1,721,044 research outputs found
The longest filled common subsequence problem
Full text linkInspired by a recent approach for genome reconstruction from incomplete data, we consider a variant of the longest common subsequence problem for the comparison of two sequences, one of which is incomplete, i.e. it has some missing elements. The new combinatorial problem, called Longest Filled Common Subsequence, given two sequences A and B, and a multiset M of symbols missing in B, asks for a sequence B* obtained by inserting the symbols of M into B so that B* induces a common subsequence with A of maximum length. First, we investigate the computational and approximation complexity of the problem and we show that it is NP-hard and APX-hard when A contains at most two occurrences of each symbol. Then, we give a 3/5-approximation algorithm for the problem. Finally, we present a fixed-parameter algorithm, when the problem is parameterized by the number of symbols inserted in B that "match" symbols of A
Linear Time Construction of Cover Suffix Tree and Applications
Full text linkThe Cover Suffix Tree (CST) of a string T is the suffix tree of T with additional explicit nodes corresponding to halves of square substrings of T. In the CST an explicit node corresponding to a substring C of T is annotated with two numbers: the number of non-overlapping consecutive occurrences of C and the total number of positions in T that are covered by occurrences of C in T. Kociumaka et al. (Algorithmica, 2015) have shown how to compute the CST of a length-n string in (n log n) time. We give an algorithm that computes the same data structure in (n) time assuming that T is over an integer alphabet and discuss its implications.
A string C is a cover of text T if occurrences of C in T cover all positions of T; C is a seed of T if occurrences and overhangs (i.e., prefix-suffix occurrences) of C in T cover all positions of T. An α-partial cover (α-partial seed) of text T is a string C whose occurrences in T (occurrences and overhangs in T, respectively) cover at least α positions of T. Kociumaka et al. (Algorithmica, 2015; Theor. Comput. Sci., 2018) have shown that knowing the CST of a length-n string T, one can compute a linear-sized representation of all seeds of T as well as all shortest α-partial covers and seeds in T for a given α in (n) time. Thus our result implies linear-time algorithms computing these notions of quasiperiodicity. The resulting algorithm computing seeds is substantially different from the previous one (Kociumaka et al., SODA 2012, ACM Trans. Algorithms, 2020); in particular, it is non-recursive. Kociumaka et al. (Algorithmica, 2015) proposed an (n log n)-time algorithm for computing a shortest α-partial cover for each α = 1,…,n; we improve this complexity to (n).
Our results are based on a new combinatorial characterization of consecutive overlapping occurrences of a substring S of T in terms of the set of runs (see Kolpakov and Kucherov, FOCS 1999) in T. This new insight also leads to an (n)-sized index for reporting overlapping consecutive occurrences of a given pattern P of length m in the optimal (m+output) time, where output is the number of occurrences reported. In comparison, a general index for reporting bounded-gap consecutive occurrences of Navarro and Thankachan (Theor. Comput. Sci., 2016) uses (n log n) space
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
k-Approximate Quasiperiodicity under Hamming and Edit Distance
Full text linkQuasiperiodicity in strings was introduced almost 30 years ago as an extension of string periodicity. The basic notions of quasiperiodicity are cover and seed. A cover of a text T is a string whose occurrences in T cover all positions of T. A seed of text T is a cover of a superstring of T. In various applications exact quasiperiodicity is still not sufficient due to the presence of errors. We consider approximate notions of quasiperiodicity, for which we allow approximate occurrences in T with a small Hamming, Levenshtein or weighted edit distance.
In previous work Sip et al. (2002) and Christodoulakis et al. (2005) showed that computing approximate covers and seeds, respectively, under weighted edit distance is NP-hard. They, therefore, considered restricted approximate covers and seeds which need to be factors of the original string T and presented polynomial-time algorithms for computing them. Further algorithms, considering approximate occurrences with Hamming distance bounded by k, were given in several contributions by Guth et al. They also studied relaxed approximate quasiperiods that do not need to cover all positions of T.
In case of large data the exponents in polynomial time complexity play a crucial role. We present more efficient algorithms for computing restricted approximate covers and seeds. In particular, we improve upon the complexities of many of the aforementioned algorithms, also for relaxed quasiperiods. Our solutions are especially efficient if the number (or total cost) of allowed errors is bounded. We also show NP-hardness of computing non-restricted approximate covers and seeds under Hamming distance.
Approximate covers were studied in three recent contributions at CPM over the last three years. However, these works consider a different definition of an approximate cover of T, that is, the shortest exact cover of a string T' with the smallest Hamming distance from T
Efficient Computation of 2-Covers of a String
Full text linkQuasiperiodicity is a generalization of periodicity that has been researched for almost 30 years. The notion of cover is the classic variant of quasiperiodicity. A cover of a text T is a string whose occurrences in T cover all positions of T. There are several algorithms computing covers of a text in linear time. In this paper we consider a natural extension of cover. For a text T, we call a pair of strings a 2-cover if they have the same length and their occurrences cover the text T. We give an algorithm that computes all 2-covers of a string of length n in (n log n log log n + output) expected time or (n log n log² log n / log log log n + output) worst-case time, where output is the size of output.
If (X,Y) is a 2-cover of T, then either X is a prefix and Y is a suffix of T, in which case we call (X,Y) a ps-cover, or one of X, Y is a border (that is, both a prefix and a suffix) of T, and then we call (X,Y) a b-cover. A string of length n has up to n ps-covers; we show an algorithm that computes all of them in (n log log n) expected time or (n log² log n / log log log n) worst-case time. A string of length n can have Θ(n²) non-trivial b-covers; our algorithm can report one b-cover per length (if it exists) or all shortest b-covers in (n log n log log n) expected time or (n log n log² log n / log log log n) worst-case time. All our algorithms use linear space.
The problem in scope can be generalized to λ > 2 equal-length strings, resulting in the notion of λ-cover. Cole et al. (2005) showed that the λ-cover problem is NP-complete. Our algorithms generalize to λ-covers, with (the first component of) the algorithm’s complexity multiplied by n^{λ-2}
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
