Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 39 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 12 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 18 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 91 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 191 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 456 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A Fast Randomized Algorithm for Finding the Maximal Common Subsequences (2009.03352v1)

Published 7 Sep 2020 in cs.DS, cs.AI, cs.CC, and cs.LG

Abstract: Finding the common subsequences of $L$ multiple strings has many applications in the area of bioinformatics, computational linguistics, and information retrieval. A well-known result states that finding a Longest Common Subsequence (LCS) for $L$ strings is NP-hard, e.g., the computational complexity is exponential in $L$. In this paper, we develop a randomized algorithm, referred to as {\em Random-MCS}, for finding a random instance of Maximal Common Subsequence ($MCS$) of multiple strings. A common subsequence is {\em maximal} if inserting any character into the subsequence no longer yields a common subsequence. A special case of MCS is LCS where the length is the longest. We show the complexity of our algorithm is linear in $L$, and therefore is suitable for large $L$. Furthermore, we study the occurrence probability for a single instance of MCS and demonstrate via both theoretical and experimental studies that the longest subsequence from multiple runs of {\em Random-MCS} often yields a solution to $LCS$.

Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)