Advertisement

Heaviest increasing/common subsequence problems

  • Guy Jacobson
  • Kiem-Phong Vo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 644)

Abstract

In this paper, we define the heaviest increasing subsequence (HIS) and heaviest common subsequence (HCS) problems as natural generalizations of the well-studied longest increasing subsequence (LIS) and longest common subsequence (LCS) problems. We show how the famous Robinson-Schensted correspondence between permutations and pairs of Young tableaux can be extended to compute heaviest increasing subsequences. Then, we point out a simple weight-preserving correspondence between the HIS and HCS problems. ¿ From this duality between the two problems, the Hunt-Szymanski LCS algorithm can be seen as a special case of the Robinson-Schensted algorithm. Our HIS algorithm immediately gives rise to a Hunt-Szymanski type of algorithm for HCS with the same time complexity. When weights are position-independent, we can exploit the structure inherent in the HIS-HCS correspondence to further refine the algorithm. This gives rise to a specialized HCS algorithm of the same type as the Apostolico-Guerra LCS algorithm.

Keywords

Weight Function Edit Distance Young Tableau Plane Partition Position List 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. V. Aho, D. S. Hirschberg, and J. D. Ullman. Bounds on the complexity of the longest common subsequence problem. JACM, 23(1):1–12, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Apostolico and C Guerra. The longest common subsequence problem revisited. Algorithmica, 2:315–336, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Francis Y. L. Chin and C. K. Poon. A fast algorithm for computing longest common subsequences of small alphabet size. Journal of Information Processing, 13(4):463–469, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michael L. Fredman. On computing the length of longest increasing subsequences. Discrete Mathematics, 11:29–35, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Gansner. Matrix Correspondences and the Enumeration of Plane Partitions. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Golumbic. Algorithmic Graph Theory and Perfect Graphs. Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daniel S. Hirschberg. A linear space algorithm for computing maximal common subsequences. CACM, 18(6):341–343, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniel S. Hirschberg. Algorithms for the longest common subsequence problem. JACM, 24(4):664–675, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. J. Hsu and M. W. Du. New algorithms for the LCS problem. JCSS, 29:133–152, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. W. Hunt and M. D. McIlroy. An algorithm for differential file comparison. Computer Science Technical Report 41, Bell Laboratories, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    James W. Hunt and Thomas G. Szymanski. A fast algorithm for computing longest common subsequences. CACM, 20(5):350–353, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming, volume 3. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    William J. Masek and Michael S. Patterson. A faster algorithm computing string edit distances. JCSS, 20:18–31, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eugene W. Myers. An O(ND) difference algorithm and its variations. Algorithmica, 1:251–266, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Nakatsu, Y. Kambayashi, and S. Yajima. A longest common subsequence algorithm suitable for similar text strings. Acta Informatica, 18:171–179, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. De B. Robinson. On the representations of the symmetric group. American J. Math., 60:745–760, 1938.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Sankoff and J.B. Kruskal. Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparisons. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Schensted. Largest increasing and decreasing subsequences. Canadian J. Math., 13:179–191, 1961.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Sleator and R. Tarjan. Self-adjusting binary trees. JACM, 32:652–686, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Stanley. Theory and applications of plane partitions. Stud. Applied Math., 50:259–279, 1971.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K.-P. Vo. More <curses>: the <screen> library. Technical report, AT&T Bell Laboratories, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K.-P. Vo and R. Whitney. Tableaux and matrix correspondences. J. of Comb. Theory, Series A, 35:323–359, 1983.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. A. Wagner and M. J. Fischer. The string-to-string correction problem. JACM, 21(1):168–173, 1974.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sun Wu, Udi Manber, Gene Myers, and Webb Miller. An O(NP) sequence comparison algorithm. Information Processing Letters, 35(6):317–323, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Young. The collected papers of alfred young. Math. Exp., 21, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Jacobson
    • 1
  • Kiem-Phong Vo
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesMurray Hill

Personalised recommendations