Advertisement

Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 151–158 | Cite as

On the parameterized complexity of the Multi-MCT and Multi-MCST problems

  • Wenbin Chen
  • Matthew C. Schmidt
  • Nagiza F. Samatova
Article
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

The comparison of tree structured data is widespread since trees can be used to represent wide varieties of data, such as XML data, evolutionary histories, or carbohydrate structures. Two graph-theoretical problems used in the comparison of such data are the problems of finding the maximum common subtree (MCT) and the minimum common supertree (MCST) of two trees. These problems generalize to the problem of finding the MCT and MCST of multiple trees (Multi-MCT and Multi-MCST, respectively). In this paper, we prove parameterized complexity hardness results for the different parameterized versions of the Multi-MCT and Multi-MCST problem under isomorphic embeddings.

Keywords

Multi-MCT Multi-MCST W-hierarchy Parameterized complexity Computational complexity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akutsu T (1992) An RNC algorithm for finding a largest common subtree of two trees. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 75(1):95–101 Google Scholar
  2. Akutsu T, Halldórsson M (2000) On the approximation of largest common subtrees and largest common point sets. Theor Comput Sci 233(1–2):33–50 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoki KF, Yamaguchi A, Okuno Y, Akutsu T, Ueda N, Kanehisa M, Mamitsuka H (2003) Efficient tree-matching methods for accurate carbohydrate database queries. Genome Inf 14:134–143 Google Scholar
  4. Bodlaender H, Downey R, Fellows M, Hallett M, Wareham H (1995b) Parameterized complexity analysis in computational biology. Comput Appl Biosci 11(1):49–57 Google Scholar
  5. Bodlaender HL, Downey RG, Fellows MR, Wareham HT (1995a) The parameterized complexity of sequence alignment and consensus. Theor Comput Sci 147(1–2):31–54 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Downey RG, Fellows MR (1999) Parameterized complexity. Springer, New York Google Scholar
  7. Farach M, Thorup M (1994) Fast comparison of evolutionary trees. In: The fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Arlington, pp 481–488 Google Scholar
  8. Fellows MR, Hallett MT, Stege U (2003) Analogs and duals of the MAST problem for sequences and trees. J Algorithms 49(1):192–216 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Gou G, Chirkova R (2007) Efficiently querying large XML data repositories: a survey. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 19(10):1381–1403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta A, Nishimura N (1998) Finding largest subtrees and smallest supertrees. Algorithmica 21(2):183–210 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallett MT (1996) An integrated complexity analysis of problems from computational biology. PhD thesis, University of Victoria Google Scholar
  12. Rosselló F, Valiente G (2006) An algebraic view of the relation between largest common subtrees and smallest common supertrees. Theor Comput Sci 362(1–3):33–53 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zaki MJ (2002) Efficiently mining frequent trees in a forest. In: The eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, Edmonton, pp 71–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenbin Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthew C. Schmidt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nagiza F. Samatova
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science and Mathematics DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations