Online Edge Coloring: Sharp Thresholds

David Wajc; Joakim Blikstad; Ola Svensson; Radu Vintan

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Online Edge Coloring: Sharp Thresholds

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deterministic online algorithm can edge-color any graph with maximum degree Δ using only Δ+o(Δ) colors once Δ grows faster than log n, and a randomized version does so already when Δ grows faster than √log n.

desk verdict The deterministic half is a solid, significant advance; the randomized Δ=ω(√log n) theorem has a genuine proof gap in Lemma 4.16. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21560 v1 pith:Q6V3GTWJ submitted 2025-07-29 cs.DS

Joakim Blikstad , Ola Svensson , Radu Vintan , David Wajc This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DS MSC 05C1568W2068W2760G42

keywords onlineedgecoloringgreedyalgorithmmaximumdegreethresholdsrandomizedalgorithmsdeterministicmartingaleconcentrationadversarialarrivalsbackuppalette

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

Edges of an unknown graph arrive one by one, and each must be colored immediately so that touching edges differ. The simple greedy rule uses at most 2Δ−1 colors, roughly twice the offline optimum of Δ+1 colors. This paper proves that greedy can be beaten exactly when the maximum degree Δ is large enough: a deterministic online algorithm achieves Δ+o(Δ) colors once Δ=ω(log n), and a randomized algorithm achieves the same guarantee already when Δ=ω(√log n). These two thresholds match lower bounds from three decades ago, so they are sharp. The algorithms use a primary palette of Δ colors sampled with carefully maintained probabilities, plus a small emergency palette that stays o(Δ) with high probability.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a history-dependent probability table: for every potential future edge e and every color c in a primary palette of size Δ, the algorithm maintains a probability P_ec, initialized near 1/Δ. When a neighboring edge is colored, all affected probabilities are rescaled so that the expected value of each probability is preserved, except that updates are capped when a probability exceeds a small threshold A to keep the process's step size bounded. An arriving edge samples a color from this table; if the total probability exceeds 1 or the sample fails, the edge is marked and sent to a separate greedy backup palette. The proof's load-bearing objects are the 'bad colors' (probabilities above A) and, in the randomized case, 'bad vertices' (vertices with many marked incident edges). The paper shows, via carefully chosen supermartingales and a standard martingale tail bound, that these bad objects are few with failure probability exp(−Θ(εΔ²)), which is small enough to union bound over all edges and, after decomposing edge sets into matchings, over all vertices. That concentration is what forces the backup palette to stay o(Δ).

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 2 (or Algorithm 1) on large random and adversarial instances at the threshold Δ≈√log n, and measure the maximum number of backup-palette colors used per vertex over many trials. The theorems predict that with high probability every vertex has O(εΔ) marked edges; observing a vertex with, say, more than 2c_K εΔ marked edges with probability well above n^−100 would contradict the Few Bad Vertices lemma. Alternatively, construct an explicit neighborhood in which the sum Q_UwC exceeds its initial value by $ε^{6}$Δ/2 with probability larger than 2^−110Δ n^−110; that would directly falsify the Few Bad Colors concentration bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes two theorems. The first (Theorem 3.1) is a deterministic online algorithm that edge-colors any n-node graph of known maximum degree Δ using Δ + O($Δ^{{15/16}}$ $log^{{1/16}}$ n) colors, which is (1+o(1))Δ whenever Δ=ω(log n). The second (Theorem 4.1) is a randomized online algorithm, correct against oblivious adversaries, using Δ + O($Δ^{{15/16}}$ $log^{{1/32}}$ n) colors, which is (1+o(1))Δ whenever Δ=ω(√log n). Together with the earlier lower bounds, these are sharp phase transitions: below the respective thresholds no online algorithm can improve on the greedy 2Δ−1 guarantee by even one color, while above them near-optimal colorings are achievable. The deterministic result is obtained by first designing a randomized algorithm that works even against adaptive adversaries and then applying a standard derandomization reduction, while the oblivious-adversary result adapts the same probability-maintenance technique to the smaller degree regime.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis rests on the claim that the random fluctuations in the maintained probabilities concentrate as sharply as independent trials, giving failure probabilities around $e^{{−Θ(εΔ²)}}$; if correlations among 'bad' colors or vertices are stronger than the paper's martingale bounds allow, the backup palette could grow beyond the promised o(Δ).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deterministic online edge coloring can use (1+o(1))Δ colors for every graph with Δ=ω(log n), settling that greedy can be surpassed exactly in this regime.
Randomized online edge coloring can use (1+o(1))Δ colors already for Δ=ω(√log n), a regime where previous methods required Δ=ω(log n).
Both thresholds are tight: below them, the earlier lower bounds say every online algorithm needs 2Δ−1 colors, so the problem exhibits sharp phase transitions.
The specific color counts are Δ+O(Δ^{15/16} log^{1/16} n) deterministically and Δ+O(Δ^{15/16} log^{1/32} n) randomly, both with high probability in n.
The appendix's lower bounds show these sharp thresholds do not extend to online list edge coloring, where palettes of size 2Δ−1 can remain necessary at larger degrees.

Reading between the lines

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

A transferable lesson, not stated by the paper, is that replacing uniform random choice by rescaling-maintained unequal probabilities may be a general recipe for online allocation problems: it prevents adaptive adversaries from amplifying bias, which the paper's experiments suggest is what breaks plain randomized greedy.
The exp(−Δ²) concentration and matching-decomposition trick may extend to other online problems where the objects to be controlled are edges of a graph, such as online matching or online independent set; if the same step-size control works there, thresholds of order √log n could appear.
The sharp separation between edge coloring and list edge coloring in the appendix suggests the positive thresholds are tied to the availability of a global backup palette; designing an analog with per-edge lists would need a genuinely different mechanism.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: the deterministic result in Section 3 is real and worth your time. The randomized result in Section 4, Theorem 4.1, currently rests on a proof gap in Lemma 4.16 that I don't see a quick way around.

What's new and good: the deterministic (1+o(1))Δ-coloring for Δ=ω(log n), obtained via the BDBK+94 reduction from an adaptive-adversary algorithm, closes a gap left open for decades. The probability-scaling framework with capped updates and the 'few bad colors' martingale analysis is a genuine technical achievement. Section 3 seems sound; the constants check out and the union bound over n^{Θ(Δ)} potential neighborhoods is handled with care. That alone is a significant paper.

The soft spot is Section 4.4. Lemma 4.16 tries to bound the number of 'annoying' edges in a matching by invoking Corollary 4.18 at some fixed time t. The implication is not justified. Low-annoying is defined per edge at its own arrival time; while each Z_e freezes after arrival (so the sum condition can be made to hold at a common late t), the 'no bad endpoints' condition in the corollary is different. An endpoint that was good when its matching edge arrived can become bad later, so the corollary's hypothesis need not hold. This gap is load-bearing: Lemma 4.6 (Few Bad Vertices) depends on it, and Theorem 4.8, hence Theorem 4.1, depends on Lemma 4.6. I could not find a repair in the text.

Minor issues: Lemma 4.9 is only a proof sketch, and there are small typos in a couple of displayed inequalities (e.g., the 1/(1−2A) bound in Lemma 3.7). These are secondary.

Who should read this: anyone working on online edge coloring, randomized online algorithms, or the BNMN92 conjecture. The deterministic contribution alone justifies a serious referee. The randomized theorem should not be accepted as proven as is; the authors need to fix Lemma 4.16 or give a different proof of Lemma 4.6. I'd send it to review, but with the expectation that a major revision is likely.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies online edge coloring with known maximum degree Δ. It presents a deterministic algorithm using Δ+O(Δ^{15/16} log^{1/16} n) colors for Δ = ω(log n), and a randomized oblivious-adversary algorithm using Δ+O(Δ^{15/16} log^{1/32} n) colors for Δ = ω(√log n). Both algorithms are history-dependent P-value schemes with a backup greedy palette; the analysis uses supermartingale concentration and 'few bad colors'/'few bad vertices' lemmas. The deterministic result follows from an adaptive-adversary randomized algorithm via the BDBK+94 reduction. The paper claims these results match the BNMN92 lower bounds, establishing sharp thresholds.

Significance. If correct, the results resolve the deterministic and randomized thresholds for online edge coloring, showing (1+o(1))Δ-colorings exist deterministically for Δ = ω(log n) and randomly for Δ = ω(√log n), matching known lower bounds. The technical framework, exploiting concentration over Θ(Δ^2) edge-color pairs to obtain error exp(−Δ^2), is a notable departure from prior Chernoff-based approaches and may be influential. The paper's strengths include a self-contained adaptive analysis with explicit constants and a clean reduction to deterministic algorithms.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.4, proof of Lemma 4.16] The proof of Lemma 4.16 bounds Pr[all e in M' are low-annoying] by Pr[Σ Z_e(t) < (1−c_K ε)|M'| and no bad endpoints of M] for a fixed time t, citing Corollary 4.18, but the low-annoying condition is evaluated at each edge's own arrival time; since Z_e is a supermartingale that can move upward after t_e, and endpoints of M' can become bad after their matching edge arrives, the event does not imply the corollary's hypotheses at any fixed t. Consequently the union bound estimating the number of annoying edges is not established, and Lemma 4.6 (Few Bad Vertices) lacks its stated proof; as Lemma 4.6 is used in Theorem 4.8 to bound |C_greedy|, this gap is load-bearing for Theorem 4.1.
[Section 4.3.1, Lemma 4.9] Lemma 4.9 is presented with a proof sketch that refers to the adaptive analysis. The sketch asserts that Lemmas 3.19–3.21 remain valid for Algorithm 2, but it does not verify that the supermartingale property and step-size bound of Lemma 3.24 for the Q variables hold when Algorithm 2's bad-vertex logic (Lines 5–9) zeroes out all colors without scaling; since Lemma 4.9 feeds into Lemma 4.15 and then into the Matching Lemma 4.17, this adaptation should be proved in full detail.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.4.3, proof of Lemma 3.24] The sum over 'f ∈ F' uses an undefined set F; it should be 'f ∈ G_t'. Also, 'and then use the fact fact' is a typo for 'and then use the fact'.
[Section 4.4, statement of Lemma 4.6] The statement says 'during the execution of Algorithm 1' but the lemma concerns Algorithm 2.
[Section 4.4, proof of Lemma 4.16] The displayed splitting of '∃2εαΔ annoying edges' should read '∃ at least 2εαΔ annoying edges' for the subsequent split into εαΔ low-annoying and εαΔ high-annoying to be formally correct.
[Appendix A.1] There is a typo 'colrs' for 'colors', and 'Thm A.1' should be 'Theorem A.1'.
[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.14 proof] The equality 'c·ε = 2 + 20c_A ε = 2 + 20ε^5 Δ^2 A^2' does not follow from A = c_A/(ε^2 Δ); the algebra appears to need a correction (the term should likely be 20 c_A^2 ε).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the new algorithms are analyzed from scratch using explicit supermartingale arguments and standard concentration inequalities; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The claimed results (Theorems 3.1 and 4.1) are established by the paper's own proofs. The deterministic algorithm is obtained from a randomized adaptive-adversary algorithm (Theorem 3.2) via the classical external reduction [BDBK+94]; the randomized algorithm against oblivious adversaries is analyzed directly in Section 4. The central lemmas (Few Bad Colors Lemma 3.10, Matching Lemma 4.17, Few Bad Vertices Lemma 4.6, Bad Vertex Lemma 4.7) are proved in-line from Azuma's inequality and explicitly constructed (super)martingales Q_UwC and Y_eC; they do not quote earlier work as hypotheses. The paper's citations to [BSVW24a, BSVW25] are used for motivation, comparison, and inspiration ('Inspired by these observations and by [BSVW24a], we modify the approach...'), not as black-box theorems whose truth entails the new bounds. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction, and no 'uniqueness theorem' is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptical concern about Lemma 4.16--that the application of Corollary 4.18 to 'low-annoying' edges evaluated at different arrival times is not justified--is a potential correctness gap in a proof step, not a circular reduction of a conclusion to its own input; it therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters fitted to data and no invented physical entities. The hand-chosen epsilon, A, alpha, and c_K are proof constants in the martingale analysis, not empirical fits. The algorithms' backup palette is a design artifact, not a postulated entity.

free parameters (5)

epsilon (adaptive) = 10 * (log n / Delta)^(1/16)
Hand-chosen initial slack in color probabilities; balances Azuma exponent against n^{Theta(Delta)} union bounds. No data fitting.
epsilon (oblivious) = 10 * ((sqrt(log n)) / Delta)^(1/16)
Same role as above but scaled for Delta=omega(sqrt(log n)).
A (cap on P-values) = 4 / (epsilon^2 * Delta)
Caps P-values to keep martingale step size at O(A) and control negative drift.
alpha = epsilon^3 / 100
Threshold for dangerous vertices in the oblivious analysis; hand-chosen to make badness increments negligible.
c_K = 35 * 4^2 = 560
Threshold multiplier for bad vertices in Algorithm 2; hand-chosen proof constant.

assumptions (5)

standard math Azuma's inequality for supermartingales (Lemma 2.3)
Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to establish concentration of Z, Y, Q, and L.
standard math Chernoff-Hoeffding bounds
Used in Lemmas 3.14, 4.6, and 4.19 to bound sums of indicators via coupling arguments.
domain assumption BDBK+94 reduction: randomized algorithm against adaptive adversary implies deterministic algorithm with same guarantee
Bridges Theorem 3.2 to the deterministic Theorem 3.1; cited, not reproved.
domain assumption Yao's minimax argument: an adaptive adversary may be assumed deterministic
Used at the end of Section 2 to restrict to deterministic adversaries in the adaptive setting.
domain assumption Known n and Delta in advance
Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 assume known n and Delta; the paper cites CPW19 to note that knowledge of Delta is necessary for beating 1.606Delta colors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Online Edge Coloring: Sharp Thresholds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6V3GTWJ

@misc{pith2026250721560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Online Edge Coloring: Sharp Thresholds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6V3GTWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21560}
}

abstract

Vizing's theorem guarantees that every graph with maximum degree $\Delta$ admits an edge coloring using $\Delta + 1$ colors. In online settings - where edges arrive one at a time and must be colored immediately - a simple greedy algorithm uses at most $2\Delta - 1$ colors. Over thirty years ago, Bar-Noy, Motwani, and Naor [IPL'92] proved that this guarantee is optimal among deterministic algorithms when $\Delta = O(\log n)$, and among randomized algorithms when $\Delta = O(\sqrt{\log n})$. While deterministic improvements seemed out of reach, they conjectured that for graphs with $\Delta = \omega(\log n)$, randomized algorithms can achieve $(1 + o(1))\Delta$ edge coloring. This conjecture was recently resolved in the affirmative: a $(1 + o(1))\Delta$-coloring is achievable online using randomization for all graphs with $\Delta = \omega(\log n)$ [BSVW STOC'24]. Our results go further, uncovering two findings not predicted by the original conjecture. First, we give a deterministic online algorithm achieving $(1 + o(1))\Delta$-colorings for all $\Delta = \omega(\log n)$. Second, we give a randomized algorithm achieving $(1 + o(1))\Delta$-colorings already when $\Delta = \omega(\sqrt{\log n})$. Our results establish sharp thresholds for when greedy can be surpassed, and near-optimal guarantees can be achieved - matching the impossibility results of [BNMN IPL'92], both deterministically and randomly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21560 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The variables Rfc do not accumulate scalings induced by any of the solid edges, which arrived before f and are incident at w. The variables R (t) fc , defined for potential future edges f connected to e at w ∈ {u, v}, accumulate the scalings produced by the arrival of other edges g incident at f, but they “revert” all potential scalings caused by previous such edges which are also incident at w. 10 For a better unde… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Vizing's theorem in near-linear time

Sepehr Assadi, Soheil Behnezhad, Sayan Bhattacharya, Mart \' n Costa, Shay Solomon, and Tianyi Zhang. Vizing's theorem in near-linear time. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Switch scheduling via randomized edge coloring

Gagan Aggarwal, Rajeev Motwani, Devavrat Shah, and An Zhu. Switch scheduling via randomized edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 502--512, 2003

work page 2003
[3]

On the power of randomization in on-line algorithms

Shai Ben-David, Allan Borodin, Richard Karp, Gabor Tardos, and Avi Wigderson. On the power of randomization in on-line algorithms. Algorithmica , 11(1):2--14, 1994

work page 1994
[4]

Online edge coloring algorithms via the nibble method

Sayan Bhattacharya, Fabrizio Grandoni, and David Wajc. Online edge coloring algorithms via the nibble method. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 2830--2842, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Online graph edge-coloring in the random-order arrival model

Bahman Bahmani, Aranyak Mehta, and Rajeev Motwani. Online graph edge-coloring in the random-order arrival model. Theory of Computing , 8(1):567--595, 2012

work page 2012
[6]

The greedy algorithm is optimal for on-line edge coloring

Amotz Bar-Noy, Rajeev Motwani, and Joseph Naor. The greedy algorithm is optimal for on-line edge coloring. Information Processing Letters (IPL) , 44(5):251--253, 1992

work page 1992
[7]

Online edge coloring is (nearly) as easy as offline

Joakim Blikstad, Ola Svensson, Radu Vintan, and David Wajc. Online edge coloring is (nearly) as easy as offline. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Simple and optimal online bipartite edge coloring

Joakim Blikstad, Ola Svensson, Radu Vintan, and David Wajc. Simple and optimal online bipartite edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA) , 2024

work page 2024

Show all 18 references

[9]

Deterministic online bipartite edge coloring

Joakim Blikstad, Ola Svensson, Radu Vintan, and David Wajc. Deterministic online bipartite edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 1593--1606, 2025

2025
[10]

Tight bounds for online edge coloring

Ilan Reuven Cohen, Binghui Peng, and David Wajc. Tight bounds for online edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 60th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 1--25, 2019

2019
[11]

Randomized greedy online edge coloring succeeds for dense and randomly-ordered graphs

Aditi Dudeja, Rashmika Goswami, and Michael Saks. Randomized greedy online edge coloring succeeds for dense and randomly-ordered graphs. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 4948--4982, 2025

2025
[12]

The np-completeness of edge-coloring

Ian Holyer. The np-completeness of edge-coloring. SIAM Journal on Computing (SICOMP) , 10(4):718--720, 1981

1981
[13]

Asymptotically good list-colorings

Jeff Kahn. Asymptotically good list-colorings. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A , 73(1):1--59, 1996

1996
[14]

Online edge coloring via tree recurrences and correlation decay

Janardhan Kulkarni, Yang P Liu, Ashwin Sah, Mehtaab Sawhney, and Jakub Tarnawski. Online edge coloring via tree recurrences and correlation decay. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 2958--2977, 2022

2022
[15]

Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump markov processes

Thomas G Kurtz. Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump markov processes. Journal of Applied Probability , 7(1):49--58, 1970

1970
[16]

The greedy algorithm is not optimal for on-line edge coloring

Amin Saberi and David Wajc. The greedy algorithm is not optimal for on-line edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP) , pages 109:1--109:18, 2021

2021
[17]

On an estimate of the chromatic class of a p-graph

Vadim G Vizing. On an estimate of the chromatic class of a p-graph. Diskret analiz , 3:25--30, 1964

1964
[18]

Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity

Andrew Chi-Chin Yao. Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 222--227, 1977

1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Vizing's theorem in near-linear time

Sepehr Assadi, Soheil Behnezhad, Sayan Bhattacharya, Mart \' n Costa, Shay Solomon, and Tianyi Zhang. Vizing's theorem in near-linear time. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Switch scheduling via randomized edge coloring

Gagan Aggarwal, Rajeev Motwani, Devavrat Shah, and An Zhu. Switch scheduling via randomized edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 502--512, 2003

work page 2003

[3] [3]

On the power of randomization in on-line algorithms

Shai Ben-David, Allan Borodin, Richard Karp, Gabor Tardos, and Avi Wigderson. On the power of randomization in on-line algorithms. Algorithmica , 11(1):2--14, 1994

work page 1994

[4] [4]

Online edge coloring algorithms via the nibble method

Sayan Bhattacharya, Fabrizio Grandoni, and David Wajc. Online edge coloring algorithms via the nibble method. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 2830--2842, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Online graph edge-coloring in the random-order arrival model

Bahman Bahmani, Aranyak Mehta, and Rajeev Motwani. Online graph edge-coloring in the random-order arrival model. Theory of Computing , 8(1):567--595, 2012

work page 2012

[6] [6]

The greedy algorithm is optimal for on-line edge coloring

Amotz Bar-Noy, Rajeev Motwani, and Joseph Naor. The greedy algorithm is optimal for on-line edge coloring. Information Processing Letters (IPL) , 44(5):251--253, 1992

work page 1992

[7] [7]

Online edge coloring is (nearly) as easy as offline

Joakim Blikstad, Ola Svensson, Radu Vintan, and David Wajc. Online edge coloring is (nearly) as easy as offline. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Simple and optimal online bipartite edge coloring

Joakim Blikstad, Ola Svensson, Radu Vintan, and David Wajc. Simple and optimal online bipartite edge coloring. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA) , 2024

work page 2024