i+1 ).
We now get the following chain of inequalities:
dG (s, t) =

∑ dG (x i , x i+1 ) =

0≤i≤k −1

h
∑ dG (x i , x i+1 )
0≤i≤k−1

= ( ∑ w H (x i , x i+1 )) + dGh (x k −1 , t)
0≤i≤k−2

≥ d H (x 0 , x k−1 ) + dGh (x k−1 , t)
= d H (s, x k −1 ) + dGh (x k −1 , t)
≥ min (d H (s, x) + dGh (x, t)) = δ (t) .
x ∈C∪{s}



Note that we have formally argued only that the algorithm correctly computes the distances
from s. It can easily be checked that the shortest paths can be obtained by replacing the edges
of H with their corresponding paths in G.

9

3.1.2

Running Time

Lemma 3.4. The algorithm above can be implemented with O(mn log n + n3h −3 log4 n) and
O(h + log n) depth such that all its comparisons are performed on sums of edge weights on both
sides.
Proof. Clearly, in Steps 1–2, the algorithm spends O(m + n) work with O(1) depth. Step 3 can
be carried out by running h iterations of Bellman-Ford for every vertex x ∈ C in parallel (see
Lemma 2.8), thus spending O(∣C∣ ⋅ mh) work with O(h) depth. Step 4 can be carried out by
spending O(∣C∣2 ) work with O(1) depth. Step 5 can be carried out by running the min-plus
matrix multiplication based APSP algorithm (see Lemma 2.6), thus spending O(∣C∣3 log n) work
with O(log n) depth. The naive implementation of Step 6 spends O(n∣C∣) work with O(∣C∣)
depth. Using a bottom-up ‘tournament’ approach where in each round we pair up all values
and let the maximum value of each pair proceed to the next round, this can be improved to
work O(n∣C∣) and depth O(log n).
It follows that by carrying out the steps of the algorithm sequentially as explained above, the
overall work is O(∣C∣ ⋅ mh + ∣C∣3 log n) and the depth is O(h + log n). As the algorithm ensures
that ∣C∣ ≤ 9cnh −1 ln n for some constant c, the work is O(mn log n + n3h −3 log4 n) and the depth
is O(h + log n).

3.1.3

Extension to Negative Cycle Detection

To check whether a weighted graph G = (V , E, w) contains a negative cycle, we first construct
the graph G ′ (with an additional super-source s ′ ) as defined in Lemma 2.5. We then run the
SSSP algorithm of Theorem 3.1 from s ′ in G ′ and set p(v) = dG ′ (s ′ , t) for every vertex t ∈ V . We
then check whether the function p defined in this way is a valid potential function for G testing
for every edge e = (u,v) (in parallel) whether p(u) + w(u,v) ≥ p(v). If this is the case, then we
output that G contains no negative cycle, otherwise we output that G contains a negative cycle.
Corollary 3.5. There is a randomized algorithm that checks whether a given weighted directed
graph contains a negative cycle with O(mn log n + n3h −3 log4 n) work and O(h + log n) depth for
any 1 ≤ h ≤ n. The algorithm is correct with high probability and all its comparisons are performed
on sums of edge weights on both sides.
Proof. Constructing the graph G ′ and checking whether p is a valid potential can both be
carried out with O(m + n) work and O(1) depth. Thus, the overall work and depth bounds are
asymptotically equal to the SSSP algorithm of Theorem 3.1.
If G contains no negative cycle, then the SSSP algorithm correctly computes the distances
from s ′ in G ′ . Thus, the potential p is valid by Lemma 2.5 and our algorithm correctly outputs
that there is no negative cycle. If G contains a negative cycle, then it does not have any valid
potential by Lemma 2.4. Thus, the potential p defined by the algorithm cannot be valid and the
algorithm outputs correctly that G contains a negative cycle.


3.2

Finding the Minimum Ratio Cycle

Using the negative cycle detection algorithm as a subroutine, we obtain an algorithm for
computing a minimum ratio cycle in time Õ(n3/2m3/4 ).

10

Theorem 3.6. There is a randomized one-sided-error Monte Carlo algorithm for computing a
minimum ratio cycle with running time O(n3/2m3/4 log2 n).
Proof. By Lemma 2.2 we can compute the value of the minimum ratio cycle by finding the largest
value of λ such that G λ contains no negative-weight cycle. We want to apply Theorem 2.1
to find this maximum λ∗ by parametric search. As the sequential negative cycle detection
algorithm As we use Orlin’s minimum weight cycle algorithm [Orl17] with running time
T (n,m) = O(mn). The parallel negative cycle detection algorithm Ap of Corollary 3.5 has
work W (n,m) = O(mn log n + n3h −3 log4 n) and depth D(n,m) = O(h + log n), for any choice of
1 ≤ h ≤ n. Any comparison the latter algorithm performs is comparing sums of edge weights of
the graph. Since in G λ edge weights are linear functions in λ, the control flow only depends on
testing the sign of degree-1 polynomials in λ. Thus, Theorem 2.1 is applicable7 and we arrive
at a sequential algorithm for finding the value of the minimum ratio cycle with running time
O(mn log n(h + log n) + n3h −3 log4 n). Finally, to output the minimum ratio cycle and not just its
value, we run Orlin’s algorithm for finding the minimum weight cycle in G λ ∗ , which takes time
O(mn). By setting h = n1/2m−1/4 log n the overall running time becomes O(n3/2m3/4 log2 n). 

4

Deterministic Algorithm for General Graphs

We now present a deterministic variant of our minimum ratio cycle algorithm, with the same
running time as the randomized algorithm up to logarithmic factors.

4.1

Deterministic SSSP and Negative Cycle Detection

We can derandomize our SSSP algorithm by combining a preprocessing step with the parallel
hitting set approximation algorithm of [BRS94]. Formally, we will prove the following statement.
Theorem 4.1. There is a deterministic algorithm that, given a weighted directed graph containing
no negative cycles, computes the shortest paths from a designated source vertex s to all other
vertices spending O(mn log2 n + n3h −3 log7 n + n2h log11 n) work with O(h + log11 n) depth for any
1 ≤ h ≤ n.
From this, using Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5 analogously to the proof of Corollary 3.5, we get the
following corollary for negative cycle detection.
Corollary 4.2. There is a deterministic algorithm that checks whether a given weighted directed
graph contains a negative cycle with O(mn log2 n + n3h −3 log7 n + n2h log11 n) work and O(h +
log11 n) depth for any 1 ≤ h ≤ n.
Our deterministic SSSP algorithm does the following:
7

Formally, Theorem 2.1 only applies to deterministic algorithms. However, only step 1 of our parallel algorithm
is randomized, but this step does not depend on λ. All remaining steps are deterministic. We can thus first perform
steps 1 and 2, and invoke Theorem 2.1 only on the remaining algorithm. The output guarantee then holds with high
probability.

11

1. For all pairs of vertices u,v ∈ V , compute the shortest ⌊h/2⌋-hop path π ⌊h/2⌋ (u,v) from u
to v in G.8
2. Compute an O(log n)-approximate set cover C of the system of sets
⌊h/2⌋

S = {V (π ⌊h/2⌋ (u,v)) ∣ u,v ∈ V with dG

(u,v) < ∞ and ∣E(π ⌊h/2⌋ (u,v))∣ = ⌊h/2⌋}.

3. Proceed with steps 3 to 6 of the algorithm in Section 3.1.
4.1.1

Correctness

Correctness is immediate: In the previous proof of Lemma 3.3 we relied on the fact that C is a
hitting set of S. In the above algorithm, this property is guaranteed directly.
4.1.2

Running Time

Step 1 can be carried out by running h iterations of the Bellman-Ford algorithm for every
vertex v ∈ V . By Lemma 2.8 this uses O(mnh) work and O(h) depth. We carry out Step 2
by running the algorithm of Theorem 2.12 to compute an O(log n)-approximate hitting set
of S with work O(n2h log11 n) and depth O(log11 n). Lemma 2.10 gives a randomized process
that computes a hitting set of S of expected size O(nh −1 log n). By the probabilistic method,
this implies that there exists a hitting set of size O(nh −1 log n). We can therefore use the
algorithm of Theorem 2.12 to compute a hitting set S of size O(nh −1 log2 n). The work is
O(n2h log11 n) and the depth is O(log11 n). Carrying out the remaining steps with a hitting set
C of size O(nh −1 log2 n) uses work O(mh∣C∣ + ∣C∣3 log n) = O(mn log2 n +n 3h −3 log7 n) and depth
O(h +log n). Thus, our overall SSSP algorithm has work O(mn log2 n +n3h −3 log7 n +n2h log11 n)
and depth O(h + log11 n).

4.2

Minimum Ratio Cycle

We again obtain a minimum ratio cycle algorithm by applying parametric search (Theorem 2.1).
We obtain the same running time bound as for the randomized algorithm.
Theorem 4.3. There is a deterministic algorithm for computing a minimum ratio cycle with
running time O(n3/2m3/4 log2 n).
Proof sketch. The proof is analogous to the proof of Theorem 3.6, with the only exception
that we use the deterministic parallel negative cycle detection algorithm of Corollary 4.2.
However, we do not necessarily need to run the algorithm of Theorem 2.12 to compute an
approximate hitting set. Instead we can also run the greedy set cover heuristic (Lemma 2.11) for
this purpose. The reason is that at this stage, the greedy heuristic does not need to perform
any comparisons involving the edge weights of the input graph, which are the only operations
that are costly in the parametric search technique. This means that finding an approximate
8

Note that in case there are multiple shortest ⌊h/2⌋-hop paths from u to v, any tie-breaking is fine for the
algorithm and its analysis.

12

hitting set C of size O(nh −1 log n) can be implemented with O(∑S ∈S ∣S∣) = O(n2h) work and
O(1) comparison depth. Thus, we use a parallel negative cycle detection algorithm Ap which
has work W (n,m) = O(mh∣C∣ + ∣C∣3 log n + n2h) = O(mn log n + n3h −3 log4 n + n2h) and depth
D(n,m) = O(h + log n), for any choice of 1 ≤ h ≤ n. We thus obtain a sequential minimum ratio
cycle algorithm with running time O(mn log n +n3h −3 log4 n +n2h +mn log n(h + log n)), for any
choice of 1 ≤ h ≤ n. Note that the summands mn log n and n 2h are both dominated by the last
summand mn log n(h + log n). Setting h = n1/2m −1/4 log n to optimize the remaining summands,
the running time becomes O(n 3/2m3/4 log2 n).


5

Near-Linear Time Algorithm for Constant Treewidth Graphs

In the following we demonstrate how to obtain a nearly-linear time algorithm (in the strongly
polynomial sense) for graphs of constant treewidth. We can use the following results of
Chaudhuri and Zaroliagis [CZ00] who studied the shortest paths problem in graphs of constant
treewidth.9
Theorem 5.1 ([CZ00]). There is a deterministic algorithm that, given a weighted directed graph
containing no negative cycles, computes a data structure that after O(n) preprocessing time can
answer, for any pair of vertices, distance queries in time O(α(n)), where α(⋅) is the inverse
Ackermann function. It can also report a corresponding shortest path in time O(`α(n)), where ` is
the number of edges of the reported path.
Theorem 5.2 ([CZ98]). There is a deterministic negative cycle algorithm for weighted directed
graphs of constant treewidth with O(n) work and O(log2 n) depth.
We now apply the reduction of Theorem 2.1 to the algorithm of Theorem 5.2 to find λ∗ ,
the value of the minimum ratio cycle, in time O(n log3 n) (using Ts (n) = Wp (n) = O(n), and
D p (n) = O(log2 n)). We then use the algorithm of Theorem 5.1 to find a minimum weight
cycle in G λ ∗ in time O(nα(n)): Each edge e = (u,v) together with the shortest path from v to
u (if it exists) defines a cycle and we need to find the one of minimum weight by asking the
corresponding distance queries. For the edge e = (u,v) defining the minimum weight cycle
we query for the corresponding shortest path from v to u. This takes time O(n) as a graph of
constant treewidth has O(n) edges. We thus arrive at the following guarantees of the overall
algorithm.
Corollary 5.3. There is a deterministic algorithm that computes the minimum ratio cycle in a
directed graph of constant treewidth in time O(n log3 n).

6

Slightly Faster Algorithm for Dense Graphs

All our previous algorithm do not make use of fast matrix multiplication. We now show that
if we allow fast matrix multiplication, despite the hidden constant factors being galactic, then
9

The first result of Chaudhuri and Zaroliagis [CZ00] has recently been complemented with a space-time trade-off
by Chatterjee, Ibsen-Jensen, and Pavlogiannis [CIP16] at the cost of polynomial preprocessing time that is too large
for our purposes.

13

slight further
improvements are possible. Specifically, we sketch how the running time of
√
3 Ω( log n)
n /2
of Williams’s recent APSP algorithm [Wil14] (with a deterministic version by
Chan and Williams [CW16]) can be salvaged for the minimum ratio problem. In particular, we
explain why Williams’ algorithm for min-plus matrix multiplication parallelizes well enough.
Theorem 6.1. There is a deterministic algorithm
that checks whether a given weighted directed
√
3 Ω( log n)
graph contains a negative cycle with n /2
work and O(log n) comparison depth.
Proof sketch. First, note that the value of the minimum weight cycle in a directed graph can be
found by computing mine=(u,v)∈E w(u,v) + dG (v,u), i.e., the cycle of minimum weight among
all cycles consisting of first an edge e = (u,v) and then the shortest path from u to v is the
global minimum weight cycle. If all pairwise distances are already given, then computing the
value of the minimum weight cycle (and thus also checking for a negative cycle) can therefore
be done with O(n2 ) work and O(log n) depth (again by a ‘tournament’ approach).
The APSP problem can in turn be reduced to min-plus matrix multiplication [AHU76].
Let M be the adjacency matrix of the graph where additionally all diagonal entries are set to
0. Recall that the the all-pairs distance matrix is given M n−1 , where matrix multiplication is
performed in the min-plus semiring. By repeated squaring, this matrix can be computed with
O(log n) min-plus matrix multiplications. Williams’s principal approach for computing the
min-plus product C of two matrices A and B is as follows.
(A1) Split the matrices A and B√into rectangular submatrices of dimensions n × d and d × n,
respectively, where d = 2Θ( log n) , as follows: For every 1 ≤ k ≤ ⌈n/d⌉ − 1, Ak contains the
k-th group of d consecutive columns of A and Bk contains the k-th group of d consecutive
rows of B; for k = ⌈n/d⌉, Ak contains the remaining columns of A and Bk contains the
remaining rows of B.
(A2) For each 1 ≤ k ≤ ⌈n/d⌉, compute Ck , the min-plus product of Ak and Bk (using the
algorithm described below).
(A3) Determine the min-plus product of A and B by taking the entrywise minimum C ∶=
min1≤k ≤⌈n/d ⌉ Ck .
To carry out Step (A2), Williams first uses a preprocessing stage applied to each pair of
matrices Ak and Bk (for 1 ≤ k ≤ ⌈n/d⌉) individually. It consists of the following three steps:
(B1) Compute matrices A∗k and Bk∗ of dimensions n × d and d × n, respectively, as follows: Set
A∗k [i,p] ∶= Ak [i,p] ⋅ (n + 1) + p, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ p ≤ d, and set Bk∗ [q, j] ∶=
Bk [q, j] ⋅ (n + 1) + q, for every 1 ≤ q ≤ d and 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
(B2) Compute matrices A′k and Bk′ of dimensions n × d 2 and d 2 × n, respectively, as follows:
Set A′k [i, (p, q)] ∶= A∗k [i,p] − A∗k [i, q], for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ p, q ≤ d, and set
Bk′ [(p, q), j] ∶= Bk∗ [q, j] − Bk∗ [p, j], for every 1 ≤ j ≤ n, 1 ≤ p, q ≤ d.
p,q

(B3) For every pair p, q (1 ≤ p, q ≤ d), compute and sort the set Sk ∶= {A′k [i, (p, q)] ∣ 1 ≤
i ≤ n} ∪ {Bk′ [(p, q), j] ∣ 1 ≤ j ≤ n}, where ties are broken such that entries of A′k have
precedence over entries of Bk′ . Then compute matrices A′′k and Bk′′ of dimensions n × d 2

14

and d 2 × n, respectively, as follows: Set A′′k [i, (p, q)] to the rank of the value A′k [i, (p, q)]
p,q
in the sorted order of Sk , for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ p, q ≤ d, and set Bk′′ [(p, q), j] to
p,q
the rank of the value Bk′ [(p, q), j] in the sorted order of Sk , for every 1 ≤ j ≤ n and
1 ≤ p, q ≤ d.
This type of preprocessing is also known as Fredman’s trick [Fre76]. As Williams shows, the
problem of computing Ck now amounts to finding, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ n, the unique
′′
p ∗ such that A′′i,(p ∗,q) ≤ B (p
∗,q), j for all 1 ≤ q ≤ d. Using tools from circuit complexity and fast

rectangular matrix multiplication, this can be done in time Õ(n 2 ), either with a randomized
algorithm [Wil14], or, with slightly worse constants in the choice of d (and thus the exponent
of the overall algorithm), with a deterministic algorithm [CW16]. The crucial observation for
our application is that after the preprocessing stage no comparisons involving the input values
are performed anymore since all computations are performed with regard to the matrices A′′k
and Bk′′ , which only contain the ranks (i.e., integer values from 1 to 2n).
The claimed work bound follows from Williams’s running time analysis. We can bound
the comparison depth as follows. First note that apart from Steps (A3) and (B3) we only incur
O(log n) overhead in the depth. Step (A3) can be implemented with O(log n) depth by using a
tournament approach for finding the respective minima. For Step (B3) we can use a parallel
version of merge sort on n items that has work O(n log n) and depth O(log n) [Col88].

We now apply the reduction of Theorem 2.1 to√the algorithm of Theorem 6.1 to find λ√∗ , the
value of the minimum ratio cycle, in time n3 /2Ω( log n) (using Ts (n) = Wp (n) = n3 /2Ω( log n) ,
and D p (n) = O(log n)).
We then use Williams’ APSP algorithm to find a minimum weight cycle
√
in G λ ∗ in time n3 /2Ω(

log n)

. We thus arrive at the following guarantees of the overall algorithm.

Corollary 6.2. There
is deterministic algorithm for computing a minimum ratio cycle with
√
running time n3 /2Ω( log n) .

7

Conclusion

We have presented a faster strongly polynomial algorithm for finding a cycle of minimum costto-time ratio, a problem which has a long history in combinatorial optimization and recently
became relevant in the context of quantitative verification. Our approach combines parametric
search with new parallelizable single-source shortest path algorithms and also yields small
improvements for graphs of constant treewidth and in the dense regime. The main open problem
is to push the running time down to Õ(mn), nearly matching the strongly polynomial upper
bound for the less general problem of finding a minimum mean cycle.

References
[ADP80]

Giorgio Ausiello, Alessandro D’Atri, and Marco Protasi. “Structure Preserving Reductions among Convex Optimization Problems”. In: Journal of Computer and System
Sciences 21.1 (1980). Announced at ICALP’77, pp. 136–153 (cit. on p. 7).

15

[AHU76]

Alfred V. Aho, John E. Hopcroft, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. The Design and Analysis of
Computer Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, 1976 (cit. on p. 14).

[AST94]

Pankaj K. Agarwal, Micha Sharir, and Sivan Toledo. “Applications of Parametric
Searching in Geometric Optimization”. In: Journal of Algorithms 17.3 (1994). Announced at SODA’92, pp. 292–318 (cit. on pp. 4, 5).

[Bel58]

Richard Bellman. “On a routing problem”. In: Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 16.1
(1958), pp. 87–90 (cit. on pp. 3, 6).

[Ble+ 16]

Guy E. Blelloch, Yan Gu, Yihan Sun, and Kanat Tangwongsan. “Parallel Shortest
Paths Using Radius Stepping”. In: Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and
Architectures (SPAA). 2016, pp. 443–454 (cit. on p. 3).

[Blo+ 09]

Roderick Bloem, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Barbara Jobstmann. “Better Quality in Synthesis through Quantitative Objectives”. In: International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). 2009, pp. 140–156 (cit. on
p. 1).

[Blo+ 14]

Roderick Bloem, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Karin Greimel, Thomas A. Henzinger,
Georg Hofferek, Barbara Jobstmann, Bettina Könighofer, and Robert Könighofer.
“Synthesizing robust systems”. In: Acta Informatica 51.3-4 (2014). Announced at
FMCAD’09, pp. 193–220 (cit. on p. 1).

[BRS94]

Bonnie Berger, John Rompel, and Peter W. Shor. “Efficient NC Algorithms for Set
Cover with Applications to Learning and Geometry”. In: Journal of Computer and
System Sciences 49.3 (1994). Announced at FOCS’89, pp. 454–477 (cit. on pp. 8, 11).

[BTZ98]

Gerth Stølting Brodal, Jesper Larsson Träff, and Christos D. Zaroliagis. “A Parallel Priority Queue with Constant Time Operations”. In: Journal of Parallel and
Distributed Computing 49.1 (1998). Announced at IPPS’97, pp. 4–21 (cit. on pp. 3, 4).

[Bur91]

Steven M. Burns. “Performance Analysis and Optimization of Asynchronous Circuits”. Published as technical report CS-TR-91-01. PhD thesis. California Institute of
Technology, 1991 (cit. on p. 3).

[CDH10]

Krishnendu Chatterjee, Laurent Doyen, and Thomas A. Henzinger. “Quantitative
languages”. In: ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 11.4 (2010). Announced at
CSL’08, 23:1–23:38 (cit. on p. 1).

[Cer+ 11]

Pavol Cerný, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Thomas A. Henzinger, Arjun Radhakrishna,
and Rohit Singh. “Quantitative Synthesis for Concurrent Programs”. In: International
Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). 2011, pp. 243–259 (cit. on p. 1).

[Cha+ 03]

Arindam Chakrabarti, Luca de Alfaro, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Mariëlle Stoelinga.
“Resource Interfaces”. In: International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT).
2003, pp. 117–133 (cit. on p. 1).

[CIP15]

Krishnendu Chatterjee, Rasmus Ibsen-Jensen, and Andreas Pavlogiannis. “Faster
Algorithms for Quantitative Verification in Constant Treewidth Graphs”. In: International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). 2015, pp. 140–157 (cit. on
pp. 1, 3).

16

[CIP16]

Krishnendu Chatterjee, Rasmus Ibsen-Jensen, and Andreas Pavlogiannis. “Optimal
Reachability and a Space-Time Tradeoff for Distance Queries in Constant-Treewidth
Graphs”. In: European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA). 2016, 28:1–28:17 (cit. on
p. 13).

[Coh+ 17] Michael B. Cohen, Aleksander Madry, Piotr Sankowski, and Adrian Vladu. “NegativeWeight Shortest Paths and Unit Capacity Minimum Cost Flow in Õ(m10/7 logW )
Time”. In: Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 2017, pp. 752–771 (cit. on p. 3).
[Coh00]

Edith Cohen. “Polylog-time and near-linear work approximation scheme for undirected shortest paths”. In: Journal of the ACM 47.1 (2000). Announced at STOC’94,
pp. 132–166 (cit. on p. 3).

[Coh97]

Edith Cohen. “Using Selective Path-Doubling for Parallel Shortest-Path Computations”. In: Journal of Algorithms 22.1 (1997). Announced at ISTCS’93, pp. 30–56
(cit. on p. 3).

[Col87]

Richard Cole. “Slowing down sorting networks to obtain faster sorting algorithms”.
In: Journal of the ACM 34.1 (1987). Announced at FOCS’84, pp. 200–208 (cit. on p. 2).

[Col88]

Richard Cole. “Parallel Merge Sort”. In: SIAM Journal on Computing 17.4 (1988).
Announced at FOCS’86, pp. 770–785 (cit. on p. 15).

[CW16]

Timothy M. Chan and Ryan Williams. “Deterministic APSP, Orthogonal Vectors,
and More: Quickly Derandomizing Razborov-Smolensky”. In: Symposium on Discrete
Algorithms (SODA). 2016, pp. 1246–1255 (cit. on pp. 3, 14, 15).

[CZ00]

Shiva Chaudhuri and Christos D. Zaroliagis. “Shortest Paths in Digraphs of Small
Treewidth. Part I: Sequential Algorithms”. In: Algorithmica 27.3 (2000). Announced
at ICALP’95, pp. 212–226 (cit. on pp. 3, 13).

[CZ98]

Shiva Chaudhuri and Christos D. Zaroliagis. “Shortest Paths in Digraphs of Small
Treewdith. Part II: Optimal Parallel Algorithms”. In: Theoretical Computer Science
203.2 (1998). Announced at ESA’95, pp. 205–223 (cit. on p. 13).

[DBR67]

G.B. Dantzig, W. Blattner, and M.R. Rao. “Finding a cycle in a graph with minimum
cost to time ratio with application to a ship routing problem”. In: Theory of Graphs.
Ed. by P. Rosenstiehl. Dunod, Paris, Gordon, and Breach, New York, 1967, pp. 77–84
(cit. on pp. 2, 5).

[DIG99]

Ali Dasdan, Sandy Irani, and Rajesh K. Gupta. “Efficient Algorithms for Optimum
Cycle Mean and Optimum Cost to Time Ratio Problems”. In: Design Automation
Conference (DAC). 1999, pp. 37–42 (cit. on p. 3).

[DKV09]

Manfred Droste, Werner Kuich, and Heiko Vogler, eds. Handbook of Weighted Automata. Springer, 2009 (cit. on p. 1).

[EK72]

Jack Edmonds and Richard M. Karp. “Theoretical Improvements in Algorithmic
Efficiency for Network Flow Problems”. In: Journal of the ACM 19.2 (1972), pp. 248–
264 (cit. on p. 6).

17

[FL16]

Stephan Friedrichs and Christoph Lenzen. “Parallel Metric Tree Embedding based
on an Algebraic View on Moore-Bellman-Ford”. In: Symposium on Parallelism in
Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA). 2016, pp. 455–466 (cit. on p. 4).

[For56]

L. R. Ford. Network Flow Theory. Tech. rep. P-923. The RAND Corporation, 1956
(cit. on pp. 3, 6).

[Fox69]

Bennett Fox. “Finding Minimal Cost-Time Ratio Circuits”. In: Operations Research
17.3 (1969), pp. 546–551 (cit. on p. 3).

[Fre76]

Michael L. Fredman. “New Bounds on the Complexity of the Shortest Path Problem”.
In: SIAM Journal on Computing 5.1 (1976), pp. 83–89 (cit. on p. 15).

[Gal14]

François Le Gall. “Powers of tensors and fast matrix multiplication”. In: International
Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (ISSAC). 2014, pp. 296–303 (cit.
on p. 3).

[GHH92]

Sabih H. Gerez, Sonia M. Heemstra de Groot, and Otto E. Herrmann. “A polynomial
time algorithm for the computation of the iteration-period bound in recursive data
flow graphs”. In: IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory
and Applications 39.1 (1992), pp. 49–52 (cit. on p. 3).

[Gol82]

Manfred v. Golitschek. “Optimal Cycles in Doubly Weighted Graphs and Approximation of Bivariate Functions by Univariate Ones”. In: Numerische Mathematik 39.1
(1982), pp. 65–84 (cit. on p. 3).

[Gol95]

Andrew V. Goldberg. “Scaling Algorithms for the Shortest Paths Problem”. In: SIAM
Journal on Computing 24.3 (1995). Announced at SODA’93, pp. 494–504 (cit. on p. 3).

[HO93]

Mark Hartmann and James B. Orlin. “Finding minimum cost to time ratio cycles
with small integral transit times”. In: Networks 23.6 (1993), pp. 567–574 (cit. on p. 3).

[ILP91]

Alexander T. Ishii, Charles E. Leiserson, and Marios C. Papaefthymiou. An Algorithm
for the Tramp Steamer Problem Based on Mean-Weight Cycles. Tech. rep. MIT/LCS/TM457. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991 (cit. on p. 3).

[IP95]

Kazuhito Ito and Keshab K. Parhi. “Determining the minimum iteration period of
an algorithm”. In: VLSI Signal Processing 11.3 (1995), pp. 229–244 (cit. on p. 3).

[Joh74]

David S. Johnson. “Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Problems”. In:
Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9.3 (1974). Announced at STOC’73, pp. 256–
278 (cit. on p. 7).

[Joh77]

Donald B. Johnson. “Efficient Algorithms for Shortest Paths in Sparse Networks”.
In: Journal of the ACM 24.1 (1977), pp. 1–13 (cit. on p. 6).

[Kar78]

Richard M. Karp. “A characterization of the minimum cycle mean in a digraph”. In:
Discrete Mathematics 23.3 (1978), pp. 309–311 (cit. on p. 2).

[KS97]

Philip N. Klein and Sairam Subramanian. “A Randomized Parallel Algorithm for
Single-Source Shortest Paths”. In: Journal of Algorithms 25.2 (1997). Announced at
STOC’92, pp. 205–220 (cit. on pp. 2, 3).

18

[Law67]

Eugene L. Lawler. “Optimal cycles in doubly weighted linear graphs”. In: Theory of
Graphs. Ed. by P. Rosenstiehl. Dunod, Paris, Gordon, and Breach, New York, 1967,
pp. 209–214 (cit. on pp. 2, 3).

[Law76]

Eugene L. Lawler. Combinatorial Optimization: Network and Matroids. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, 1976 (cit. on pp. 3, 5).

[Meg83]

Nimrod Megiddo. “Applying Parallel Computation Algorithms in the Design of
Serial Algorithms”. In: Journal of the ACM 30.4 (1983). Announced at FOCS’81,
pp. 852–865 (cit. on pp. 1, 2, 5, 6).

[Mil+ 15]

Gary L. Miller, Richard Peng, Adrian Vladu, and Shen Chen Xu. “Improved Parallel
Algorithms for Spanners and Hopsets”. In: Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms
and Architectures (SPAA). 2015, pp. 192–201 (cit. on p. 3).

[Moo59]

E. F. Moore. “The Shortest Path Through a Maze”. In: International Symposium on
the Theory of Switching. 1959, pp. 285–292 (cit. on pp. 3, 6).

[MS03]

Ulrich Meyer and Peter Sanders. “∆-stepping: a parallelizable shortest path algorithm”. In: Journal of Algorithms 49.1 (2003). Announced at ESA’98, pp. 114–152
(cit. on p. 3).

[Orl17]

James B. Orlin. “An O(nm) time algorithm for finding the min length directed
cycle in a weighted graph”. In: Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 2017,
pp. 1866–1879 (cit. on p. 11).

[Pap79]

Christos H. Papadimitriou. “Efficient Search for Rationals”. In: Information Processing
Letters 8.1 (1979), pp. 1–4 (cit. on p. 3).

[San05]

Piotr Sankowski. “Shortest Paths in Matrix Multiplication Time”. In: European
Symposium on Algorithms (ESA). 2005, pp. 770–778 (cit. on p. 3).

[Spe97]

Thomas H. Spencer. “Time-work tradeoffs for parallel algorithms”. In: Journal of the
ACM 44.5 (1997). Announced at SODA’91 and SPAA’91, pp. 742–778 (cit. on pp. 2, 3).

[SS99]

Hanmao Shi and Thomas H. Spencer. “Time-Work Tradeoffs of the Single-Source
Shortest Paths Problem”. In: Journal of Algorithms 30.1 (1999), pp. 19–32 (cit. on
pp. 3, 4).

[Tho05]

Mikkel Thorup. “Worst-case update times for fully-dynamic all-pairs shortest paths”.
In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 2005, pp. 112–119 (cit. on p. 6).

[UY91]

Jeffrey D. Ullman and Mihalis Yannakakis. “High-Probability Parallel TransitiveClosure Algorithms”. In: SIAM Journal on Computing 20.1 (1991). Announced at
SPAA’90, pp. 100–125 (cit. on pp. 2, 7).

[Wil14]

Ryan Williams. “Faster all-pairs shortest paths via circuit complexity”. In: Symposium
on Theory of Computing (STOC). 2014, pp. 664–673 (cit. on pp. 3, 14, 15).

[YZ05]

Raphael Yuster and Uri Zwick. “Answering distance queries in directed graphs
using fast matrix multiplication”. In: Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
(FOCS). 2005, pp. 389–396 (cit. on p. 3).

19

