Now 1241 visitors
Today:0 Yesterday:0
Total: 128200 212S 50P 5R
2026-10-20, Week 43
Member Login
TACT Journal Homepage
Call for Paper
Committee
Find My Paper
Author Homepage
Statistics & History
Welcome Message
Paper Procedure
FAQ
Paper Archives
Outstanding Papers
Program & Proceedings
Presentation Platform
Hotel & Travel Info
Photo Gallery
Scheduler Login
Seminar
Archives Login
Sponsors


















Virual Oral Question and Answer
IEEE/ICACT20260076 Question.5
Questioner: mahi.sfo@gmail.com    2026-02-11 오후 4:50:51 		IEEE/ICACT20260076 Answer.5
Answer by Auhor pes2202100486@pesu.pes.edu   2026-02-11 오후 4:50:51
How does Dynaclo behave under adversarial or worst-case graph structures (e.g., highly skewed hierarchies or permission graphs where random support-vertex selection performs poorly), and what formal or empirical guarantees can you provide on correctness, fallback frequency, and latency in those cases? While we have implemented random SV selection for simplicity, the SV algorithm adapted by us presented in "Faster Fully Dynamic Transitive Closure in Practice" by Kathrin et al. supports 2 variants of the SV algorithm which clears the list of chosed support vertices after c updates called SVA (variant 1) and SVC where the there is exactly one Support Vertex per Strongly Connected Component (SCC) [More info on this can be found in the aforementioned paper]. If there were cases where our index performed poorly for certain graphs, we could explore changing our implementations to these variants of our already used SV algorithm. In any case since the worst case option is the fallback to BFS we would still perform better than vanilla spicedb. If you could provide me with some concrete examples of what such worst case graph structures look like, I can reason about their effect on fallback frequency and latencies, which in the end can only be tested experimentally. Correctness is always guarenteed under the current system as it prefers correctness over performance

Select Voice