Polynomial-time equivalences and refined algorithms for longest common subsequence variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of computing the longest common subsequence of two sequences ( LCS for short) is a classical and fundamental problem in computer science. In this article, we study four variants of LCS : the Repetition-Bounded Longest Common Subsequence problem ( RBLCS ), the Multiset-Restricted Common Subsequence problem ( MRCS ), the Two-Side-Filled Longest Common Subsequence problem ( 2FLCS ), and the One-Side-Filled Longest Common Subsequence problem ( 1FLCS ). Although the original LCS can be solved in polynomial time, all these four variants are known to be NP-hard. Recently, an exact, O ( 1 . 4422 5 n ) -time, dynamic programming (DP) based algorithm for RBLCS was proposed, where the two input sequences have lengths n and p o l y ( n ) . Here, we first establish that each of MRCS , 1FLCS , and 2FLCS is polynomially equivalent to RBLCS . Then, we design a refined DP-based algorithm for RBLCS that runs in O ( 1 . 4142 2 n ) time, which implies that MRCS , 1FLCS , and 2FLCS can also be solved in O ( 1 . 4142 2 n ) time. Finally, we give a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm for 2FLCS .
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".