On the complexity of #nding common approximate substrings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problems associated with #nding strings that are within a speci#ed Hamming distance of a given set of strings occur in several disciplines. In this paper, we use techniques from parameterized complexity to assess non-polynomial time algorithmic options and complexity for the COMMON APPROXIMATE SUBSTRING (CAS) problem. Our analyses indicate under which parameter restrictions useful algorithms are possible, and include both class membership and parameterized reductions to prove class hardness. In order to achieve #xed-parameter tractability, either a #xed string length or both a #xed size alphabet and #xed substring length are su7cient. Fixing either the string length or the alphabet size and Hamming distance is shown to be necessary, unless W [1] = FPT . An assortment of parameterized class membership and hardness results cover all other parameterized variants, showing in particular the e<ect of #xing the number of strings. c 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".