Tight Conditional Lower Bounds for Longest Common Increasing Subsequence

We consider the canonical generalization of the well-studied Longest Increasing Subsequence problem to multiple sequences, called k-LCIS: Given k integer sequences X_1,...,X_k of length at most n, the task is to determine the length of the longest common subsequence of X_1,...,X_k that is also strictly increasing. Especially for the case of k=2 (called LCIS for short), several algorithms have been proposed that require quadratic time in the worst case. Assuming the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH), we prove a tight lower bound, specifically, that no algorithm solves LCIS in (strongly) subquadratic time. Interestingly, the proof makes no use of normalization tricks common to hardness proofs for similar problems such as LCS. We further strengthen this lower bound to rule out O((nL)^{1-epsilon}) time algorithms for LCIS, where L denotes the solution size, and to rule out O(n^{k-epsilon}) time algorithms for k-LCIS. We obtain the same conditional lower bounds for the related Longest Common Weakly Increasing Subsequence problem

Multivariate Fine-Grained Complexity of Longest Common Subsequence

We revisit the classic combinatorial pattern matching problem of finding a longest common subsequence (LCS). For strings $x$ and $y$ of length $n$, a textbook algorithm solves LCS in time $O(n^2)$, but although much effort has been spent, no $O(n^{2-\varepsilon})$-time algorithm is known. Recent work indeed shows that such an algorithm would refute the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH) [Abboud, Backurs, Vassilevska Williams + Bringmann, K\"unnemann FOCS'15]. Despite the quadratic-time barrier, for over 40 years an enduring scientific interest continued to produce fast algorithms for LCS and its variations. Particular attention was put into identifying and exploiting input parameters that yield strongly subquadratic time algorithms for special cases of interest, e.g., differential file comparison. This line of research was successfully pursued until 1990, at which time significant improvements came to a halt. In this paper, using the lens of fine-grained complexity, our goal is to (1) justify the lack of further improvements and (2) determine whether some special cases of LCS admit faster algorithms than currently known. To this end, we provide a systematic study of the multivariate complexity of LCS, taking into account all parameters previously discussed in the literature: the input size $n:=\max\{|x|,|y|\}$, the length of the shorter string $m:=\min\{|x|,|y|\}$, the length $L$ of an LCS of $x$ and $y$, the numbers of deletions $\delta := m-L$ and $\Delta := n-L$, the alphabet size, as well as the numbers of matching pairs $M$ and dominant pairs $d$. For any class of instances defined by fixing each parameter individually to a polynomial in terms of the input size, we prove a SETH-based lower bound matching one of three known algorithms. Specifically, we determine the optimal running time for LCS under SETH as $(n+\min\{d, \delta \Delta, \delta m\})^{1\pm o(1)}$. [...]Comment: Presented at SODA'18. Full Version. 66 page

Computing longest common square subsequences

A square is a non-empty string of form YY. The longest common square subsequence (LCSqS) problem is to compute a longest square occurring as a subsequence in two given strings A and B. We show that the problem can easily be solved in O(n^6) time or O(|M|n^4) time with O(n^4) space, where n is the length of the strings and M is the set of matching points between A and B. Then, we show that the problem can also be solved in O(sigma |M|^3 + n) time and O(|M|^2 + n) space, or in O(|M|^3 log^2 n log log n + n) time with O(|M|^3 + n) space, where sigma is the number of distinct characters occurring in A and B. We also study lower bounds for the LCSqS problem for two or more strings