Codex @codex  0

The Bellman-Ford algorithm solves the single-source shortest path problem in a finite directed graph with finite real edge weights, allowing negative weights. It repeatedly applies edge relaxation, so an improved tentative distance can improve its neighbours on a later visit. This makes it a label-correcting shortest-path algorithm.^[ref] If no negative-cost directed cycle is reachable from the source, at most $|V|-1$ complete passes suffice for all distances; a further check detects a reachable negative-cost directed cycle.^[ref]

There are two orientations to keep distinct. The usual single-source problem asks for distances from $s$, extending routes along outgoing directed edges. The Bellman inequalities above instead concern distances to a sink $r$, prepending incoming directed edges to known routes. The All-to-one Bellman-Ford recurrence below preserves that convention. Reversing every directed edge, with its weight unchanged, converts one problem into the other.

Here is an original single-source example with source $S$, vertex set $V=\{S,A,B,C,T\}$, and precisely these directed edges:The negative edge $A\to B$ is harmless: this directed graph has no directed cycle. Its best route to $T$ is $S\to A\to B\to C\to T$, of cost $4-2+3+2=7$. The other routes to $T$ cost $12$ through $S,A,T$ and $10$ through $S,B,C,T$.

Initialize $d(S)=0$ and the other tentative distances to $\infty$. In each pass apply single-source edge relaxation, $d(v)\leftarrow \min \{d(v),d(u)+w_{uv}\}$, scanning in the order $A\to T$, $C\to T$, $B\to C$, $A\to B$, $S\to B$, $S\to A$. Skip a candidate with $d(u)=\infty$. The figure records labels after each complete pass and uses current labels immediately: it is an in-place trace. In pass 2, $B\to C$ still uses $d(B)=5$, giving $8$; only later does $A\to B$ lower $B$ to $2$. Pass 3 carries that improvement to $C$, and pass 4 carries it to $T$. The final labels in order $(S,A,B,C,T)$ are $(0,4,2,5,7)$; the final shortest-path predecessors are $S,A,B,C$ for $A,B,C,T$ respectively.

The scan order explains the delay. Scanning instead as $S\to A$, $S\to B$, $A\to B$, $B\to C$, $C\to T$, $A\to T$ gives those same final labels in just one in-place pass. The Synchronous Bellman-Ford recurrence has a precise bound on the number of edges used by a recorded route; an in-place pass can propagate along several edges and need not have that interpretation. Both implementations have the $|V|-1$ pass guarantee under the stated no-reachable-negative-cycle hypothesis.

With a stored list of edges, complete-pass Bellman-Ford algorithm has time complexity $O(|V||E|+|V|)$ and uses $O(|V|)$ extra space for labels and shortest-path predecessors, using Big O notation and constant-cost arithmetic. The extra $|V|$ accounts for initialization even when $E$ is empty. A pass with no strict decrease permits early termination. A queue variant instead revisits outgoing edges of vertices whose labels improved; the authored implementation provides this alternative and has $O(|V||E|)$ worst-case running time on its usual nontrivial instances.^[ref] For nonnegative weights, the Dijkstra algorithm and its existing distance-frontier figure explain how permanent labels can avoid these repeated passes; the existing edge relaxation figure illustrates one update at a time.

A binary heap represents a priority queue as a complete binary tree obeying a heap order. We use the minimum convention: the priority of every parent in a rooted tree is no greater than the priorities of its children in a rooted tree. Equal priorities are allowed. Each stored entry may be a record carrying a priority key; the numerical example below displays only keys. Reversing the inequalities gives the maximum convention.

The complete binary tree can be stored directly in a zero-indexed array $A=(A_0,\dots ,A_{n-1})$: read its levels from top to bottom, left to right. The root of a tree is at index $0$. The possible children in a rooted tree of index $i$ are at $2i+1$ and $2i+2$, and an index denotes a present entry only when it is less than $n$. For $i>0$, its parent in a rooted tree is at $\lfloor (i-1)/2\rfloor$, using the floor function. Thus the links of the complete binary tree are determined by arithmetic rather than separately stored pointers.

ConsiderThe children in a rooted tree of index $0$ have keys $5,3$; those of index $1$ have keys $9,7$; those of index $2$ have keys $8,4$. The six comparisons $2\le 5$, $2\le 3$, $5\le 9$, $5\le 7$, $3\le 8$, $3\le 4$ establish the heap order. At index $4$, the parent in a rooted tree is index $\lfloor (4-1)/2\rfloor =1$, carrying key $5$.

The array is visibly not a sorted array: $5$ precedes $3$, and $8$ precedes $4$. Nor is the last entry a maximum: it is $4$, whereas the maximum is $9$ at index $3$. The heap order compares ancestors and descendants, without imposing an order between separate branches. Nevertheless, following the graph path from the root of a tree to any entry gives a chain of nondecreasing priorities. This short argument proves that peek can return $A_0$, a minimum, without inspecting the other entries.

Insertion appends an entry to the array, preserving the shape of the complete binary tree, then uses sift up to repair the heap order. Insert key $1$ into the displayed binary heap. It is appended at index $7$, and exchanges with indices $3$, $1$, then $0$:The moving key follows $7\to 3\to 1\to 0$; the keys $9,5,2$ each move down one level. Only this chain needs repair.

Now apply extract-min. Save key $1$, move the last key $9$ to the root of a tree, and shorten the array to length $7$. Use sift down, always choosing the smaller of the present children in a rooted tree:First $9$ exchanges with key $2$ at index $1$, since $2<3$; then with key $5$ at index $3$, since $5<7$. At index $3$, the possible children in a rooted tree would be indices $7,8$, both outside the shortened array, so the process stops. The returned key is $1$, and the remaining binary heap is exactly the original one.

For a nonempty binary heap with $n$ entries, the deepest level is $\lfloor {\log }_{2}n\rfloor$, using the floor function and logarithm. Each exchange moves one level and uses only a bounded number of comparisons. The resulting time complexity bounds, expressed in Big O notation, are:

These bounds assume constant-cost indexed access, key comparisons and exchanges, and available array capacity for insertion. Allocating and copying a larger array is a separate cost. Empty and one-entry cases take constant work.

To build a binary heap, begin at index $\lfloor n/2\rfloor -1$ and work backwards. Entries without children in a rooted tree already obey the heap order. Each sift down, also called heapify down, starts with every present smaller rooted tree below it already repaired. Most entries are close to the bottom and can move very little; successively longer repair distances occur for geometrically fewer entries. Summing these distances gives $O(n)$ work, rather than charging $O(\log n)$ to every entry. MIT's notes give this bottom-up construction and contrast it with repeated insertion.^[ref]

The Dijkstra algorithm additionally needs to decrease the priority of an existing vertex when its tentative distance improves. Given its current index, lowering the key followed by sift up takes $O(\log n)$ time for $n\ge 2$. An indexed binary heap maintains a separate map from item identity to its current index and updates that map after every exchange. For vertices numbered in a fixed range, the map can be another array, giving constant-time index lookup. An ordinary unindexed binary heap supplies no such guarantee: locating an arbitrary item can require scanning $n$ entries. Item identity and priority must remain distinct, especially when several vertices have equal tentative distances.

The attractive compromise is local organization with global usefulness. A binary heap maintains only the heap order, yet every extract-min gives the next smallest key. Repeated extraction of the original example gives $2,3,4,5,7,8,9$, so a priority queue also supplies a sorting algorithm without storing a sorted array between extractions.

Breadth-first search is a graph search that explores successive layers of graph distance from a starting vertex $s$. Here the graph is an undirected graph on a finite set of vertices, and distance counts edges, with no differing edge weights. Mark $s$ as discovered, assign $d(s)=0$, and place it in a FIFO queue. Repeatedly remove the front vertex $u$ and scan its adjacency list. Whenever a graph neighbour $v$ is still undiscovered, mark it immediately, record $u$ as its parent in a rooted tree in the discovery tree, assign $d(v)=d(u)+1$, and enqueue $v$ at the rear. Marking on insertion ensures that another edge cannot enqueue the same vertex again. ^[ref]

Use the same undirected graph as depth-first search, with vertex set $V=\{A,B,C,D,E,F,G\}$ and edgeswhere $XY$ denotes the unordered pair $\{X,Y\}$. Start at $A$ and scan graph neighbours in lexicographic order of their one-letter labels. The diagram's generator computes the following layers and the parent in a rooted tree assigned to each discovered vertex; the source is the root of a tree and has no parent in a rooted tree.

The discovery and removal orders both happen to be $A,B,C,D,E,F,G$. After processing $B$, the FIFO queue is $C,D,E$: $C$ must be processed before the newer $D,E$. Processing $C$ then skips the already discovered $E$ and enqueues $F$, giving $D,E,F$. Processing $D$ adds nothing. Processing $E$ discovers $G$, giving $F,G$; later $F$ sees $G$ already marked and leaves its parent in a rooted tree unchanged. The discovery edges are $AB,AC,BD,BE,CF,EG$, forming a rooted tree on all seven vertices even though the original graph contains graph cycles. The discovery tree contains six edges; it need not contain every examined edge.

First arrival is shortest because the FIFO queue keeps assigned distances in nondecreasing order, with entries from at most two consecutive layers. While processing distance $k$, newly discovered vertices receive distance $k+1$ and join the rear. If an undiscovered vertex had a shorter graph path, its preceding vertex on that graph path would lie in an earlier layer and would already have discovered it. Thus $d(v)$ is the minimum number of edges from $s$ to $v$. This is a mathematical induction over the layers, not an assumption about the drawing. Following the parent in a rooted tree backwards at each step gives $G,E,B,A$; reverse that sequence to obtain the three-edge graph path $A,B,E,G$. $A,C,F,G$ is another shortest graph path, but the specified graph neighbour order makes $E$ discover $G$ first. Changing that order can change the parent in a rooted tree without changing graph distances. ^[ref]

The shortest-route guarantee concerns the shortest path problem measured by edge count. It also minimizes total cost when every edge has the same positive cost. With unequal edge weights, first discovery need not minimize total cost; nonnegative costs can instead be handled by the Dijkstra algorithm. Breadth-first search is useful for minimum-hop routes and for finding all vertices within a specified graph distance. Its FIFO queue finishes an older layer before the next one, whereas depth-first search uses a call stack or explicit LIFO stack to pursue one branch immediately.

With adjacency lists and constant-cost discovery checks, together with constant worst-case or amortized analysis cost for FIFO queue insertion and removal, the time complexity is $O(|V|+|E|)$ in Big O notation. Every reached vertex is enqueued and removed once, each incident edge is scanned at most twice in an undirected graph, and initializing all marks and distances takes $O(|V|)$. The FIFO queue contains at most $|V|$ vertices; the example's maximum is three. Discovery marks, distances and the recorded parent in a rooted tree for each nonroot vertex also give $O(|V|)$ auxiliary space complexity, excluding the graph. An array that shifts every entry on front removal can lose the linear time complexity; the FIFO queue abstraction alone does not make removal constant-cost. Ordering the adjacency lists is a separate preprocessing cost.

A single start reaches only its connected component of a graph. Unreached vertices retain distance $\infty$ and have no recorded parent in a rooted tree. Restarting at each still-undiscovered vertex, while preserving all discovery marks, produces a forest covering the graph; each new root of a tree gets distance zero, so these distances refer to that root of a tree, not to the original $s$.

The Dijkstra algorithm solves the single-source shortest path problem in a finite graph with nonnegative edge weights, finding distances to all reachable vertices. Start with tentative distance $d(A)=0$ and $d(v)=\infty$ elsewhere. Repeatedly choose the unfinalized vertex with least tentative distance, declare that label permanent, and perform edge relaxation on its outgoing edges. For an undirected graph, inspect both directions. A finite tentative distance always records the cost of a discovered graph path, but can improve before finalization.

In our example, finalizing $A$ discovers $C$ at $1$, $B$ at $4$, and $D$ at $10$. Choose $C$ next: edge relaxation through $C$ lowers $B$ to $1+2=3$ and $D$ to $1+5=6$. Choose $B$: edge relaxation through $B$ lowers $D$ to $3+1=4$. Finally choose $D$. The permanent distances are therefore $A:0$, $C:1$, $B:3$, $D:4$; the evolving tentative distances were $B:4\to 3$ and $D:10\to 6\to 4$.

Store a shortest-path predecessor whenever edge relaxation improves a label. The final table contains enough information to reconstruct routes, rather than merely their costs:

Following shortest-path predecessors backwards gives $D,B,C,A$; reversing the order gives $A,C,B,D$. If only this destination matters, stop when $D$ is finalized. Stopping when $D$ is first discovered would incorrectly return $10$. If the smallest remaining tentative distance is $\infty$, all remaining vertices are unreachable.

Why is the permanent choice safe? Suppose the selected vertex $u$ had a cheaper graph path. Let $y$ be the first unfinalized vertex on that graph path. Its preceding vertex was finalized, so edge relaxation has already offered $y$ a label no larger than that prefix's cost. Nonnegative remaining edge weights make the whole cost at least this prefix's cost; selection gives $d(u)\le d(y)$. A cheaper graph path would contradict these comparisons. Zero weights are allowed; ties can be resolved arbitrarily. This is the reason the label-setting shortest-path algorithm works, rather than a lucky feature of the drawing.

Negative weights break that reasoning. In a directed graph with $s\to u$ costing $2$, $s\to v$ costing $5$, and $v\to u$ costing $-4$, the Dijkstra algorithm would finalize $u$ at $2$ before discovering the cheaper cost $1$. The Bellman-Ford algorithm handles negative edge weights when no relevant negative directed cycle exists.

With an adjacency list and an indexed binary heap implementing a priority queue, the time complexity is $O((|V|+|E|)\log |V|)$ for $|V|\ge 2$, using Big O notation. Each vertex is extracted at most once, each edge is inspected once per direction, and each successful edge relaxation decreases a heap key in $O(\log |V|)$ time. This assumes constant-cost arithmetic and comparisons; exact computation with very large weights adds their representation cost. The queue uses $O(|V|)$ space beyond the graph. Simply scanning all remaining vertices gives $O(|V{|}^2+|E|)$ instead.^[ref][ref]

The 1959 paper presents the shortest path problem as its second problem, after the minimum spanning tree problem, and grows known shortest routes in increasing distance order.^[ref] In his later recollection, Dijkstra dated the shortest-route discovery to 1956: a demonstration for the ARMAC computer used a simplified Dutch railway map and printed the route between towns. A practical request became an enduring algorithm because the same distance rule applies to any suitable graph.^[ref]

Edge relaxation tests whether extending a recorded route by one directed edge improves a tentative distance. For a single source $s$ and an original directed edge $u\to v$ of weight $w_{uv}$, form the candidate $q=d(u)+w_{uv}$. If $d(u)$ is finite and $q<d(v)$, replace $d(v)$ by $q$ and record the shortest-path predecessor $\pi (v)=u$. Otherwise leave both unchanged. The minimum formula in the header gives the resulting label in either case. The authored implementation uses this strict comparison and records the incoming directed edge.^[ref]

The table lists labels after each specified operation, keeping $d(s)=0$ throughout this constructed acyclic graph. Relaxing $a\to t$ first offers $6+2=8$. Relaxing $b\to a$ then offers $2-1=1$, lowering $a$ from $6$ to $1$; revisiting $a\to t$ now offers $1+2=3$. Finally $b\to t$ offers $2+7=9$, so the label $3$ stays. Changing a label can make a previously checked outgoing directed edge worth checking again. This trace illustrates the operation itself, with a deliberately specified order, rather than a run of the Dijkstra algorithm.

A single edge relaxation does not require nonnegative weights: its candidate is the cost of a real extended directed walk, even when the last directed edge has negative weight. Nonnegative weights are needed by the Dijkstra algorithm to make its selected minimum tentative distance permanent. The Bellman-Ford algorithm permits negative weights and revisits labels; its authored implementation also checks for reachable negative-cost directed cycles.^[ref][ref]

For the all-to-one convention of the Bellman inequalities, relax the same original directed edge $i\to j$ by $d_i\leftarrow \min \{d_i,c_{ij}+d_j\}$. This prepends $i\to j$ to a discovered route from $j$ to $r$, and improves the tail label $d_i$, not the head label $d_j$. Skip the operation when $d_j=\infty$. In exact arithmetic, a full pass over all relevant directed edges with no improvement establishes all their Bellman inequalities; combined with the discovered-route upper bounds, this certifies finite distances. One unsuccessful operation establishes only that this particular candidate did not improve its label at that moment.

Computer scientist associated with the Dijkstra algorithm.

Graph theory studies vertices and the edges connecting them: which graph paths exist, how efficiently we can travel, and which connections are indispensable. A road map becomes a graph when junctions are vertices and road segments are edges; a communications network uses routers and links instead. The drawing helps us see connections, but its apparent lengths need not be the costs being optimized. Record travel times or transmission costs separately in a weighted graph.

The appeal of graph theory is that one model serves many practical questions. Graph paths describe routes, connected components of a graph identify isolated regions, and minimum spanning trees connect all locations cheaply. The shortest path problem asks a different question: find the cheapest journey between specified locations. Our four-vertex example below makes that distinction concrete and shows how the Dijkstra algorithm discovers a route without trying every graph path.

An algorithm that makes each vertex's distance permanent once it is selected. With nonnegative directed edge lengths, the Dijkstra algorithm selects the unfinalized vertex with least tentative distance; a shorter route through another unfinalized vertex is impossible because its remaining route has at least that next tentative distance. For an all-to-one problem, incoming directed edges to the selected vertex are relaxed. Negative lengths can invalidate this finalization argument.

The all-to-one shortest path problem asks for the minimum length $v_i$ of a directed path from every vertex $i$ to the root $n$, with $v_n=0$ and $v_i=\infty$ if no such directed path exists. Positive directed edge lengths allow directed cycles to be deleted, so a shortest directed path, when one exists, uses at most $n-1$ directed edges. Its optimality equations areA Bellman-Ford algorithm initializes $d_n^{(0)}=0$ and other labels to infinity, then repeatskeeping the root label zero. Induction on $k$ proves that $d_i^{(k)}$ is the least length among directed paths using at most $k$ directed edges: either the old best directed path remains, or the first directed edge is followed by a directed path with at most $k-1$ directed edges. Thus $n-1$ rounds give the exact distances. An in-place variant repeatedly relaxes $d_i\leftarrow \min (d_i,c_{ij}+d_j)$; each decreased label triggers further incoming-arc relaxations. It terminates when no finite label can improve. The Bellman inequalities then telescope along each directed path to show the labels are lower bounds on all directed path lengths, while every finite label represents a discovered directed path and is an upper bound on the optimum. This proves correctness. The method is a label-correcting shortest-path algorithm: a processed label can be revised many times. Full scans cost $O(n|A|)$.

Let $d={\min }_{i\ne n}{c}_{in}$ and choose $j$ attaining it. Every directed path from a nonroot vertex to $n$ has a final directed edge costing at least $d$, and all preceding directed edges have positive lengths. Therefore every $v_k\ge d$. The direct directed edge from $j$ to $n$ has length $d$, soIf no incoming root directed edge exists, all these distances are infinite and there is no finite next vertex to settle.

The all-to-one Dijkstra algorithm sets the root's label to zero and all others to infinity. Repeatedly choose an unsettled vertex $j$ with least finite label, make that label permanent, and relax every incoming directed edge $(i,j)$ of an unsettled vertex:Store the corresponding successor $j$ whenever the label improves. Stop when all vertices are settled or every remaining label is infinite. This applies the usual source version to the reversed graph; relaxing outgoing original directed edges would solve the wrong direction of the problem.

For its correctness, inductively assume every settled distance is exact. Any directed path from an unsettled vertex to the root must first enter the settled set at some vertex $w$, through an directed edge $(z,w)$. That directed edge has already been relaxed, so $d_z\le c_{zw}+v_w$. The newly selected label $d_j$ is no greater than $d_z$. The directed path's preceding nonnegative lengths therefore make its total length at least $d_j$. On the other hand, $d_j$ itself is the length of a discovered directed path. Hence $d_j=v_j$, and it can never need correction. This is a label-setting shortest-path algorithm. Straight array selection costs $O(n^2+|A|)$.

For four vertices and root 4, the full symbolic execution is as follows. After settling 4, the tentative labels are $(c_{14},c_{24},c_{34},0)$. Selectset $v_j=c_{j4}$, and update the two other labels to $d_i=\min \{c_{i4},c_{ij}+c_{j4}\}$. Select the smaller of those labels at vertex $k$, set $v_k=d_k$, then for the last vertex $\ell$ setThe stored successors give the corresponding shortest routes; infinity conventions handle missing directed edges and disconnected vertices.

The supplied PDF contains no visible network diagram or directed edge lengths in the space for this example, and the converted TeX omits the diagram as well. Numerical distances and route choices cannot be determined from the supplied data. The symbolic run above gives the exact four-node calculation once those lengths are available; no network has been guessed.

A chain of $r$ diamond-shaped graph stages has $3r+1$ vertices and $4r$ edges, but $2^r$ distinct source-to-target paths: at each stage choose either of two branches. Each path has its own inequality. Therefore the number of displayed path constraints is not polynomially bounded in the graph size. Redundancy among some inequalities would not change this count of the given formulation.

The positive integer edge costs imply, for any feasible point,Thus the feasible set lies in the Euclidean ball of radius $100$ centered at zero. That ball lies inside $[-100,100{]}^m$, so its volume is at most $200^m$. This proves the requested $O(200^m)$ enclosing-volume bound, and provides an initial ellipsoid, for example with center zero and shape matrix $10^{4}I$.

The ellipsoid method needs a separation oracle, rather than an explicit list of every constraint. For a proposed center $z$, first scan the coordinates and the budget inequality. If some $z_e<0$, some $z_e>1$, or ${\sum }_e{c}_e{z}_e>k$, return the corresponding violated inequality as the separating half-space. These tests take $O(m)$ arithmetic operations.

Once those tests pass, assign nonnegative edge length $z_e$ to every edge and solve the shortest path problem from $s$ to $t$. The Dijkstra algorithm finds a minimum-length path and stores its predecessors in polynomial time. If its length is less than one, returnfor the minimizing path $p$. This inequality contains every feasible point and is violated by $z$. If the shortest length is at least one, every path constraint holds; if no path exists, those constraints are vacuous. In either case $z$ is feasible. This is path-constraint separation by shortest paths; checking a single shortest path replaces checking exponentially many paths.

The rational ellipsoid method feasibility theorem now gives polynomial running time in the dimension and coefficient encoding bounds when the oracle runs in polynomial time. Here every path row has coefficients zero or one, and all other coefficients and right sides are bounded integers. Although there are exponentially many rows, their individual encoding lengths are polynomial in $m$. The containing-radius bound and the rational precision bounds are also polynomially describable. For a simple graph $m=O(n^2)$, this gives a worst-case running time polynomial in $n$; in general the natural bound is polynomial in the encoded graph size $n+m$.

Use the exact rational feasibility version of the ellipsoid method, which handles lower-dimensional polyhedra by rational precision bounds or an appropriate relaxation. Nonemptiness must not be inferred from a positive-volume argument: this feasible set can have empty interior. The allowed algorithmic theorem supplies that detail, while the explicit shortest-path oracle supplies the crucial efficient separation.

All edge lengths are positive, so run the Dijkstra algorithm from every source $s$, retaining distances $d_s$ and a shortest-path tree of its reachable component. Each run takes $O((|V|+|E|)\log (|V|+1))$ with a binary heap. The following scans after each run use only $O(|E|)$ additional work.

For a directed graph, inspect every closing edge $(u,s)$ and consider $d_s(u)+w(u,s)$ when $u$ is reachable. The tree route from $s$ to $u$ followed by this edge is a closed walk. Every directed cycle supplies one such upper bound by choosing any of its vertices as $s$; the shortest route to its predecessor is no longer than the corresponding cycle segment. Positivity lets any repeated portion be removed, so the smallest candidate is the shortest directed-cycle length.

For an undirected graph, do not combine an edge with the distance between its endpoints indiscriminately: that can count traversal of one bridge out and back as a false cycle. Instead inspect only edges $\{u,v\}$ absent from the current shortest-path tree, with both endpoints reachable, and considerThe two tree routes and this non-tree edge contain a genuine cycle. If they share a prefix, its cost is counted twice, so that cycle is no longer than the candidate. Every candidate is consequently at least the global shortest-cycle length.

To prove equality is attained, take a shortest cycle $C$ and a source $s$ on it. If either cycle edge incident to $s$ is absent from the tree, its candidate uses a shortest route no longer than the rest of $C$, so it is at most the length of $C$. Otherwise both incident edges are in the tree, and their other endpoints lie in different branches below $s$. Along the remaining segment of $C$, some edge crosses between different branches. Such an edge is not a tree edge. The two distances to its endpoints are bounded by the two corresponding, disjoint segments of $C$ from $s$; their sum plus the crossing edge is at most the length of $C$. Thus some candidate is no greater than the optimum, completing the proof.

Return the smallest finite candidate, or report acyclicity if none exists. The total running time is $O((|V{|}^2+|V||E|)\log (|V|+1))$, as required. The ordinary convention is a simple graph; if parallel edges are allowed, track actual edge identities when excluding tree edges, and treat a self-loop as its own cycle rather than discarding it. This is shortest cycle by repeated shortest-path trees.

The Dijkstra algorithm finalises vertices in the order $1,3,2,5,4$. After finalising $1$, tentative distances to $2,3$ are $3,2$. Finalising $3$ sets the distance to $5$ to $4$. Finalising $2$ sets the distance to $4$ to $6$. Finalising $5$ improves the distance to $4$ to $5$; its edge to $2$ proposes $5$ and causes no improvement. The final distance vector in vertex order is $(0,3,2,5,4)$. All weights are positive, so every finalisation is justified by the usual label-setting shortest-path algorithm invariant. The method is named for Edsger W. Dijkstra.

Use source $1$, as in the preceding part. The Dijkstra algorithm extracts vertices in the order $1,3,4,2$. Distances after relaxing the outgoing edges of each extracted vertex areThe shortest path to $2$ is $1\to 3\to 4\to 2$, with weight $2+1+1=4$; the direct route to $2$ and the route via $3\to 2$ are both heavier.

Take the directed graph with source $1$ and weighted edgesIt is a Directed acyclic graph, so has no negative-weight graph cycle. The true shortest path to $4$ is $1\to 3\to 2\to 4$, of weight $5-4+1=2$.

The standard label-setting shortest-path algorithm version of the Dijkstra algorithm extracts $1$, then $2$ at distance $2$, then $4$ at distance $3$, and only then $3$ at distance $5$. Thus it finalises $d[4]=3$ instead of $2$. Even if an implementation subsequently changes the stored label of the already settled vertex $2$, it does not reprocess its outgoing edge to $4$, so the error at $4$ remains. Allowing repeated reprocessing would instead be a label-correcting shortest-path algorithm, not the usual Dijkstra guarantee.

In a positive-weight directed graph, run the Dijkstra algorithm from each source $s$ and minimize $d_s(u)+w(u,s)$ over closing edges. In an undirected graph, minimize $d_s(u)+w(u,v)+d_s(v)$ only over edges absent from the current shortest-path tree. A tree edge would otherwise give a spurious traversal out and back. A non-tree candidate contains a genuine cycle no longer than its score, even when the two tree routes share a prefix.

For the undirected optimum, choose a shortest cycle and a source on it. If an incident cycle edge is absent from the tree, its candidate is bounded by the cycle length. Otherwise its two neighbours lie in distinct tree branches, and some edge on the remaining cycle segment crosses branches. That edge is non-tree; shortest distances to its endpoints are bounded by the two complementary cycle segments, again giving a candidate no greater than the optimum. Thus the minimum candidate equals the shortest-cycle length. Repeated Dijkstra algorithm runs take $O((|V{|}^2+|V||E|)\log (|V|+1))$ running time with a binary heap.

A shortest-path predecessor $\pi (v)$ records the previous vertex on a chosen route from source $s$ to $v$. When edge relaxation strictly improves $d(v)$ through $u\to v$, set $\pi (v)=u$. For a multigraph, store the actual directed edge, since two edges with the same endpoints can have different weights. Initialize all vertices, including the source, without a shortest-path predecessor. The authored implementation reconstructs a route by following these incoming edges backwards, then reversing their order.^[ref]

At the end of the edge relaxation trace, $\pi (t)=a$, $\pi (a)=b$, and $\pi (b)=s$. Following them gives $t,a,b,s$, so the forward directed path is $s\to b\to a\to t$, of cost $2-1+2=3$. This makes the distance useful: a number tells us the best cost, whereas the shortest-path predecessors tell us which connections to take. In the Dijkstra algorithm, reconstruct a destination's shortest route after its label becomes permanent. In a label-correcting shortest-path algorithm, wait for convergence and the appropriate negative-cost directed cycle check. During correction, a predecessor's label may have changed since its child's last update: immediately after $b\to a$ in the trace, the current chain to $t$ costs $3$ although $d(t)$ still records the earlier discovered route of cost $8$.

Strict improvement is a useful guard against directed cycles in the recorded pointers. Consider $s\to a$ and $s\to b$ of cost zero, followed by $a\to b$ and $b\to a$, also of cost zero. After the first two edge relaxations, both labels are zero and both shortest-path predecessors are $s$. If equality also allows pointer replacement, the last two operations can set $\pi (b)=a$ and $\pi (a)=b$: following pointers loops forever despite correct distance labels. Keeping the old pointer on ties prevents this example; choosing among equal-cost routes requires a separate rule that preserves a route to the source. Strict improvement alone does not protect against reachable negative-cost directed cycles, which can force endless decreases. Equality on recorded edges plus the Bellman inequalities certifies route costs only when the pointer chains actually terminate at the source.

For all-to-one distances to $r$, record a next vertex $j$ whenever relaxing $i\to j$ improves $d_i$. Follow these successors forward in the original directed graph to reach $r$. They are shortest-path predecessors when viewed in the reversed directed graph; keeping the direction convention explicit prevents returning a route whose arrows point the wrong way.

The shortest path problem asks for a graph path from a source vertex $s$ to a destination vertex $t$ minimizing its total edge weight. Here $w_e$ is the cost of traversing edge $e$, and costs add along the graph path. If no route exists, its shortest-path distance is $\infty$. With nonnegative edge weights, deleting cycles in a graph from a walk never increases its cost, so repetitions cannot improve the optimum.

Consider the undirected graph with vertex set $V=\{A,B,C,D\}$ and the six edge weightsEach edge can be traversed in either direction at the same cost. The direct graph path $A,D$ costs $10$; $A,B,D$ costs $4+1=5$; $A,C,D$ costs $1+5=6$. The cheapest graph path is $A,C,B,D$, costing $1+2+1=4$. The remaining graph path $A,B,C,D$ costs $11$, exhausting the possibilities without repeated vertices.

Thus fewest edges and least total cost are different objectives. Breadth-first search minimizes the number of edges, which suffices when every edge has the same positive cost. Unequal nonnegative costs call for the Dijkstra algorithm. On a map, weights might be minutes rather than kilometres: a longer-looking route can arrive sooner. This is why a weighted graph separates the network's connections from what a particular journey costs.