On the maximal sum of exponents of runs in a string

A run is an inclusion maximal occurrence in a string (as a subinterval) of a repetition $v$ with a period $p$ such that $2p \le |v|$. The exponent of a run is defined as $|v|/p$ and is $\ge 2$. We show new bounds on the maximal sum of exponents of runs in a string of length $n$. Our upper bound of $4.1n$ is better than the best previously known proven bound of $5.6n$ by Crochemore & Ilie (2008). The lower bound of $2.035n$, obtained using a family of binary words, contradicts the conjecture of Kolpakov & Kucherov (1999) that the maximal sum of exponents of runs in a string of length $n$ is smaller than $2n$Comment: 7 pages, 1 figur

Understanding maximal repetitions in strings

The cornerstone of any algorithm computing all repetitions in a string of length n in O(n) time is the fact that the number of runs (or maximal repetitions) is O(n). We give a simple proof of this result. As a consequence of our approach, the stronger result concerning the linearity of the sum of exponents of all runs follows easily

Near-Optimal Computation of Runs over General Alphabet via Non-Crossing LCE Queries

Longest common extension queries (LCE queries) and runs are ubiquitous in algorithmic stringology. Linear-time algorithms computing runs and preprocessing for constant-time LCE queries have been known for over a decade. However, these algorithms assume a linearly-sortable integer alphabet. A recent breakthrough paper by Bannai et.\ al.\ (SODA 2015) showed a link between the two notions: all the runs in a string can be computed via a linear number of LCE queries. The first to consider these problems over a general ordered alphabet was Kosolobov (\emph{Inf.\ Process.\ Lett.}, 2016), who presented an $O(n (\log n)^{2/3})$-time algorithm for answering $O(n)$ LCE queries. This result was improved by Gawrychowski et.\ al.\ (accepted to CPM 2016) to $O(n \log \log n)$ time. In this work we note a special \emph{non-crossing} property of LCE queries asked in the runs computation. We show that any $n$ such non-crossing queries can be answered on-line in $O(n \alpha(n))$ time, which yields an $O(n \alpha(n))$-time algorithm for computing runs

Lempel-Ziv Factorization May Be Harder Than Computing All Runs

The complexity of computing the Lempel-Ziv factorization and the set of all runs (= maximal repetitions) is studied in the decision tree model of computation over ordered alphabet. It is known that both these problems can be solved by RAM algorithms in $O(n\log\sigma)$ time, where $n$ is the length of the input string and $\sigma$ is the number of distinct letters in it. We prove an $\Omega(n\log\sigma)$ lower bound on the number of comparisons required to construct the Lempel-Ziv factorization and thereby conclude that a popular technique of computation of runs using the Lempel-Ziv factorization cannot achieve an $o(n\log\sigma)$ time bound. In contrast with this, we exhibit an $O(n)$ decision tree algorithm finding all runs in a string. Therefore, in the decision tree model the runs problem is easier than the Lempel-Ziv factorization. Thus we support the conjecture that there is a linear RAM algorithm finding all runs.Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures, submitte

On the maximal number of cubic subwords in a string

We investigate the problem of the maximum number of cubic subwords (of the form $www$) in a given word. We also consider square subwords (of the form $ww$). The problem of the maximum number of squares in a word is not well understood. Several new results related to this problem are produced in the paper. We consider two simple problems related to the maximum number of subwords which are squares or which are highly repetitive; then we provide a nontrivial estimation for the number of cubes. We show that the maximum number of squares $xx$ such that $x$ is not a primitive word (nonprimitive squares) in a word of length $n$ is exactly $\lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor - 1$, and the maximum number of subwords of the form $x^k$, for $k\ge 3$, is exactly $n-2$. In particular, the maximum number of cubes in a word is not greater than $n-2$ either. Using very technical properties of occurrences of cubes, we improve this bound significantly. We show that the maximum number of cubes in a word of length $n$ is between $(1/2)n$ and $(4/5)n$. (In particular, we improve the lower bound from the conference version of the paper.)Comment: 14 page