skip to main content
research-article

Finding Consensus Strings with Small Length Difference between Input and Solution Strings

Published:18 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Closest Substring Problem is to decide, for given strings s1, … , sk of length at most ℓ and numbers m and d, whether there is a length-m string s and length-m substrings si of si, such that s has a Hamming distance of at most d from each si. If we instead require the sum of all the Hamming distances between s and each si to be bounded by d, then it is called the Consensus Patterns Problem. We contribute to the parameterised complexity analysis of these classical NP-hard string problems by investigating the parameter (ℓ − m), i.e., the length difference between input and solution strings. For most combinations of (ℓ − m) and one of the classical parameters (m, ℓ, k, or d), we obtain fixed-parameter tractability. However, even for constant (ℓ − m) and constant alphabet size, both problems remain NP-hard. While this follows from known results with respect to the Closest Substring, we need a new reduction in the case of the Consensus Patterns. As a by-product of this reduction, we obtain an exact exponential-time algorithm for both problems, which is based on an alphabet reduction.

References

  1. L. Bulteau, F. Hüffner, C. Komusiewicz, and R. Niedermeier. 2014. Multivariate algorithmics for NP-hard string problems. Bulletin of the EATCS 114 (2014), 31--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. A. Evans, A. D. Smith, and H. T. Wareham. 2003. On the complexity of finding common approximate substrings. Theoretical Computer Science 306 (2003), 407--430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. R. Fellows, J. Gramm, and R. Niedermeier. 2006. On the parameterized intractability of motif search problems. Combinatorica 26 (2006), 141--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Flum and M. Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Frances and A. Litman. 1997. On covering problems of codes. Theory of Computing Systems 30 (1997), 113--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. 1979. Computers and Intractability. W. H. Freeman and Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Gramm, R. Niedermeier, and P. Rossmanith. 2003. Fixed-parameter algorithms for CLOSEST STRING and related problems. Algorithmica 37 (2003), 25--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Marx. 2008. Closest substring problems with small distances. SIAM Journal on Computing 38 (2008), 1382--1410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. L. Schmid. 2015. Finding consensus strings with small length difference between input and solution strings. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (Part II) (MFCS’15) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9235. 542--554.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Finding Consensus Strings with Small Length Difference between Input and Solution Strings

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!