Hardness of Approximation of (Multi-)LCS over Small Alphabet

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Abstract

The problem of finding longest common subsequence (LCS) is one of the fundamental problems in computer science, which finds application in fields such as computational biology, text processing, information retrieval, data compression etc. It is well known that (decision version of) the problem of finding the length of a LCS of an arbitrary number of input sequences (which we refer to as Multi-LCS problem) is NP-complete. Jiang and Li [SICOMP'95] showed that if Max-Clique is hard to approximate within a factor of ss then Multi-LCS is also hard to approximate within a factor of Θ(s)Θ(s). By the NP-hardness of the problem of approximating Max-Clique by Zuckerman [ToC'07], for any constant δ>0δ>0, the length of a LCS of arbitrary number of input sequences of length nn each, cannot be approximated within an n1−δn^{1-δ}-factor in polynomial time unless {\tt{P}}=={\NP}. However, the reduction of Jiang and Li assumes the alphabet size to be Ω(n)Ω(n). So far no hardness result is known for the problem of approximating Multi-LCS over sub-linear sized alphabet. On the other hand, it is easy to get 1/∣Σ∣1/|Σ|-factor approximation for strings of alphabet ΣΣ. In this paper, we make a significant progress towards proving hardness of approximation over small alphabet by showing a polynomial-time reduction from the well-studied \emph{densest kk-subgraph} problem with {\em perfect completeness} to approximating Multi-LCS over alphabet of size poly(n/k)poly(n/k). As a consequence, from the known hardness result of densest kk-subgraph problem (e.g. [Manurangsi, STOC'17]) we get that no polynomial-time algorithm can give an n−o(1)n^{-o(1)}-factor approximation of Multi-LCS over an alphabet of size no(1)n^{o(1)}, unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis is false.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.