<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Microsoft Research</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research</provider_url><author_name>Tricia Mayer</author_name><author_url>https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/people/tmayer/</author_url><title>Dynamic Trees in Practice - Microsoft Research</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="TctNymBhpn"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/dynamic-trees-in-practice/"&gt;Dynamic Trees in Practice&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/dynamic-trees-in-practice/embed/#?secret=TctNymBhpn" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Dynamic Trees in Practice&#x201D; &#x2014; Microsoft Research" data-secret="TctNymBhpn" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
//# sourceURL=https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>Dynamic tree data structures maintain forests that change over time through edge insertions and deletions. Besides maintaining connectivity information in logarithmic time, they can support aggregation of information over paths, trees, or both. We perform an experimental comparison of several versions of dynamic trees: ST-trees, ET-trees, RC-trees, and two variants of top trees (self-adjusting and [&hellip;]</description></oembed>
