Objectives To describe new WHO 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Methods The guidelines were developed in accordance with WHO protocols. An expert Guideline Development Group reviewed evidence to assess associations between physical activity and sedentary behaviour for an agreed set of health outcomes and population groups. The assessment used and systematically updated recent relevant systematic reviews; new primary reviews addressed additional health outcomes or subpopulations. Results The new guidelines address children, adolescents, adults, older adults and include new specific recommendations for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. All adults should undertake 150-300 min of moderate-intensity, or 75-150 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or some equivalent combination of moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, per week. Among children and adolescents, an average of 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity across the week provides health benefits. The guidelines recommend regular muscle-strengthening activity for all age groups. Additionally, reducing sedentary behaviours is recommended across all age groups and abilities, although evidence was insufficient to quantify a sedentary behaviour threshold. Conclusion These 2020 WHO guidelines update previous WHO recommendations released in 2010. They reaffirm messages that some physical activity is better than none, that more physical activity is better for optimal health outcomes and provide a new recommendation on reducing sedentary behaviours. These guidelines highlight the importance of regularly undertaking both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities and for the first time, there are specific recommendations for specific populations including for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. These guidelines should be used to inform national health policies aligned with the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030 and to strengthen surveillance systems that track progress towards national and global targets.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/54/24/1451.full.pdf

World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour

problems To understand the class of polynomial-time solvable problems, we must first have a formal notion of what a "problem" is. We define an abstract problem Q to be a binary relation on a set I of problem instances and a set S of problem solutions. For example, an instance for SHORTEST-PATH is a triple consisting of a graph and two vertices. A solution is a sequence of vertices in the graph, with perhaps the empty sequence denoting that no path exists. The problem SHORTEST-PATH itself is the relation that associates each instance of a graph and two vertices with a shortest path in the graph that connects the two vertices. Since shortest paths are not necessarily unique, a given problem instance may have more than one solution. This formulation of an abstract problem is more general than is required for our purposes. As we saw above, the theory of NP-completeness restricts attention to decision problems: those having a yes/no solution. In this case, we can view an abstract decision problem as a function that maps the instance set I to the solution set {0, 1}. For example, a decision problem related to SHORTEST-PATH is the problem PATH that we saw earlier. If i = G, u, v, k is an instance of the decision problem PATH, then PATH(i) = 1 (yes) if a shortest path from u to v has at most k edges, and PATH(i) = 0 (no) otherwise. Many abstract problems are not decision problems, but rather optimization problems, in which some value must be minimized or maximized. As we saw above, however, it is usually a simple matter to recast an optimization problem as a decision problem that is no harder. Encodings If a computer program is to solve an abstract problem, problem instances must be represented in a way that the program understands. An encoding of a set S of abstract objects is a mapping e from S to the set of binary strings. For example, we are all familiar with encoding the natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4,...} as the strings {0, 1, 10, 11, 100,...}. Using this encoding, e(17) = 10001. Anyone who has looked at computer representations of keyboard characters is familiar with either the ASCII or EBCDIC codes. In the ASCII code, the encoding of A is 1000001. Even a compound object can be encoded as a binary string by combining the representations of its constituent parts. Polygons, graphs, functions, ordered pairs, programs-all can be encoded as binary strings. Thus, a computer algorithm that "solves" some abstract decision problem actually takes an encoding of a problem instance as input. We call a problem whose instance set is the set of binary strings a concrete problem. We say that an algorithm solves a concrete problem in time O(T (n)) if, when it is provided a problem instance i of length n = |i|, the algorithm can produce the solution in O(T (n)) time. A concrete problem is polynomial-time solvable, therefore, if there exists an algorithm to solve it in time O(n) for some constant k. We can now formally define the complexity class P as the set of concrete decision problems that are polynomial-time solvable. We can use encodings to map abstract problems to concrete problems. Given an abstract decision problem Q mapping an instance set I to {0, 1}, an encoding e : I → {0, 1}* can be used to induce a related concrete decision problem, which we denote by e(Q). If the solution to an abstract-problem instance i I is Q(i) {0, 1}, then the solution to the concreteproblem instance e(i) {0, 1}* is also Q(i). As a technicality, there may be some binary strings that represent no meaningful abstract-problem instance. For convenience, we shall assume that any such string is mapped arbitrarily to 0. Thus, the concrete problem produces the same solutions as the abstract problem on binary-string instances that represent the encodings of abstract-problem instances. We would like to extend the definition of polynomial-time solvability from concrete problems to abstract problems by using encodings as the bridge, but we would like the definition to be independent of any particular encoding. That is, the efficiency of solving a problem should not depend on how the problem is encoded. Unfortunately, it depends quite heavily on the encoding. For example, suppose that an integer k is to be provided as the sole input to an algorithm, and suppose that the running time of the algorithm is Θ(k). If the integer k is provided in unary-a string of k 1's-then the running time of the algorithm is O(n) on length-n inputs, which is polynomial time. If we use the more natural binary representation of the integer k, however, then the input length is n = ⌊lg k⌋ + 1. In this case, the running time of the algorithm is Θ (k) = Θ(2), which is exponential in the size of the input. Thus, depending on the encoding, the algorithm runs in either polynomial or superpolynomial time. The encoding of an abstract problem is therefore quite important to our under-standing of polynomial time. We cannot really talk about solving an abstract problem without first specifying an encoding. Nevertheless, in practice, if we rule out "expensive" encodings such as unary ones, the actual encoding of a problem makes little difference to whether the problem can be solved in polynomial time. For example, representing integers in base 3 instead of binary has no effect on whether a problem is solvable in polynomial time, since an integer represented in base 3 can be converted to an integer represented in base 2 in polynomial time. We say that a function f : {0, 1}* → {0,1}* is polynomial-time computable if there exists a polynomial-time algorithm A that, given any input x {0, 1}*, produces as output f (x). For some set I of problem instances, we say that two encodings e1 and e2 are polynomially related if there exist two polynomial-time computable functions f12 and f21 such that for any i I , we have f12(e1(i)) = e2(i) and f21(e2(i)) = e1(i). That is, the encoding e2(i) can be computed from the encoding e1(i) by a polynomial-time algorithm, and vice versa. If two encodings e1 and e2 of an abstract problem are polynomially related, whether the problem is polynomial-time solvable or not is independent of which encoding we use, as the following lemma shows. Lemma 34.1 Let Q be an abstract decision problem on an instance set I , and let e1 and e2 be polynomially related encodings on I . Then, e1(Q) P if and only if e2(Q) P. Proof We need only prove the forward direction, since the backward direction is symmetric. Suppose, therefore, that e1(Q) can be solved in time O(nk) for some constant k. Further, suppose that for any problem instance i, the encoding e1(i) can be computed from the encoding e2(i) in time O(n) for some constant c, where n = |e2(i)|. To solve problem e2(Q), on input e2(i), we first compute e1(i) and then run the algorithm for e1(Q) on e1(i). How long does this take? The conversion of encodings takes time O(n), and therefore |e1(i)| = O(n), since the output of a serial computer cannot be longer than its running time. Solving the problem on e1(i) takes time O(|e1(i)|) = O(n), which is polynomial since both c and k are constants. Thus, whether an abstract problem has its instances encoded in binary or base 3 does not affect its "complexity," that is, whether it is polynomial-time solvable or not, but if instances are encoded in unary, its complexity may change. In order to be able to converse in an encoding-independent fashion, we shall generally assume that problem instances are encoded in any reasonable, concise fashion, unless we specifically say otherwise. To be precise, we shall assume that the encoding of an integer is polynomially related to its binary representation, and that the encoding of a finite set is polynomially related to its encoding as a list of its elements, enclosed in braces and separated by commas. (ASCII is one such encoding scheme.) With such a "standard" encoding in hand, we can derive reasonable encodings of other mathematical objects, such as tuples, graphs, and formulas. To denote the standard encoding of an object, we shall enclose the object in angle braces. Thus, G denotes the standard encoding of a graph G. As long as we implicitly use an encoding that is polynomially related to this standard encoding, we can talk directly about abstract problems without reference to any particular encoding, knowing that the choice of encoding has no effect on whether the abstract problem is polynomial-time solvable. Henceforth, we shall generally assume that all problem instances are binary strings encoded using the standard encoding, unless we explicitly specify the contrary. We shall also typically neglect the distinction between abstract and concrete problems. The reader should watch out for problems that arise in practice, however, in which a standard encoding is not obvious and the encoding does make a difference. A formal-language framework One of the convenient aspects of focusing on decision problems is that they make it easy to use the machinery of formal-language theory. It is worthwhile at this point to review some definitions from that theory. An alphabet Σ is a finite set of symbols. A language L over Σ is any set of strings made up of symbols from Σ. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, the set L = {10, 11, 101, 111, 1011, 1101, 10001,...} is the language of binary representations of prime numbers. We denote the empty string by ε, and the empty language by Ø. The language of all strings over Σ is denoted Σ*. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, then Σ* = {ε, 0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000,...} is the set of all binary strings. Every language L over Σ is a subset of Σ*. There are a variety of operations on languages. Set-theoretic operations, such as union and intersection, follow directly from the set-theoretic definitions. We define the complement of L by . The concatenation of two languages L1 and L2 is the language L = {x1x2 : x1 L1 and x2 L2}. The closure or Kleene star of a language L is the language L*= {ε} L L L ···, where Lk is the language obtained by

Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition

1 Defining Network Flow A flow network is a directed graph G = (V,E) in which each edge (u, v) ∈ E has non-negative capacity c(u, v) ≥ 0. We require that if (u, v) ∈ E, then (v, u) / ∈ E. That is, if an edge exists, then the edge between the same vertices going the reverse direction does not exist. Every flow network has a source s and a sink t, and we assume that for every v ∈ V , there is some path s→ · · · → v → · · · → t. Note that this implies that flow networks are connected. Informally, the intuition behind network flow is to think of the edges as pipes and the weights on the edges as the capacity its corresponding pipe per unit of time. The question we are trying to ask is: how many units of water can we send from the source to the sink per unit of time? Formally, a flow in G is a function f : V × V → R that satisfies the following: • Capacity constraint. For all u, v ∈ V , we require 0 ≤ f(u, v) ≤ c(u, v). Our pipe cannot hold more than is allowed as dictated by its capacity. • Flow conservation. For u ∈ V − {s, t}, we require ∑

Network Flows

Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and 250 similar alt-coins, embody at their core a blockchain protocol --- a mechanism for a distributed network of computational nodes to periodically agree on a set of new transactions. Designing a secure blockchain protocol relies on an open challenge in security, that of designing a highly-scalable agreement protocol open to manipulation by byzantine or arbitrarily malicious nodes. Bitcoin's blockchain agreement protocol exhibits security, but does not scale: it processes 3--7 transactions per second at present, irrespective of the available computation capacity at hand. In this paper, we propose a new distributed agreement protocol for permission-less blockchains called ELASTICO. ELASTICO scales transaction rates almost linearly with available computation for mining: the more the computation power in the network, the higher the number of transaction blocks selected per unit time. ELASTICO is efficient in its network messages and tolerates byzantine adversaries of up to one-fourth of the total computational power. Technically, ELASTICO uniformly partitions or parallelizes the mining network (securely) into smaller committees, each of which processes a disjoint set of transactions (or "shards"). While sharding is common in non-byzantine settings, ELASTICO is the first candidate for a secure sharding protocol with presence of byzantine adversaries. Our scalability experiments on Amazon EC2 with up to $1, 600$ nodes confirm ELASTICO's theoretical scaling properties.

A Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains

In this paper, we consider the question of determining whether a function f has property P or is e-far from any function with property P. A property testing algorithm is given a sample of the value of f on instances drawn according to some distribution. In some cases, it is also allowed to query f on instances of its choice. We study this question for different properties and establish some connections to problems in learning theory and approximation.In particular, we focus our attention on testing graph properties. Given access to a graph G in the form of being able to query whether an edge exists or not between a pair of vertices, we devise algorithms to test whether the underlying graph has properties such as being bipartite, k-Colorable, or having a p-Clique (clique of density p with respect to the vertex set). Our graph property testing algorithms are probabilistic and make assertions that are correct with high probability, while making a number of queries that is independent of the size of the graph. Moreover, the property testing algorithms can be used to efficiently (i.e., in time linear in the number of vertices) construct partitions of the graph that correspond to the property being tested, if it holds for the input graph.

/pdf/property-testing-and-its-connection-to-learning-and-qc0s04qteh.pdf

Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews.

This paper presents the first fully dynamic algorithms for maintaining all-pairs shortest paths in digraphs with positive integer weights less than b. For approximate shortest paths with an error factor of (2+/spl epsiv/), for any positive constant /spl epsiv/, the amortized update time is O(n/sup 2/ log/sup 2/ n/log log n); for an error factor of (1+/spl epsiv/) the amortized update time is O(n/sup 2/ log/sup 3/ (bn)//spl epsiv//sup 2/). For exact shortest paths the amortized update time is O(n/sup 2.5/ /spl radic/(b log n)). Query time for exact and approximate shortest distances is O(1); exact time and approximate paths can be generated in time proportional to their lengths. Also presented is a fully dynamic transitive closure algorithm with update time O(n/sup 2/ log n) and query time O(1). The previously known fully dynamic transitive closure algorithm with fast query time has one-sided error and update time O(n/sup 2.28/). The algorithms use simple data structures, and are deterministic.

Fully dynamic algorithms for maintaining all-pairs shortest paths and transitive closure in digraphs

This paper solves a longstanding open problem in fully dynamic algorithms: We present the first fully dynamic algorithms that maintain connectivity, bipartiteness, and approximate minimum spanning trees in polylogarithmic time per edge insertion or deletion. The algorithms are designed using a new dynamic technique that combines a novel graph decomposition with randomization. They are Las-Vegas type randomized algorithms which use simple data structures and have a small constant factor.Let n denote the number of nodes in the graph. For a sequence of O(m0) operations, where m0 is the number of edges in the initial graph, the expected time for p updates is O(p log3n) (througout the paper the logarithms are based 2) for connectivity and bipartiteness. The worst-case time for one query is O(log n/log log n). For the k-edge witness problem (“Does the removal of k given edges disconnect the graph?”) the expected time for p updates is O(p log3n) and the expected time for q queries is O(qk log3n). Given a graph with k different weights, the minimum spanning tree can be maintained during a sequence of p updates in expected time O(pk log3n). This implies an algorithm to maintain a 1 + e-approximation of the minimum spanning tree in expected time O((p log3n logU)/e) for p updates, where the weights of the edges are between 1 and U.

/pdf/randomized-fully-dynamic-graph-algorithms-with-23h1l691x7.pdf

Randomized fully dynamic graph algorithms with polylogarithmic time per operation

The dynamic graph connectivity problem is the following: given a graph on a fixed set of n nodes which is undergoing a sequence of edge insertions and deletions, answer queries of the form q(a, b): "Is there a path between nodes a and b?" While data structures for this problem with polylogarithmic amortized time per operation have been known since the mid-1990's, these data structures have Θ(n) worst case time. In fact, no previously known solution has worst case time per operation which is o(√n).We present a solution with worst case times O(log4n) per edge insertion, O(log5n) per edge deletion, and O(log n/log log n) per query. The answer to each query is correct if the answer is "yes" and is correct with high probability if the answer is "no". The data structure is based on a simple novel idea which can be used to quickly identify an edge in a cutset.Our technique can be used to simplify and significantly speed up the preprocessing time for the emergency planning problem while matching previous bounds for an update, and to approximate the sizes of cutsets of dynamic graphs in time O(min{|S|, |V\S|}) for an oblivious adversary.

https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611973105.81

Dynamic graph connectivity in polylogarithmic worst case time

We describe a deterministic version of a 1990 Cheriyan, Hagerup, and Mehlhorn randomized algorithm for computing the maximum flow on a directed graph with n nodes and m edges which runs in time O(mn + n2+e, for any constant e. This improves upon Alon's 1989 bound of O(mn + n8/3log n) [A] and gives an O(mn) deterministic algorithm for all m > n1+e. Thus it extends the range of m/n for which an O(mn) algorithm is known, and matches the 1988 algorithm of Goldberg and Tarjan [GT] for smaller values of m/n.

Valerie King

Papers

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews.

Fully dynamic algorithms for maintaining all-pairs shortest paths and transitive closure in digraphs

Randomized fully dynamic graph algorithms with polylogarithmic time per operation

Dynamic graph connectivity in polylogarithmic worst case time

A faster deterministic maximum flow algorithm