We present new algorithms for approximate string matching based in simple, but efficient, ideas. First, we present an algorithm for string matching with mismatches based in arithmetical operations that runs in linear worst case time for most practical cases. This is a new approach to string searching. Second, we present an algorithm for string matching with errors based on partitioning the pattern that requires linear expected time for typical inputs. 1 Introduction Approximate string matching is one of the main problems in combinatorial pattern matching. Recently, several new approaches emphasizing the expected search time and practicality have appeared [3, 4, 27, 32, 31, 17], in contrast to older results, most of them are only of theoretical interest. Here, we continue this trend, by presenting two new simple and efficient algorithms for approximate string matching. First, we present an algorithm for string matching with k mismatches. This problem consists of finding all instances o...

The problem of sorting n integers from a restricted range [1::m], where m is superpolynomial in n, is considered. An o(n log n) randomized algorithm is given. Our algorithm takes O(n log log m) expected time and O(n) space. (Thus, for m = n polylog(n) we have an O(n log log n) algorithm.) The algorithm is parallelizable. The resulting parallel algorithm achieves optimal speed up. Some features of the algorithm make us believe that it is relevant for practical applications. A result of independent interest is a parallel hashing technique. The expected construction time is logarithmic using an optimal number of processors, and searching for a value takes O(1) time in the worst case. This technique enables drastic reduction of space requirements for the price of using randomness. Applicability of the technique is demonstrated for the parallel sorting algorithm, and for some parallel string matching algorithms. The parallel sorting algorithm is designed for a strong and non standard mo...

views of amortization : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 44 4 Implementation aspects 49 4.1 Functional program notation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 50 4.2 Eager evaluation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 51 4.3 Pointer implementation of stacks : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 52 4.4 Destructivity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 54 4.5 Queues and concatenable deques : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Contents iii 4.6 Linear usage of destructive monoalgebras : : : : : : : : : : : : : 58 4.7 Benevolent side-effects : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 61 5 Analysis of functional programs and algebras 63 5.1 Cost measures : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 63 5.2 Worst-case analysis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 67 5.3 Amortized cost of functions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 69 5.4 Amortized analysis : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ...