Approximability of Longest Run Subsequence and Complementary Minimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the polynomial-time approximability of the Longest Run Subsequence problem (LRS for short) and its complementary minimization variant Minimum Run Subsequence Deletion problem (MRSD for short). For a string S = s₁ ⋯ s_n over an alphabet Σ, a subsequence S' of S is S' = s_{i₁} ⋯ s_{i_p}, such that 1 ≤ i₁ < i₂ < … < i_p ≤ |S|. A run of a symbol σ ∈ Σ in S is a maximal substring of consecutive occurrences of σ. A run subsequence S' of S is a subsequence of S in which every symbol σ ∈ Σ occurs in at most one run. The co-subsequence ̅{S'} of the subsequence S' = s_{i₁} ⋯ s_{i_p} in S is the subsequence obtained by deleting all the characters in S' from S, i.e., ̅{S'} = s_{j₁} ⋯ s_{j_{n-p}} such that j₁ < j₂ < … < j_{n-p} and {j₁, …, j_{n-p}} = {1, …, n}⧵ {i₁, …, i_p}. Given a string S, the goal of LRS (resp., MRSD) is to find a run subsequence S^* of S such that the length |S^*| is maximized (resp., the number | ̅{S^*}| of deleted symbols from S is minimized) over all the run subsequences of S. Let k be the maximum number of symbol occurrences in the input S. It is known that LRS and MRSD are APX-hard even if k = 2. In this paper, we show that LRS can be approximated in polynomial time within factors of (k+2)/3 for k = 2 or 3, and 2(k+1)/5 for every k ≥ 4. Furthermore, we show that MRSD can be approximated in linear time within a factor of (k+4)/4 if k is even and (k+3)/4 if k is odd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".