Paper detail

Which Regular Expression Patterns are Hard to Match?

Regular expressions constitute a fundamental notion in formal language theory and are frequently used in computer science to define search patterns. A classic algorithm for these problems constructs and simulates a non-deterministic finite automaton corresponding to the expression, resulting in an $O(mn)$ running time (where $m$ is the length of the pattern and $n$ is the length of the text). This running time can be improved slightly (by a polylogarithmic factor), but no significantly faster solutions are known. At the same time, much faster algorithms exist for various special cases of regular expressions, including dictionary matching, wildcard matching, subset matching, word break problem etc. In this paper, we show that the complexity of regular expression matching can be characterized based on its {\em depth} (when interpreted as a formula). Our results hold for expressions involving concatenation, OR, Kleene star and Kleene plus. For regular expressions of depth two (involving any combination of the above operators), we show the following dichotomy: matching and membership testing can be solved in near-linear time, except for "concatenations of stars", which cannot be solved in strongly sub-quadratic time assuming the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH). For regular expressions of depth three the picture is more complex. Nevertheless, we show that all problems can either be solved in strongly sub-quadratic time, or cannot be solved in strongly sub-quadratic time assuming SETH. An intriguing special case of membership testing involves regular expressions of the form "a star of an OR of concatenations", e.g., $[a|ab|bc]^*$. This corresponds to the so-called {\em word break} problem, for which a dynamic programming algorithm with a runtime of (roughly) $O(n\sqrt{m})$ is known. We show that the latter bound is not tight and improve the runtime to $O(nm^{0.44\ldots})$.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.