Paper detail

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 $X_1,\dots,X_k$ of length at most $n$, the task is to determine the length of the longest common subsequence of $X_1,\dots,X_k$ 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 (1) to rule out $O((nL)^{1-\varepsilon})$ time algorithms for LCIS, where $L$ denotes the solution size, (2) to rule out $O(n^{k-\varepsilon})$ time algorithms for $k$-LCIS, and (3) to follow already from weaker variants of SETH. We obtain the same conditional lower bounds for the related Longest Common Weakly Increasing Subsequence problem.

preprint2017arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.