Iterative Probabilistic Tree Search for the Minimum Common String Partition Problem

An Integer Programming Formulation of the Minimum Common String Partition Problem

“…The first 10 (Group1) have lengths less than or equal to 200 bps (base-pairs), the next 10 (Group2) have lengths within [201, 400] and the rest 10 (Group3) have lengths within [401, 600] bps. Notably, these datases are also used for experimentation and analysis by researchers in recent papers [13, 14]. …”

“…In [13], the authors have compared their two versions of iterative probabilistic tree search (TS1 and TS2) with Greedy and MMAS. Here we report only the best of the two tree search solutions (henceforth referred to as TS).…”

“…Recently in [14], the authors have compared the results of their ILP formulation () with Greedy, MMAS and TS. Here, we compare our ILP formulation, i.e., with MMAS [4, 19, 20], TS [13] and [14]. As for the greedy algorithm, we have considered the improved greedy approach in [12] (henceforth labelled as Greedy).…”

“…For each group the first column is the instance number. The second, third and forth columns represent the common partition size by Greedy [12], MMAS [19] and TS [13] respectively. The fifth to eighth column summarize the results of .…”

“…For each group we have shown the average partition size dynamics with respect to time. The three points (“*”,“+”,“o”) in each of the figures are the plots of average partition size vs. the average time needed to achieve that partition size for MMAS, TS1 and TS2 approach respectively (data taken from [13], [19]). The dashed line represents the Greedy partition size.…”