Michael Mitzenmacher
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we provide new approximation algorithms for dynamic variations of the longest increasing subsequence (LIS) problem, and the complementary distance to monotonicity (DTM) problem. In this setting, operations of the following form arrive sequentially: (i) add an element, (ii) remove an element, or (iii) substitute an element for another. At every point in time, the algorithm has an approximation to the longest increasing subsequence (or distance to monotonicity). We present a (1+є)-approximation algorithm for DTM with polylogarithmic worst-case update time and a constant factor approximation algorithm for LIS with worst-case update time Õ(n є) for any constant є > 0.
- N. Ailon, B. Chazelle, S. Comandur, and D. Liu. Estimating the distance to a monotone function. In RANDOM 2004.Google Scholar
- A. Andoni and H. L. Nguyen. Near-optimal sublinear time algorithms for ulam distance. In SODA 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Assadi, K. Onak, B. Schieber, and S. Solomon. Fully dynamic maximal independent set with sublinear in n update time. In SODA 2019.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Assadi, K. Onak, B. Schieber, and S. Solomon. Fully dynamic maximal independent set with sublinear update time. In STOC 2018.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Behnezhad, M. Derakhshan, M. Hajiaghayi, C. Stein, and M. Sudan. Fully dynamic maximal independent set with polylogarithmic update time. In FOCS 2019.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Boroujeni, S. Ehsani, M. Ghodsi, M. HajiAghayi, and S. Seddighin. Approximating edit distance in truly subquadratic time: Quantum and mapreduce. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1170–1189. SIAM, 2018.Google Scholar
- M. Boroujeni, M. Seddighin, and S. Seddighin. Improved algorithms for edit distance and lcs: Beyond worst case. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1601–1620. SIAM, 2020.Google Scholar
- M. Boroujeni and S. Seddighin. Improved MPC algorithms for edit distance and ulam distance. In SPAA 2019.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Chakraborty, D. Das, E. Goldenberg, M. Koucky, and M. Saks. Approximating edit distance within constant factor in truly sub-quadratic time. In 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 979–990. IEEE, 2018.Google Scholar
- A. Chen, T. Chu, and N. Pinsker. The dynamic longest increasing subsequence problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.7724, 2013.Google Scholar
- G. Cormode, M. Mitzenmacher, and J. Thaler. Streaming graph computations with a helpful advisor. In ESA 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Dasgupta, C. H. Papadimitriou, and U. V. Vazirani. Algorithms. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Dodis, O. Goldreich, E. Lehman, S. Raskhodnikova, D. Ron, and A. Samorodnitsky. Improved testing algorithms for monotonicity. In RANDOM-APPROX 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Ergün, S. Kannan, R. Kumar, R. Rubinfeld, and M. Viswanathan. Spot-checkers. In STOC 1998.Google Scholar
- E. Fischer. The art of uninformed decisions. Bulletin of the EATCS, 75:97, 2001.Google Scholar
- M. L. Fredman. On computing the length of longest increasing subsequences. Discrete Mathematics, 11(1):29–35, 1975.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Gál and P. Gopalan. Lower bounds on streaming algorithms for approximating the length of the longest increasing subsequence. In FOCS 2007.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Gawrychowski, A. Karczmarz, T. Kociumaka, J. Łącki, and P. Sankowski. Optimal dynamic strings. In SODA 2018.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Gopalan, T. S. Jayram, R. Krauthgamer, and R. Kumar. Estimating the sortedness of a data stream. In SODA 2007.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Hajiaghayi, S. Seddighin, and X. Sun. Massively parallel approximation algorithms for edit distance and longest common subsequence. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1654–1672. SIAM, 2019.Google Scholar
- Y. Han and M. Thorup. Integer sorting in o(n√log log n) expected time and linear space. In FOCS 2002.Google Scholar
- M. Henzinger, S. Krinninger, D. Nanongkai, and T. Saranurak. Unifying and strengthening hardness for dynamic problems via the online matrix-vector multiplication conjecture. In STOC 2015.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Im, B. Moseley, and X. Sun. Efficient massively parallel methods for dynamic programming. In STOC 2017.Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Jacobson and K.-P. Vo. Heaviest increasing/common subsequence problems. In Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching, pages 52–66. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
- J. Lacki, J. Ocwieja, M. Pilipczuk, P. Sankowski, and A. Zych. The power of dynamic distance oracles: Efficient dynamic algorithms for the steiner tree. In STOC 2015.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Nanongkai and T. Saranurak. Dynamic spanning forest with worst-case update time: adaptive, las vegas, and o(n^1/2-∊)-time. In STOC 2017.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Nanongkai, T. Saranurak, and C. Wulff-Nilsen. Dynamic minimum spanning forest with subpolynomial worst-case update time. In FOCS 2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Naumovitz, M. E. Saks, and C. Seshadhri. Accurate and nearly optimal sublinear approximations to ulam distance. In SODA 2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Patrascu and M. Thorup. Dynamic integer sets with optimal rank, select, and predecessor search. In FOCS 2014.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Ramanan. Tight ω (n log n) lower bound for finding a longest increasing subsequence. International journal of computer mathematics, 65(3-4):161–164, 1997.Google Scholar
- A. Runbinstein, S. Seddighin, Z. Song, and X. Sun. Approximation algorithms for LCS and LIS with truly improved running times. In FOCS, 2019.Google Scholar
- M. Saks and C. Seshadhri. Estimating the longest increasing sequence in polylogarithmic time. In FOCS, 2010.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Thorup. Equivalence between priority queues and sorting. In FOCS 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Thorup. Integer priority queues with decrease key in constant time and the single source shortest paths problem. In STOC 2003.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Dynamic algorithms for LIS and distance to monotonicity
Recommendations
Approximating text-to-pattern Hamming distances
STOC 2020: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of ComputingWe revisit a fundamental problem in string matching: given a pattern of length m and a text of length n, both over an alphabet of size σ, compute the Hamming distance (i.e., the number of mismatches) between the pattern and the text at every location. ...
A polylogarithmic space deterministic streaming algorithm for approximating distance to monotonicity
SODA '15: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithmsThe distance to monotonicity of a sequence of n numbers is the minimum number of entries whose deletion leaves an increasing sequence. We give the first deterministic streaming algorithm that approximates the distance to monotonicity within a 1 + ε ...
Near Optimal Parallel Algorithms for Dynamic DFS in Undirected Graphs
Special Issue on SPAA 2017Depth first search (DFS) tree is a fundamental data structure for solving various graph problems. The classical algorithm [54] for building a DFS tree requires O(m+n) time for a given undirected graph G having n vertices and m edges. Recently, Baswana ...
Comments