ArticleAlgorithms for molecular biology : AMB2013
Efficient edit distance with duplications and contractions.
Article in Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approximating edit distances between complex tandem repeats efficiently.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- A landscape of complex tandem repeats within individual human genomes.Nature communications · 2023Article
- An improved Four-Russians method and sparsified Four-Russians algorithm for RNA folding.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
: We propose three algorithms for string edit distance with duplications and contractions. These include an efficient general algorithm and two improvements which apply under certain constraints on the cost function. The new algorithms solve a more general problem variant and obtain better time complexities with respect to previous algorithms. Our general algorithm is based on min-plus multiplication of square matrices and has time and space complexities of O (|Σ|MP (n)) and O (|Σ|n2), respectively, where |Σ| is the alphabet size, n is the length of the strings, and MP (n) is the time bound for the computation of min-plus matrix multiplication of two n × n matrices (currently, MP(n)=On3log3lognlog2n due to an algorithm by Chan).For integer cost functions, the running time is further improved to O|Σ|n3log2n. In addition, this variant of the algorithm is online, in the sense that the input strings may be given letter by letter, and its time complexity bounds the processing time of the first n given letters. This acceleration is based on our efficient matrix-vector min-plus multiplication algorithm, intended for matrices and vectors for which differences between adjacent entries are from a finite integer interval D. Choosing a constant 1log|D|n<λ<1, the algorithm preprocesses an n × n matrix in On2+λ|D| time and On2+λ|D|λ2log|D|2n space. Then, it may multiply the matrix with any given n-length vector in On2λ2log|D|2n time. Under some discreteness assumptions, this matrix-vector min-plus multiplication algorithm applies to several problems from the domains of context-free grammar parsing and RNA folding and, in particular, implies the asymptotically fastest On3log2n time algorithm for single-strand RNA folding with discrete cost functions.Finally, assuming a different constraint on the cost function, we present another version of the algorithm that exploits the run-length encoding of the strings and runs in O|Σ|nMP(ñ)ñ time and O(|Σ|nñ) space, where ñ is the length of the run-length encoding of the strings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.