Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

OPMOS: Ordered Parallel Algorithm for Multi-Objective Shortest-Paths

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read OPMOS computes the exact Pareto-optimal route set 34x faster in parallel.

desk verdict OPMOS is a genuinely new parallel take on multi-objective shortest paths with impressive measured speedups, but its exactness claim rests on an unproved relaxed-ordering invariant and only count-level empirical support. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16667 v2 pith:XANLNOI7 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.DC cs.AIcs.ARcs.DScs.PF

Leo Gold , Adam Bienkowski , David Sidoti , Krishna Pattipati , Omer Khan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.AIcs.ARcs.DScs.PF
keywords multi-objectiveshortestpathPareto-optimalparallelalgorithmNAMOA*priorityqueueloadbalancingshiproutingexactsearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes OPMOS, a parallel version of the multi-objective A* search algorithm NAMOA*, and claims that it produces the same exact Pareto-optimal route set as the sequential algorithm while running far faster. The problem is multi-objective shortest-path search, where each edge carries a vector of costs and the answer is the set of mutually non-dominated routes. OPMOS keeps a single lexicographically ordered priority queue, extracts several labels per iteration, distributes them across worker threads, and applies updates asynchronously to hide queue latency. On a 72-core Arm CPU, using real-world maritime ship-routing graphs with up to twelve objectives, the paper reports a geometric mean 34x speedup over sequential NAMOA* while matching the sequential solution counts exactly. If the correctness claim holds, exact many-objective route planning becomes practical on ordinary multicore CPUs rather than only on special-purpose hardware.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is batched ordered extraction from one lexicographic priority queue, paired with asynchronous update application. A label is a partial path from the start node to some node, carrying a cost vector; NAMOA* orders these labels by lexicographic lower-bound estimates of total goal cost. OPMOS extracts NUM_POP labels per iteration, passes them to worker threads, and lets the main thread apply queue inserts and deletions concurrently, with deletions marked in per-node label sets and resolved lazily at extraction time. A second mechanism is a label-aware load balancer: goal-node labels are handled separately from regular labels, their pruning searches are spread across nodes, and regular labels' neighbor expansions are divided into chunks sized by estimated cost per thread.

What would settle it

Run OPMOS and the sequential NAMOA* on small graphs whose exact Pareto front can be enumerated exhaustively, across several lexicographic orderings and batch sizes larger than one; if any cost vector in the sequential front is missing from OPMOS's output, or the two fronts have equal size but different vectors, the exactness claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central result is that ordered parallelism is compatible with exact multi-objective search: OPMOS pops NUM_POP labels at a time from OPEN, a priority queue ordered lexicographically by estimated cost vector, lets worker threads process those labels' expansions and dominance and pruning checks without seeing the current iteration's updates, and has the main thread apply all updates asynchronously. The claimed consequence is that the exact Pareto-optimal solution set is preserved for an arbitrary number of objectives, because in many-objective search most high-priority labels are close to the global Pareto front and batching them costs little work efficiency. The measured consequence is a geometric mean 34x speedup over sequential NAMOA* using 64 worker threads and 256 labels per iteration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that removing several partial routes from the priority queue at once, and processing them before the batch's newly discovered routes are added back, still produces every route needed for the exact Pareto-optimal answer; the paper supports this only by matching route counts on five test cases, with no formal proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • OPMOS gives decision-makers the full Pareto-optimal route front, not an approximation, for problems with an arbitrary number of objectives.
  • Runs that took tens of minutes on one core shrink to tens of seconds or a few minutes, expanding the practical size and objective count of exact MOS instances.
  • Relaxing global label order while staying close to the Pareto-optimal front is a viable parallelization strategy for MOS, so exact multi-objective search need not be strictly sequential.
  • The asynchronous model moves the bottleneck from priority-queue latency to load balance, and the proposed scheduler is what keeps imbalance from dominating.
  • The techniques can be dropped into existing ordered graph-processing pipelines, extending their reach beyond ship routing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's exactness evidence is empirical: total solution counts match on five routes, but the full Pareto-optimal sets are not compared. A formal invariant proof, or a counterexample on a small graph, would settle whether batch extraction and lazy pruning can ever discard a needed label.
  • The speedup is strongest at high objective counts; at two objectives work inefficiency nearly cancels parallelism. Adapting NUM_POP and worker count to objective count and label complexity is a natural next step.
  • The same batched-extraction scheme could be ported to vector hardware such as GPUs, where thousands of labels could be popped at once, but the asynchronous update path and load balancer would need redesign for massively parallel execution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents OPMOS, a parallel multi-objective shortest-path algorithm that parallelizes NAMOA* by extracting multiple labels per iteration from a shared priority queue (NUM_POP), processing them asynchronously on worker threads, and using a label-complexity-aware load-balancing scheme. The authors report a geometric mean 34x speedup over their sequential NAMOA* baseline on a 72-core Arm CPU across five TMPLAR maritime ship-routing graphs, and claim that OPMOS preserves the exact Pareto-optimal solution set.

Significance. If the exactness claim is substantiated, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it is the first single-instance parallel MOS algorithm that handles an arbitrary number of objectives, and the reported speedups (17x-57x per route) are substantial. The paper deserves credit for internally consistent evaluation: Table 3 yields the stated geometric mean 34x, and the ablation studies (FIFO vs. PQ, synchronous vs. asynchronous updates, alternative load balancers) provide useful evidence for the design choices. The principal weakness is that the central correctness claim, exact Pareto-front preservation, is asserted without a formal proof and is validated only by matching solution counts on five routes, which is a weaker check than set equality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1, Algorithm 2 (lines 9-16 and 32-40)] There is no proof that the relaxed label ordering preserves the exact Pareto front. Sequential NAMOA* (Algorithm 1, line 6) pops one label per iteration in global lexicographic order; OPMOS pops NUM_POP labels at once, and worker threads process labels from the previous iteration without seeing updates generated by other workers in the current batch (lines 21-22 versus 32-40). This can cause a label to be expanded, and to prune labels from PZR/PQ, before a dominating label produced by a concurrent worker is applied to the shared data structures. The exactness claim in Section 7.4 therefore lacks direct formal support. The authors should either provide a correctness invariant (e.g., showing, via dominance transitivity, that any label pruned as a result of premature expansion is also pruned by the eventual dominator, and that no Pareto-optimal label is lost), or exhibit a counterexample. The current manuscript does neither.
  2. [Section 7.4] The empirical evidence for exactness is the statement that 'the total number of solutions obtained from the sequential MOS match perfectly with OPMOS for all experiments'. Matching solution counts is insufficient to establish that the Pareto-optimal sets are identical: counts can agree while the sets differ, for example if one true label is missing and one spurious duplicate is counted. To support the exactness claim, the authors should compare the actual sets of Pareto-optimal labels (cost vectors or reconstructed solution paths) between sequential NAMOA* and OPMOS for all configurations reported in Table 3 and Figures 5-10, and ideally also against an independent sequential implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 2] The text says 'routes 2 and 4 only complete 4 and 6 objectives in this time limit', but Table 2 shows Route 2 completing 4 objectives and Route 5 completing 6. This is presumably a typo: it should say 'routes 2 and 5'.
  2. [Section 3, dominance definition] The formal definition of dominance is garbled by non-standard symbols: 'W(X)[a]↘W(Z)[a]' and 'W(X)[a] < W(Z)[a]' should be expressed with conventional notation (componentwise less-or-equal and at least one strict inequality). Similarly, the symbols '↗' and '↔' are hard to parse; please use standard relation symbols.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Algorithm 2] The nomenclature for the bag data structures (wbag_TUM, wbag_MNVW, cbag_TUM, cbag_MNVW) is difficult to follow, especially the logical swapping described in the text. Clarify the roles of the current-iteration and next-iteration bags, and use consistent names across the prose and the pseudo-code.
  4. [Figure 3] The per-label comparison density scatter plots are informative but visually dense; the color and point-size encoding is hard to read at publication size. Consider using logarithmic axes or faceting by objective count to improve readability.
  5. [Section 4] The text reports 'execution time of 3 milliseconds' for two objectives, but Figure 2 uses normalized values. Providing the absolute runtimes for both low and high objective counts would make the characterization more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: OPMOS's headline speedup and exactness claims are empirical measurements and comparative checks, not reductions to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the geometric mean 34x speedup over sequential NAMOA* (Section 7.4 and Table 3), is an end-to-end runtime measurement of OPMOS against a separately implemented sequential baseline on TMPLAR-generated graphs. The speedup is measured, not derived from OPMOS's own definitions or parameters, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The exactness claim rests on Section 7.4's statement that 'the total number of solutions obtained from the sequential MOS match perfectly with OPMOS for all experiments discussed in this paper.' This is a comparative validation rather than a circular derivation: OPMOS's batched execution is not constructed so that solution counts must match by definition, although count-matching is a weaker check than a set-level equality of Pareto fronts. The self-authored TMPLAR references ([17], [30], [40]) establish the provenance and generation of the benchmark graphs; they do not supply the speedup or exactness results, which are measured on those graphs. The paper's main weakness is a soundness gap, not circularity: Algorithm 2 relaxes NAMOA*'s global lexicographic ordering by popping NUM_POP labels at once and processing them asynchronously (Section 5.1, lines 32-40 vs. Algorithm 1, line 6), and no formal proof is given that this preserves the exact Pareto-optimal set. That is an unproved invariant and a correctness risk, but it is not an instance of the paper deriving a result from its own input. No equation or construction in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to a definitional identity, a fitted parameter, or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard NAMOA* correctness plus two domain assumptions: the TMPLAR heuristics are admissible and the parallel relaxation preserves exactness. No new physical entities are introduced. The two tuned system parameters NUM_POP and NUM_THDS are counted as free parameters because the headline speedup is reported at the settings selected from the sweeps.

free parameters (2)
  • NUM_POP = 256 labels per iteration (swept from 64 to 512)
    The headline 34x speedup is reported at NUM_POP=256 after a sweep on the same five routes (Figure 7). The choice is tuned to the evaluation set rather than derived from a model.
  • NUM_THDS = 64 worker threads plus 1 main thread
    Speedup is reported at 64 worker threads on the 72-core CPU; Figure 5 shows that scaling degrades beyond this for lower objective counts, so the result depends on the selected core count.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math NAMOA* is exact when heuristics are consistent
    The paper builds on Mandow and Perez de la Cruz's exactness theorem without reproving it; it is accepted as a background result.
  • domain assumption TMPLAR SSSP-based heuristic vectors are admissible for every node and objective
    Section 4 states edge weights and an admissible heuristic using SSSP are computed, but the paper does not prove that every route's heuristic satisfies the consistency condition NAMOA* needs.
  • ad hoc to paper Parallel batch extraction and asynchronous updates preserve exact Pareto-front generation
    Section 5.1 relaxes global priority ordering and delays update propagation; Section 7.4 checks solution counts on five routes but gives no invariant proof. This is the load-bearing assumption for the exactness claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OPMOS: Ordered Parallel Algorithm for Multi-Objective Shortest-Paths." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XANLNOI7

@misc{pith2026241116667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OPMOS: Ordered Parallel Algorithm for Multi-Objective Shortest-Paths},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XANLNOI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16667}
}
read the original abstract

The Multi-Objective Shortest-Path (MOS) problem finds a set of Pareto-optimal solutions from a start node to a destination node in a multi-attribute graph. The literature explores multi-objective A*-style algorithmic approaches to solving the NP-hard MOS problem. These approaches use consistent heuristics to compute an exact set of solutions for the goal node. A generalized MOS algorithm maintains a "frontier" of partial paths at each node and performs ordered processing to ensure that Pareto-optimal paths are generated to reach the goal node. The algorithm becomes computationally intractable at a higher number of objectives due to a rapid increase in the search space for non-dominated paths and the significant increase in Pareto-optimal solutions. While prior works have focused on algorithmic methods to reduce the complexity, we tackle this challenge by exploiting parallelism to accelerate the MOS problem. The key insight is that MOS algorithms rely on the ordered execution of partial paths to maintain high work efficiency. The proposed parallel algorithm (OPMOS) unlocks ordered parallelism and efficiently exploits the concurrent execution of multiple paths in MOS. Experimental evaluation using the NVIDIA GH200 Superchip's 72-core Arm-based CPU shows the performance scaling potential of OPMOS on work efficiency and parallelism using a real-world application to ship routing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of (a) single objective vs. (b) multi-objective intermediate labels between the source node 𝐿𝐿 and an intermediate node 𝐿. A new can￾didate label 𝑀 ↑ is shown alongside the associated label￾level operations. To e"ciently compute the Pareto-optimal solution front, algorithmic solutions are developed based on the multiob￾jective extension of the A* algorithm designed for single￾objective search [15, 31, 34]… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TMPLAR Route 1 sequential MOS (left) rel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of per-label comparisons per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TMPLAR Route 1 sweep of label extractions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: OPMOS geometric mean runtime with aver￾age distributions across routes for two, three, and max￾imum objectives. geometric mean runtime distribution of all routes for two objectives. The sequential baseline is dominated by priority queue operations that cause serializat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: OPMOS runtime distributions using 64 worker threads and maximum labels extracted per it￾eration (NUM_POP) swept from 64 to 512. As work e"ciency is marginally impacted by the number of labels extracted at maximum objectives, it is possible to extract higher numbers of …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: OPMOS runtime distribution comparison to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acar, Arthur Charguéraud, and Mike Rainey

    Umut A. Acar, Arthur Charguéraud, and Mike Rainey. 2015. A work- e"cient algorithm for parallel unordered depth-!rst search. In Proceed- ings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (Austin, Texas) (SC ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 67, 12 pages. https://doi.or...

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Faez Ahmed and Kalyanmoy Deb. 2011. Multi-objective path planning using spline representation. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics . 1047–1052. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO. 2011.6181426

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Thomas Breugem, Twan Dollevoet, and Wilco van den Heuvel. 2017. Analysis of FPTASes for the multi-objective shortest path problem. OPMOS: Ordered Parallel Algorithm for Multi-Objective Shortest-Paths Computers & Operations Research 78 (2017), 44–58. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cor.2016.06.022

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Fritz Bökler and Markus Chimani. 2020. Approximating Multiobjec- tive Shortest Path in Practice . 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1137/1. 9781611976007.10

    doi:10.1137/1 2020

  5. [5]

    Matthias Ehrgott. 2005. Multicriteria Optimization. In Multicriteria Optimization

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    D Fathi and JR Ho#. 2004. Shipx vessel responses (veres). Theory manual, Marintek A/S 13 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Pierre Hansen. 1980. Bicriterion Path Problems. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Application , Günter Fandel and Tomas Gal (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 109–127

    work page 1980

  8. [8]

    Muhammad Amber Hassaan, Martin Burtscher, and Keshav Pingali

    work page

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Refael Hassin. 1992. Approximation Schemes for the Restricted Short- est Path Problem. Mathematics of Operations Research 17, 1 (1992), 36–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3689891

    1992

  2. [10]

    Hans Hersbach, Bill Bell, Paul Berrisford, Shoji Hirahara, András Horányi, Joaquín Muñoz-Sabater, Julien Nicolas, Carole Peubey, Raluca Radu, Dinand Schepers, Adrian Simmons, Cornel Soci, Saleh Ab- dalla, Xavier Abellan, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Peter Bechtold, Gion- ata Biavati, Je...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Jan Holtrop and G.G.J. Mennen. 1982. AN APPROXIMATE POWER PREDICTION METHOD. International shipbuilding progress 29 (1982), 166–170

    1982

  4. [12]

    J. Horn, N. Nafpliotis, and D.E. Goldberg. 1994. A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence. 82–87 vol.1. https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    1994

  5. [13]

    Je#rey, Suvinay Subramanian, Cong Yan, Joel Emer, and Daniel Sanchez

    Mark C. Je#rey, Suvinay Subramanian, Cong Yan, Joel Emer, and Daniel Sanchez. 2015. A scalable architecture for ordered parallelism. In 2015 48th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1145/2830772.2830777

    2015

  6. [14]

    Leiserson and Tao B

    Charles E. Leiserson and Tao B. Schardl. 2010. A work-e"cient parallel breadth-!rst search algorithm (or how to cope with the nondetermin- ism of reducers). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (Thira, San- tor...

    2010

  7. [15]

    Luis Pérez De La Cruz

    Lawrence Mandow and José. Luis Pérez De La Cruz. 2008. Multiob- jective A* search with consistent heuristics. J. ACM 57, 5, Article 27 (June 2008), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1754399.1754400

    2008

  8. [16]

    Ernesto Queirós Vieira Martins. 1984. On a special class of bicriterion path problems. European Journal of Operational Research 17, 1 (1984), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(84)90011-0

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    Pattipati, and David L

    Manisha Mishra, David Sidoti, Gopi Vinod Avvari, Pujitha Mannaru, Diego Fernando Martínez Ayala, Krishna R. Pattipati, and David L. Kleinman. 2017. A Context-Driven Framework for Proactive Decision Support With Applications. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 12475–12495. https: //doi.org/...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Donald Nguyen, Andrew Lenharth, and Keshav Pingali. 2013. A light- weight infrastructure for graph analytics. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (Farminton, Pennsylvania) (SOSP ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    2013

  11. [19]

    NVIDIA. 2023. NVIDIA GH200 Grace Hopper Superchip. https://www.aspsys.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/nvidia- grace-hopper-cpu-datasheet.pdf

    2023

  12. [20]

    Papadimitriou and M

    C.H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. 2000. On the approximability of trade-o#s and optimal access of Web sources. In Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science . 86–92. https: //doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2000.892068

    2000

  13. [21]

    Amber Hassaan, Rashid Kaleem, Tsung-Hsien Lee, Andrew Lenharth, Roman Manevich, Mario Méndez-Lojo, Dimitrios Prount- zos, and Xin Sui

    Keshav Pingali, Donald Nguyen, Milind Kulkarni, Martin Burtscher, M. Amber Hassaan, Rashid Kaleem, Tsung-Hsien Lee, Andrew Lenharth, Roman Manevich, Mario Méndez-Lojo, Dimitrios Prount- zos, and Xin Sui. 2011. The tao of parallelism in algorithms. In Pro- ceedings of the 32nd ...

    2011

  14. [22]

    Gilead Posluns, Yan Zhu, Guowei Zhang, and Mark C. Je#rey. 2022. A scalable architecture for reprioritizing ordered parallelism. In Pro- ceedings of the 49th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (New York, New York) (ISCA ’22). Association for Com- puting Ma...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Francisco-Javier Pulido, Lawrence Mandow, and José-Luis Pérez de-la Cruz. 2015. Dimensionality reduction in multiobjective shortest path search. Computers & Operations Research 64 (2015), 60–70. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2015.05.007

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Zhongqiang Ren, Richard Zhan, Sivakumar Rathinam, Maxim Likhachev, and Howie Choset. 2022. Enhanced Multi-Objective A* Using Balanced Binary Search Trees. Proceedings of the Interna- tional Symposium on Combinatorial Search 15, 1 (July 2022), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1609/s...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Oren Salzman, Ariel Felner, Carlos Hernández, Han Zhang, Shao- Hung Chan, and Sven Koenig. 2023. Heuristic-Search Approaches for the Multi-Objective Shortest-Path Problem: Progress and Research Opportunities. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference o...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Peter Sanders and Lawrence Mandow. 2013. Parallel Label-Setting Multi-objective Shortest Path Search. In 2013 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing . 215–224. https: //doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2013.89

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Paolo Sera!ni. 1987. Some Considerations about Computational Com- plexity for Multi Objective Combinatorial Problems. InRecent Advances and Historical Development of Vector Optimization , Johannes Jahn and Werner Krabs (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 222–232

    1987

  20. [28]

    Mohsin Shan and Omer Khan. 2022. HD-CPS: Hardware-assisted Drift- aware Concurrent Priority Scheduler for Shared Memory Multicores. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCA53966. 2022.00046

    2022

  21. [29]

    Shin, Vadim Belenky, W.M

    Y.S. Shin, Vadim Belenky, W.M. Lin, K.M. Weems, A.H. Engle, K. McTag- gart, Je#rey Falzarano, B.L. Hutchison, M. Gerigk, and S. Grochowalski

  22. [30]

    Peak, James A

    David Sidoti, Gopi Vinod Avvari, Manisha Mishra, Lingyi Zhang, Bala Kishore Nadella, James E. Peak, James A. Hansen, and Krishna R. Pattipati. 2017. A Multiobjective Path-Planning Algorithm With Time Windows for Asset Routing in a Dynamic Weather-Impacted Environ- ment. IEEE T...

    2017

  23. [31]

    Stewart and Chelsea C

    Bradley S. Stewart and Chelsea C. White. 1991. Multiobjective A*. J. ACM 38, 4 (Oct. 1991), 775–814. https://doi.org/10.1145/115234.115368

    1991

  24. [32]

    Robert Endre Tarjan. 1983. Data structures and network algorithms . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA

    1983

  25. [33]

    George Tsaggouris and Christos Zaroliagis. 2006. Multiobjective Op- timization: Improved FPTAS for Shortest Paths and Non-Linear Ob- jectives with Applications. Theory of Computing Systems 45 (01 2006), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00224-007-9096-4

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    Baier, Han Zhang, Luis Suazo, and Sven Koenig

    Carlos Hernández Ulloa, William Yeoh, Jorge A. Baier, Han Zhang, Luis Suazo, and Sven Koenig. 2020. A Simple and Fast Bi-Objective Search Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) . AAAI Press, 143–151

    2020

  27. [35]

    Guido Van Rossum and Fred L. Drake. 2009. Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA

    2009

  28. [36]

    Ri#el, and John D

    Yangzihao Wang, Yuechao Pan, Andrew Davidson, Yuduo Wu, Carl Yang, Leyuan Wang, Muhammad Osama, Chenshan Yuan, Weitang Liu, Andy T. Ri#el, and John D. Owens. 2017. Gunrock: GPU Graph Analytics. ACM Trans. Parallel Comput. 4, 1, Article 3 (Aug. 2017), 49 pages. https://doi.org/...

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Arthur Warburton. 1987. Approximation of Pareto Optima in Multiple- Objective, Shortest-Path Problems. Oper. Res. 35, 1 (Feb. 1987), 70–79

    1987

  30. [38]

    Yuan Yao, Zhe Peng, and Bin Xiao. 2018. Parallel Hyper-Heuristic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Route Planning in a Smart City. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 67, 11 (2018), 10307–10318. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2018.2868942

    2018

  31. [39]

    Guozheng Zhang, Gilead Posluns, and Mark C. Je#rey. 2024. Multi Bucket Queues: E"cient Concurrent Priority Scheduling. In Proceed- ings of the 36th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (Nantes, France) (SPAA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Pat- tipati, David Sidoti, and James A

    Lingyi Zhang, Adam Bienkowski, Matthew Macesker, Krishna R. Pat- tipati, David Sidoti, and James A. Hansen. 2021. Many-Objective Maritime Path Planning for Dynamic and Uncertain Environments. In 2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference (50100) . 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ AERO50100....

    2021

  33. [41]

    Yunming Zhang, Ajay Brahmakshatriya, Xinyi Chen, Laxman Dhuli- pala, Shoaib Kamil, Saman Amarasinghe, and Julian Shun. 2020. Opti- mizing ordered graph algorithms with GraphIt. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Code Generation and Opti- mization (S...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Zitzler and L

    E. Zitzler and L. Thiele. 1999. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3, 4 (1999), 257–271. https: //doi.org/10.1109/4235.797969

    1999

  35. [2003]

    Transactions - Society Gold et al

    Nonlinear time domain simulation technology for seakeeping and wave-load analysis for modern ship design. Transactions - Society Gold et al. of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 111 (01 2003), 557–583

    2003

  36. [2011]

    unordered: a comparison of parallelism and work- e"ciency in irregular algorithms

    Ordered vs. unordered: a comparison of parallelism and work- e"ciency in irregular algorithms. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Sym- posium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (San Antonio, TX, USA) (PPoPP ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.