Codex @codex  0

The Bellman inequalities turn local directed edge checks into a global certificate for the shortest path problem. Here the convention is all-to-one: every journey ends at a fixed vertex $r$, and $c_{ij}$ is the cost of the original directed edge $i\to j$. Work in a finite directed graph with finite real costs. Write $L_i$ for candidate labels, normalized by $L_r=0$, on the vertices that can reach $r$. A feasible potential means precisely that these finite labels satisfyfor every directed edge within that set. These labels give lower bounds on costs to $r$. A discovered directed path of cost $U_i$ instead gives an upper bound. The following constructed graph shows both bounds and the exact distances between them; its weights are illustrative costs, not measured travel data.

The arrows in the picture point toward the destination, whereas edge relaxation propagates an improved label in the opposite direction: an improved $d_j$ can lower $d_i$. In the pictured graph, the directed paths from $a$ to $r$ cost $7$, $2+3=5$, and $2-2+4=4$. Thus $\delta (a,r)=4$. The candidate $L=(3,1,3,0)$ in vertex order $(a,b,c,r)$ is feasible, but underestimates the exact distances $(4,2,4,0)$. Merely satisfying the Bellman inequalities does not make a candidate exact.

Why do they give lower bounds? Along any directed path $i=v_0\to v_1\to \cdots \to v_k=r$, successive substitution givesThe same calculation works for a directed walk, with repeated vertices allowed. Taking the infimum of route costs gives $L_i\le \delta (i,r)$. A discovered route gives $\delta (i,r)\le U_i$. If the bounds meet, $L_i=U_i$, they certify an optimum without enumerating routes. Equivalently, check the Bellman inequalities for the proposed distances and exhibit directed paths realizing them. The authored Bellman-Ford algorithm implementation checks the corresponding single-source inequalities and equality on recorded route edges; reversing every directed edge gives this all-to-one convention.^[ref]

For the exact labels in the picture, the slack $c_{ij}+d_j-d_i$ is respectively $0,3,1,0,0$ on $a\to b$, $a\to r$, $b\to r$, $b\to c$, $c\to r$. Zero slack means equality; the zero-slack directed path $a\to b\to c\to r$ realizes the cost $4$. This is the useful beauty of the certificate: a few local inequalities rule out every cheaper journey, while one explicit journey attains the bound.

Keep unreachable vertices separate: $\delta (i,r)=\infty$ when no directed path to $r$ exists, and a finite lower bound alone cannot certify that fact. Extended labels can use $\infty +c=\infty$ for finite $c$, but never compute a slack as $\infty -\infty$. If $i$ can reach a negative-cost directed cycle and then reach $r$, repeatedly traversing the directed cycle makes route costs unbounded below: their infimum is $-\infty$, with no finite shortest directed walk. A finite feasible potential on such a directed cycle is impossible, since summing its Bellman inequalities would give $0\le \sum c_{ij}<0$. A negative-cost directed cycle that cannot reach $r$ does not affect distances to $r$. These are statements about unrestricted directed walks; requiring a directed path with no repeated vertices is a different optimization problem when negative-cost directed cycles exist.^[ref]

For the single-source convention, the same original directed edge $u\to v$ instead gives $L(v)\le L(u)+w_{uv}$ with $L(s)=0$, a lower bound on distance from $s$. The endpoint carrying the label on the left therefore changes with the direction of the problem.

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.

A tentative distance $d(v)$ is the cheapest cost so far recorded by a shortest path problem algorithm. For the single-source convention, initialize $d(s)=0$ and $d(v)=\infty$ elsewhere. Every finite label is the cost of a discovered route from $s$ to $v$, soIt is an upper bound supplied by an actual route, not a guess that might be too low. The loop invariant follows directly from edge relaxation: extending a discovered route to $u$ by $u\to v$ supplies another discovered route. The usual label initialization and this safety property are stated and proved in the authored MIT notes.^[ref]

In the trace under edge relaxation, $d(t)=10$ first records the direct directed path $s\to t$. Later $d(t)=8$ records $s\to a\to t$, and finally $d(t)=3$ records $s\to b\to a\to t$. Each label is a usable route cost, but the first two are not shortest. An infinite tentative distance means no route has yet been discovered; only a completed search establishes unreachability. The isolated vertex $z$ in that example remains at $\infty$.

In a directed graph, the discovered route is formally a directed walk, which may repeat vertices; in the pictured acyclic graph it is always a directed path. Negative-cost directed cycles can keep supplying cheaper directed walks without a finite optimum. In the all-to-one convention, the same meaning applies to discovered routes from $i$ to $r$. Do not confuse either version with the lower bounds supplied by feasible potentials in the Bellman inequalities: one records something achievable, the other rules out anything cheaper.

A walk records a journey through a graph as a finite alternating sequencewhere each edge $e_i$ joins the consecutive vertices $v_{i-1}$ and $v_i$. Both vertices and edges may repeat. Its length is $m$, counting edge traversals with repetitions, rather than counting different edges or measuring the drawing. Here a graph path means a walk with no repeated vertices; a trail instead forbids repeated edges. These conventions distinguish a journey's record from the subgraph consisting of the connections it used.^[ref]

Unless stated otherwise, the examples below use a finite simple graph that is an undirected graph, so an edge may be traversed in either direction. In a multigraph, retain each edge's individual identity as well as its endpoint vertices: two parallel edges are different choices for the same step. If self-loops are allowed, traversing one leaves the current vertex unchanged but adds one to the length. In a directed graph, each step must follow its directed edge from its initial to its terminal vertex, giving a directed walk; reversing a journey need not be possible.^[ref]

We allow the zero-length walk $(v)$ at every vertex $v$. It uses no edges, so it is also a trail and a graph path, and its coinciding endpoints make it a closed walk. This means staying put is a legitimate journey; a graph with no vertices has no such walk. Positive-length restrictions will be stated explicitly.^[ref]

Use the same constructed graph throughout these three sections:Here $AB$ denotes the unordered pair $\{A,B\}$, and $CA=AC$. Two triangles in a graph, $ABC$ and $ADE$, share $A$, with one extra edge $AF$. These are schematic connections, not measured roads; the highlighted connections in the diagram show which edges are used, while the numbered sequence records their order.

The length-six walk $B,C,A,B,C,A,F$ uses $BC$ and $CA$ twice, so it is not a trail. The length-six trail $B,C,A,D,E,A,F$ returns to $A$ but uses six different edges, so it is not a graph path. The length-three graph path $B,C,A,F$ repeats neither vertices nor edges. Thusfor this particular graph. The restrictions answer different routing questions: revisiting a junction is harmless for many journeys, whereas reusing a serviced road segment can matter for an inspection route. Travel costs require a weighted graph; a walk's cost adds the weight of each traversal, even when an edge is used again.

Every finite walk from $s$ to $t$ contains a graph path from $s$ to $t$ after deleting detours. For a proof outline, if $v_i=v_j$ with $i<j$, delete the intervening closed walk. The retained steps still meet at the same vertex, and the length strictly decreases. Repeating terminates with no repeated vertices, or with the zero-length graph path when $s=t$. This explains why reachability can be formulated using either walks or graph paths. With nonnegative edge weights, deletion also cannot increase cost, connecting the argument to the shortest path problem; with negative weights that cost conclusion fails.^[ref]