A New Algorithm for Subset Matching Problem Based on Set-String Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In computer engineering, a number of programming tasks involve a special problem, the so-called tree matching problem (Cole & Hariharan, 1997), as a crucial step, such as the design of interpreters for nonprocedural programming languages, automatic implementation of abstract data types, code optimization in compilers, symbolic computation, context searching in structure editors and automatic theorem proving. Recently, it has been shown that this problem can be transformed in linear time to another problem, the so called subset matching problem (Cole & Hariharan, 2002, 2003), which is to find all occurrences of a pattern string p of length m in a text string t of length n, where each pattern and text position is a set of characters drawn from some alphabet S. The pattern is said to occur at text position i if the set p[j] is a subset of the set t[i + j - 1], for all j (1 = j = m). This is a generalization of the ordinary string matching and is of interest since an efficient algorithm for this problem implies an efficient solution to the tree matching problem. In addition, as shown in (Indyk, 1997), this problem can also be used to solve general string matching and counting matching (Muthukrishan, 1997; Muthukrishan & Palem, 1994), and enables us to design efficient algorithms for several geometric pattern matching problems. In this article, we propose a new algorithm on this issue, which needs only O(n + m) time in the case that the size of S is small and O(n + m·n0.5) time on average in general cases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".