学术文献库

The edit distance between strings classically assigns unit cost to every character insertion, deletion, and substitution, whereas the Hamming distance only allows substitutions. In many real-life scenarios, insertions and deletions (abbreviated indels) appear frequently but significantly less so than substitutions. To model this, we consider substitutions being cheaper than indels, with cost $1/a$ for a parameter $a\ge 1$. This basic variant, denoted $ED_a$, bridges classical edit distance ($a=1$) with Hamming distance ($a\to\infty$), leading to interesting algorithmic challenges: Does the time complexity of computing $ED_a$ interpolate between that of Hamming distance (linear time) and edit distance (quadratic time)? What about approximating $ED_a$? We first present a simple deterministic exact algorithm for $ED_a$ and further prove that it is near-optimal assuming the Orthogonal Vectors Conjecture. Our main result is a randomized algorithm computing a $(1+ε)$-approximation of $ED_a(X,Y)$, given strings $X,Y$ of total length $n$ and a bound $k\ge ED_a(X,Y)$. For simplicity, let us focus on $k\ge 1$ and a constant $ε> 0$; then, our algorithm takes $\tilde{O}(n/a + ak^3)$ time. Unless $a=\tilde{O}(1)$ and for small enough $k$, this running time is sublinear in $n$. We also consider a very natural version that asks to find a $(k_I, k_S)$-alignment -- an alignment with at most $k_I$ indels and $k_S$ substitutions. In this setting, we give an exact algorithm and, more importantly, an $\tilde{O}(nk_I/k_S + k_S\cdot k_I^3)$-time $(1,1+ε)$-bicriteria approximation algorithm. The latter solution is based on the techniques we develop for $ED_a$ for $a=Θ(k_S / k_I)$. These bounds are in stark contrast to unit-cost edit distance, where state-of-the-art algorithms are far from achieving $(1+ε)$-approximation in sublinear time, even for a favorable choice of $k$.