Computing the minimum k-Cover of a string

We study the minimum k-cover problem. For a given string x of length n and an integer k, the minimum k-cover is the minimum set of k-substrings that covers x. We show that the on-line algorithm that has been proposed by Iliopoulos and Smyth [IS92] is not correct. We prove that the problem is in fact NP-hard. Furthermore, we propose two greedy algorithms that are implemented and tested on different kind of data

Efficient Seeds Computation Revisited

The notion of the cover is a generalization of a period of a string, and there are linear time algorithms for finding the shortest cover. The seed is a more complicated generalization of periodicity, it is a cover of a superstring of a given string, and the shortest seed problem is of much higher algorithmic difficulty. The problem is not well understood, no linear time algorithm is known. In the paper we give linear time algorithms for some of its versions --- computing shortest left-seed array, longest left-seed array and checking for seeds of a given length. The algorithm for the last problem is used to compute the seed array of a string (i.e., the shortest seeds for all the prefixes of the string) in $O(n^2)$ time. We describe also a simpler alternative algorithm computing efficiently the shortest seeds. As a by-product we obtain an $O(n\log{(n/m)})$ time algorithm checking if the shortest seed has length at least $m$ and finding the corresponding seed. We also correct some important details missing in the previously known shortest-seed algorithm (Iliopoulos et al., 1996).Comment: 14 pages, accepted to CPM 201

NP-hardness of circuit minimization for multi-output functions

Can we design efficient algorithms for finding fast algorithms? This question is captured by various circuit minimization problems, and algorithms for the corresponding tasks have significant practical applications. Following the work of Cook and Levin in the early 1970s, a central question is whether minimizing the circuit size of an explicitly given function is NP-complete. While this is known to hold in restricted models such as DNFs, making progress with respect to more expressive classes of circuits has been elusive. In this work, we establish the first NP-hardness result for circuit minimization of total functions in the setting of general (unrestricted) Boolean circuits. More precisely, we show that computing the minimum circuit size of a given multi-output Boolean function f : {0,1}^n ? {0,1}^m is NP-hard under many-one polynomial-time randomized reductions. Our argument builds on a simpler NP-hardness proof for the circuit minimization problem for (single-output) Boolean functions under an extended set of generators. Complementing these results, we investigate the computational hardness of minimizing communication. We establish that several variants of this problem are NP-hard under deterministic reductions. In particular, unless ? = ??, no polynomial-time computable function can approximate the deterministic two-party communication complexity of a partial Boolean function up to a polynomial. This has consequences for the class of structural results that one might hope to show about the communication complexity of partial functions

Approaching MCSP from Above and Below: Hardness for a Conditional Variant and AC^0[p]

The Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) asks whether a given Boolean function has a circuit of at most a given size. MCSP has been studied for over a half-century and has deep connections throughout theoretical computer science including to cryptography, computational learning theory, and proof complexity. For example, we know (informally) that if MCSP is easy to compute, then most cryptography can be broken. Despite this cryptographic hardness connection and extensive research, we still know relatively little about the hardness of MCSP unconditionally. Indeed, until very recently it was unknown whether MCSP can be computed in AC^0[2] (Golovnev et al., ICALP 2019). Our main contribution in this paper is to formulate a new "oracle" variant of circuit complexity and prove that this problem is NP-complete under randomized reductions. In more detail, we define the Minimum Oracle Circuit Size Problem (MOCSP) that takes as input the truth table of a Boolean function f, a size threshold s, and the truth table of an oracle Boolean function O, and determines whether there is a circuit with O-oracle gates and at most s wires that computes f. We prove that MOCSP is NP-complete under randomized polynomial-time reductions. We also extend the recent AC^0[p] lower bound against MCSP by Golovnev et al. to a lower bound against the circuit minimization problem for depth-d formulas, (AC^0_d)-MCSP. We view this result as primarily a technical contribution. In particular, our proof takes a radically different approach from prior MCSP-related hardness results

Computing Runs on a General Alphabet

We describe a RAM algorithm computing all runs (maximal repetitions) of a given string of length $n$ over a general ordered alphabet in $O(n\log^{\frac{2}3} n)$ time and linear space. Our algorithm outperforms all known solutions working in $\Theta(n\log\sigma)$ time provided $\sigma = n^{\Omega(1)}$, where $\sigma$ is the alphabet size. We conjecture that there exists a linear time RAM algorithm finding all runs.Comment: 4 pages, 2 figure

Hamming Approximation of NP Witnesses

Given a satisfiable 3-SAT formula, how hard is it to find an assignment to the variables that has Hamming distance at most n/2 to a satisfying assignment? More generally, consider any polynomial-time verifier for any NP-complete language. A d(n)-Hamming-approximation algorithm for the verifier is one that, given any member x of the language, outputs in polynomial time a string a with Hamming distance at most d(n) to some witness w, where (x,w) is accepted by the verifier. Previous results have shown that, if P != NP, then every NP-complete language has a verifier for which there is no (n/2-n^(2/3+d))-Hamming-approximation algorithm, for various constants d > 0. Our main result is that, if P != NP, then every paddable NP-complete language has a verifier that admits no (n/2+O(sqrt(n log n)))-Hamming-approximation algorithm. That is, one cannot get even half the bits right. We also consider natural verifiers for various well-known NP-complete problems. They do have n/2-Hamming-approximation algorithms, but, if P != NP, have no (n/2-n^epsilon)-Hamming-approximation algorithms for any constant epsilon > 0. We show similar results for randomized algorithms