<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03456" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03456</a> And <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.00671" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.00671</a> Are the relevant papers
What’s an application where you’d absolutely have to have a graph with negative weights? Couldn’t you just preprocess the edges and normalize their weights?
What is meant by "nodes" in this article?<p>> sum of the number of nodes and connections<p>> Bellman-Ford instead needs many more steps: The total is based on the product of the number of nodes and vertices.<p>> reduced the complexity to the square root of the number of vertices multiplied by the number of nodes<p>At first I thought it was a synonym for vertices, in the same way the article inconsistently uses "connections" for edges. But then "nodes" gets used in the same breath as "vertices" in a way that contradicts that hypothesis.
This is precisely the sort of article where a bit of notation and interactive graphics would go far in presenting the information. Anyone who can understand this article knows big-O notation. It's silly to assume the article is more accessible just because it's in English.