2019
DOI: 10.4230/lipics.icalp.2019.55
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Complexity of String Matching for Graphs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For Problem 2 we provide a hardness result based on SETH, which is frequently used for establishing conditional optimality of polynomial time algorithms [1,7,13,18,19,24]. We refer the reader to [43] for the definition of SETH and for the reduction to the Orthogonal Vectors problem (OV), which is utilized to prove Theorem 2.…”
Section: Technical Background and Our Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For Problem 2 we provide a hardness result based on SETH, which is frequently used for establishing conditional optimality of polynomial time algorithms [1,7,13,18,19,24]. We refer the reader to [43] for the definition of SETH and for the reduction to the Orthogonal Vectors problem (OV), which is utilized to prove Theorem 2.…”
Section: Technical Background and Our Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(this paper) NO Strongly Sub-O(|E|m) Alg. NP-Complete • General graphs [13,19] • General graphs: (including DAGs with Substitutions/Edits to vertex labels [6,25] Hard total degree ≤ 3)…”
Section: Exact Matching Approximate Matching Solvable In Linear Timementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Before diving into compressed indexes for labeled graphs, we spend a paragraph on the complexity of matching strings on labeled graphs. The main results in this direction are due to Backurs and Indyk [51] and to Equi et al [52][53][54], and considered the on-line version of the problem: both pre-processing and query time are counted towards the total running time. The former work [51] proved that, unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH) [55] is false, in the worst case no algorithm can match a regular expression of size e against a string of length m in time O((m • e) 1−δ ), for any constant δ > 0.…”
Section: Conditional Lower Boundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When L is represented as an NFA (equivalently, a regular expression) of size m, existing on-line algorithms [3] solve the problem in O(πm) time, π being the length of the query pattern. Recent lower bounds by Backurs and Indyk [4], Equi et al [8,7], Potechin and Shallit [16], and Gibney [11] show that, unless important conjectures such as the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH) [12] fail, this complexity cannot be significantly improved. This holds even in the off-line setting (the subject matter of our work) where L can be pre-processed in an index in polynomial time and the complexity is measured in terms of query times [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%