Researcher profile

Philip Wellnitz

Philip Wellnitz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Faster Pattern Matching under Edit Distance

We consider the approximate pattern matching problem under the edit distance. Given a text $T$ of length $n$, a pattern $P$ of length $m$, and a threshold $k$, the task is to find the starting positions of all substrings of $T$ that can be transformed to $P$ with at most $k$ edits. More than 20 years ago, Cole and Hariharan [SODA'98, J. Comput.'02] gave an $\mathcal{O}(n+k^4 \cdot n/ m)$-time algorithm for this classic problem, and this runtime has not been improved since. Here, we present an algorithm that runs in time $\mathcal{O}(n+k^{3.5} \sqrt{\log m \log k} \cdot n/m)$, thus breaking through this long-standing barrier. In the case where $n^{1/4+\varepsilon} \leq k \leq n^{2/5-\varepsilon}$ for some arbitrarily small positive constant $\varepsilon$, our algorithm improves over the state-of-the-art by polynomial factors: it is polynomially faster than both the algorithm of Cole and Hariharan and the classic $\mathcal{O}(kn)$-time algorithm of Landau and Vishkin [STOC'86, J. Algorithms'89]. We observe that the bottleneck case of the alternative $\mathcal{O}(n+k^4 \cdot n/m)$-time algorithm of Charalampopoulos, Kociumaka, and Wellnitz [FOCS'20] is when the text and the pattern are (almost) periodic. Our new algorithm reduces this case to a new dynamic problem (Dynamic Puzzle Matching), which we solve by building on tools developed by Tiskin [SODA'10, Algorithmica'15] for the so-called seaweed monoid of permutation matrices. Our algorithm relies only on a small set of primitive operations on strings and thus also applies to the fully-compressed setting (where text and pattern are given as straight-line programs) and to the dynamic setting (where we maintain a collection of strings under creation, splitting, and concatenation), improving over the state of the art.

preprint2020arXiv

Faster Minimization of Tardy Processing Time on a Single Machine

This paper is concerned with the $1||\sum p_jU_j$ problem, the problem of minimizing the total processing time of tardy jobs on a single machine. This is not only a fundamental scheduling problem, but also a very important problem from a theoretical point of view as it generalizes the Subset Sum problem and is closely related to the 0/1-Knapsack problem. The problem is well-known to be NP-hard, but only in a weak sense, meaning it admits pseudo-polynomial time algorithms. The fastest known pseudo-polynomial time algorithm for the problem is the famous Lawler and Moore algorithm which runs in $O(P \cdot n)$ time, where $P$ is the total processing time of all $n$ jobs in the input. This algorithm has been developed in the late 60s, and has yet to be improved to date. In this paper we develop two new algorithms for $1||\sum p_jU_j$, each improving on Lawler and Moore's algorithm in a different scenario. Both algorithms rely on basic primitive operations between sets of integers and vectors of integers for the speedup in their running times. The second algorithm relies on fast polynomial multiplication as its main engine, while for the first algorithm we define a new "skewed" version of $(\max,\min)$-convolution which is interesting in its own right.