CATEGORII DOCUMENTE 

Bulgara  Ceha slovaca  Croata  Engleza  Estona  Finlandeza  Franceza 
Germana  Italiana  Letona  Lituaniana  Maghiara  Olandeza  Poloneza 
Sarba  Slovena  Spaniola  Suedeza  Turca  Ucraineana 
Finding all occurrences of a pattern in a text is a problem that arises frequently in textediting programs. Typically, the text is a document being edited, and the pattern searched for is a particular word supplied by the user. Efficient algorithms for this problem can greatly aid the responsiveness of the textediting program. Stringmatching algorithms are also used, for example, to search for particular patterns in DNA sequences.
We formalize the stringmatching problem as follows. We assume that the text is an array T[1 . . n] of length n and that the pattern is an array P[1 . . m] of length m. We further assume that the elements of P and T are characters drawn from a finite alphabet . For example, we may have = or = . The character arrays P and T are often called strings of characters.
We say that pattern P occurs with shift s in text T (or, equivalently, that pattern P occurs beginning at position s + 1 in text T) if 0 s n  m and T[s + 1 . . s + m] = P[1 . . m] (that is, if T[s + j] = P[j], for 1 j m). If P occurs with shift s in T, then we call s a valid shift; otherwise, we call s an invalid shift. The stringmatching problem is the problem of finding all valid shifts with which a given pattern P occurs in a given text T. Figure 1 illustrates these definitions.
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1 we review the naive bruteforce algorithm for the stringmatching problem, which has worstcase running time O((n  m + 1)m). Section 2 presents an interesting stringmatching algorithm, due to Rabin and Karp. This algorithm also has worstcase running time O((n  m + 1)m), but it works much better on average and in practice. It also generalizes nicely to other patternmatching problems. Section 3 then describes a stringmatching algorithm that begins by constructing a finite automaton specifically designed to search for occurrences of the given pattern P in a text. This algorithm runs in time O(n + m ). The similar but much cleverer KnuthMorrisPratt (or KMP) algorithm is presented in Section 4; the KMP algorithm runs in time O(n + m). Finally, Section 5 describes an algorithm due to Boyer and Moore that is often the best practical choice, although its worstcase running time (like that of the RabinKarp algorithm) is no better than that of the naive stringmatching algorithm.
Notation and terminology
We shall let * (read 'sigmastar') denote the set of all finitelength strings formed using characters from the alphabet . In this chapter, we consider only finitelength strings. The zerolength empty string, denoted , also belongs to *. The length of a string x is denoted x. The concatenation of two strings x and y, denoted xy, has length x + y and consists of the characters from x followed by the characters from y.
We say that a string w is a prefix of a string x, denoted for some string y *. Note that if , then w x. Similarly, we say that a string w is a suffix of a string x, denoted for some y *. It follows from that w x. The empty string is both a suffix and a prefix of every string. For example, we have ab abcca and cca abcca. It is useful to note that for any strings x and y and any character a, we have if and only if . Also note that are transitive relations. The following lemma will be useful later.
Lemma 1
Proof See Figure 2 for a graphical proof.
For brevity of notation, we shall denote the kcharacter prefix P[1 . . k] of the pattern P[1 . . m] by P_{k}. Thus, P_{0} = and P_{m} = P = P[1 . . m]. Similarly, we denote the kcharacter prefix of the text T as T_{k}. Using this notation, we can state the stringmatching problem as that of finding all shifts s in the range 0 s n  m such that .
In our pseudocode, we allow two equallength strings to be compared for equality as a primitive operation. If the strings are compared from left to right and the comparison stops when a mismatch is discovered, we assume that the time taken by such a test is a linear function of the number of matching characters discovered. To be precise, the test 'x = y' is assumed to take time (t + 1), where t is the length of the longest string z such that .
The naive algorithm finds all valid shifts using a loop that checks the condition P[1 . . m] = T[s + 1 . . s + m] for each of the n  m + 1 possible values of s.
NAIVESTRINGMATCHER(T, P)
1 n length[T]
2 m length[P]
3for s 0 to n  m
4do if P[1 . . m] = T[s + 1 . . s + m]
5then print 'Pattern occurs with shift' s
The naive stringmatching procedure can be interpreted graphically as sliding a 'template' containing the pattern over the text, noting for which shifts all of the characters on the template equal the corresponding characters in the text, as illustrated in Figure 3. The for loop beginning on line 3 considers each possible shift explicitly. The test on line 4 determines whether the current shift is valid or not; this test involves an implicit loop to check corresponding character positions until all positions match successfully or a mismatch is found. Line 5 prints out each valid shift s.
Procedure NAIVESTRINGMATCHER takes time ((n  m + 1)m) in the worst case. For example, consider the text string a^{n} (a string of n a's) and the pattern a^{m}. For each of the n  m + 1 possible values of the shift s, the implicit loop on line 4 to compare corresponding characters must execute m times to validate the shift. The worstcase running time is thus ((n  m + 1)m), which is (n^{2}) if m = n/2.
As we shall see, NAIVESTRINGMATCHER is not an optimal procedure for this problem. Indeed, in this chapter we shall show an algorithm with a worstcase running time of O(n + m). The naive stringmatcher is inefficient because information gained about the text for one value of s is totally ignored in considering other values of s. Such information can be very valuable, however. For example, if P = aaab and we find that s = 0 is valid, then none of the shifts 1, 2, or 3 are valid, since T[4] = b. In the following sections, we examine several ways to make effective use of this sort of information.
11
Show the comparisons the naive string matcher makes for the pattern P = 0001 in the text T = 000010001010001.
12
Show that the worstcase time for the naive string matcher to find the first occurrence of a pattern in a text is ((n  m + 1)(m  1)).
13
Suppose that all characters in the pattern P are different. Show how to accelerate NAIVESTRINGMATCHER to run in time O(n) on an ncharacter text T.
14
Suppose that pattern P and text T are randomly chosen strings of length m and n, respectively, from the dary alphabet _{d} = , where d 2. Show that the expected number of charactertocharacter comparisons made by the implicit loop in line 4 of the naive algorithm is
(Assume that the naive algorithm stops comparing characters for a given shift once a mismatch is found or the entire pattern is matched.) Thus, for randomly chosen strings, the naive algorithm is quite efficient.
15
Suppose we allow the pattern P to contain occurrences of a gap character that can match an arbitrary string of characters (even one of zero length). For example, the pattern occurs in the text cabccbacbacab as
Note that the gap character may occur an arbitrary number of times in the pattern but is assumed not to occur at all in the text. Give a polynomialtime algorithm to determine if such a pattern P occurs in a given text T, and analyze the running time of your algorithm.
Rabin and Karp have proposed a stringmatching algorithm that performs well in practice and that also generalizes to other algorithms for related problems, such as twodimensional pattern matching. The worstcase running time of the RabinKarp algorithm is O((n  m + 1)m), but it has a good averagecase running time.
This algorithm makes use of elementary numbertheoretic notions such as the equivalence of two numbers modulo a third number. You may want to refer to Section 33.1 for the relevant definitions.
For expository purposes, let us assume that = , so that each character is a decimal digit. (In the general case, we can assume that each character is a digit in radixd notation, where d = .) We can then view a string of k consecutive characters as representing a lengthk decimal number. The character string 31415 thus corresponds to the decimal number 31,415. Given the dual interpretation of the input characters as both graphical symbols and digits, we find it convenient in this section to denote them as we would digits, in our standard text font.
Given a pattern P[1 . . m], we let p denote its corresponding decimal value. In a similar manner, given a text T[1 . . n], we let t_{s} denote the decimal value of the lengthm substring T[s + 1 . . s + m], for s = 0, 1, . . . , n  m. Certainly, t_{s} = p if and only if T[s + 1 . . s + m] = P[1 . . m]; thus, s is a valid shift if and only if t_{s} = p. If we could compute p in time O(m) and all of the t_{i} values in a total of O(n) time, then we could determine all valid shifts s in time O(n) by comparing p with each of the t_{s}'s. (For the moment, let's not worry about the possibility that p and the t_{s}'s might be very large numbers.)
We can compute p in time O(m) using Horner's rule (see Section 32.1):
p = P[m] + 10 (P[m  1] + 10(P[m  2] + . . . + 10(P[2] + 10P[1]) . . . )).
The value t_{0} can be similarly computed from T[1 . . m] in time O(m).
To compute the remaining values t_{1}, t_{2}, . . . , t_{nm} in time O(n  m), it suffices to observe that t_{s + 1} can be computed from t_{s} in constant time, since
t_{s}_{ + 1}=10(t_{s}  10^{m}^{  1}T[s + 1]) + T[s + m + 1].
For example, if m= 5 and t_{s} = 31415, then we wish to remove the highorder digit T[s + 1] = 3 and bring in the new loworder digit (suppose it is T[s + 5 + 1] = 2) to obtain
t_{s}_{+1 }= 10(31415  10000.3) + 2
= 14152 .
Subtracting 10^{m}1 T[s+1] removes the highorder digit from t_{s}, multiplying the result by 10 shifts the number left one position, and adding T[s + m + 1] brings in the appropriate loworder digit. If the constant 10^{m}1^{ }is precomputed (which can be done in time O(1g m) using the techniques of Section 33.6, although for this application a straightforward O(m) method is quite adequate), then each execution of equation (1) takes a constant number of arithmetic operations. Thus, p and t_{0}, t_{1}, . . . , t_{n}m can all be computed in time O(n + m), and we can find all occurrences of the pattern P[1 . . m] in the text T[1 . . n] in time O(n + m).
The only difficulty with this procedure is that p and t_{s} may be too large to work with conveniently. If P contains m characters, then assuming that each arithmetic operation on p (which is m digits long) takes 'constant time' is unreasonable. Fortunately, there is a simple cure for this problem, as shown in Figure 4 : compute p and the t_{s}'s modulo a suitable modulus q. Since the computation of p, t_{0}, and the recurrence (1) can all be performed modulo q, we see that p and all the t_{s}'s can be computed modulo q in time O(n + m). The modulus q is typically chosen as a prime such that 10q just fits within one computer word, which allows all of the necessary computations to be performed with singleprecision arithmetic.
In general, with a dary alphabet , we choose q so that d q fits within a computer word and adjust the recurrence equation (1) to work modulo q, so that it becomes
t_{s}_{+1} = (d(t_{s}  T[s + 1]h) + T[s + m + 1]) mod q ,
where h d^{m}^{1} (mod q) is the value of the digit '1' in the highorder position of an mdigit text window.
The following procedure makes these ideas precise. The inputs to the procedure are the text T, the pattern P, the radix d to use (which is typically taken to be ), and the prime q to use.
RABINKARPMATCHER(T, P, d, q)
1 n length[T]
2 m length[P]
3 h d^{m}1^{ mod }^{q}
4 p 0
5 t_{0} 0
6 for i 1 to m
7do p (dp + P[i]) mod q
8t_{0} (dt_{0} + T[i]) mod q
9 for s 0 to n  m
10do if p = t_{s}
11then if P[1 . . m] = T[s + 1 . . s + m]
12then 'Pattern occurs with shift' s
13if s < n  m
14then t_{s}_{+1} (d(t_{s}  T[s + 1]h) + T[s + m + 1]) mod q
The procedure RABINKARPMATCHER works as follows. All characters are interpreted as radixd digits. The subscripts on t are provided only for clarity; the program works correctly if all the subscripts are dropped. Line 3 initializes h to the value of the highorder digit position of an mdigit window. Lines 48 compute p as the value of P[1 . . m] mod q and t_{0} as the value of T[1 . . m] mod q. The for loop beginning on line 9 iterates through all possible shifts s. The loop has the following invariant: whenever line 10 is executed, t_{s} = T[s + 1 . . s + m] mod q. If p = t_{s} in line 10 (a 'hit'), then we check to see if P[1 . . m] = T[s + 1 . . s + m] in line 11 to rule out the possibility of a spurious hit. Any valid shifts found are printed out on line 12. If s < n  m (checked in line 13), then the for loop is to be executed at least one more time, and so line 14 is first executed to ensure that the loop invariant holds when line 10 is again reached. Line 14 computes the value of t_{s+}_{1} mod q from the value of t_{s} mod q in constant time using equation (2) directly.
The running time of RABINKARPMATCHER is ((n  m + 1)m) in the worst case, since (like the naive stringmatching algorithm) the RabinKarp algorithm explicitly verifies every valid shift. If P = a^{m} and T = a^{n}, then the verifications take time ((n  m + 1)m), since each of the n  m + 1 possible shifts is valid. (Note also that the computation of d^{m}^{1} mod q on line 3 and the loop on lines 68 take time O(m) = O((n  m + 1 )m).)
In many applications, we expect few valid shifts (perhaps O(1) of them), and so the expected running time of the algorithm is O(n + m) plus the time required to process spurious hits. We can base a heuristic analysis on the assumption that reducing values modulo q acts like a random mapping from * to Z_{q}. (See the discussion on the use of division for hashing in Section 12.3.1. It is difficult to formalize and prove such an assumption, although one viable approach is to assume that q is chosen randomly from integers of the appropriate size. We shall not pursue this formalization here.) We can then expect that the number of spurious hits is O(n/q), since the chance that an arbitrary t_{s} will be equivalent to p, modulo q, can be estimated as 1/q. The expected amount of time taken by the RabinKarp algorithm is then
O(n) + O(m(v + n/q)),
where v is the number of valid shifts. This running time is O(n) if we choose q m. That is, if the expected number of valid shifts is small (O(1)) and the prime q is chosen to be larger than the length of the pattern, then we can expect the RabinKarp procedure to run in time O(n + m).
21
Working modulo q = 11, how many spurious hits does the RabinKarp matcher encounter in the text T = 3141592653589793 when looking for the pattern P = 26?
22
How would you extend the RabinKarp method to the problem of searching a text string for an occurrence of any one of a given set of k patterns?
23
Show how to extend the RabinKarp method to handle the problem of looking for a given m X m pattern in an n X n array of characters. (The pattern may be shifted vertically and horizontally, but it may not be rotated.)
24
and Bob similarly evaluates B(x). Prove that if A B, there is at most one chance in 1000 that A(x) = B(x), whereas if the two files are the same, A(x) is necessarily the same as B(x). (Hint: See Exercise 33.44.)
We begin this section with the definition of a finite automaton. We then examine a special stringmatching automaton and show how it can be used to find occurrences of a pattern in a text. This discussion includes details on how to simulate the behavior of a stringmatching automaton on a given text. Finally, we shall show how to construct the stringmatching automaton for a given input pattern.
A finite automaton M is a 5tuple (Q, q_{0}, A, , ), where
Q is a finite set of states,
q_{0} Q is the start state,
A Q is a distinguished set of accepting states,
is a finite input alphabet,
is a function from Q X into Q, called the transition function of M.
The finite automaton begins in state q_{0} and reads the characters of its input string one at a time. If the automaton is in state q and reads input character a, it moves ('makes a transition') from state q to state (q, a). Whenever its current state q is a member of A, the machine M is said to have accepted the string read so far. An input that is not accepted is said to be rejected. Figure 5 illustrates these definitions with a simple twostate automaton.
A finite automaton M induces a function ø, called the finalstate function, from * to Q such that ø(w) is the state M ends up in after scanning the string w. Thus, M accepts a string w if and only if ø(w) A. The function ø is defined by the recursive relation
ø()= q _{,}
ø(wa)= (ø(w), a)for w *, a .
There is a stringmatching automaton for every pattern P; this automaton must be constructed from the pattern in a preprocessing step before it can be used to search the text string. Figure 6 illustrates this construction for the pattern P = ababaca. From now on, we shall assume that P is a given fixed pattern string; for brevity, we shall not indicate the dependence upon P in our notation.
The suffix function is well defined since the empty string P_{0} = is a suffix of every string. As examples, for the pattern P = ab, we have () = 0, (ccaca) = 1, and (ccab) = 2. For a pattern P of length m, we have (x) = m if and only if . It follows from the definition of the suffix function that if , then (x) (y).
We define the stringmatching automaton corresponding to a given pattern P[1 . . m] as follows.
The state set Q is . The start state q_{0} is state 0, and state m is the only accepting state.
The transition function is defined by the following equation, for any state q and character a:
(q, a) = (P_{q}a) .
Here is an intuitive rationale for defining (q, a) = (P_{q }a). The machine maintains as an invariant of its operation that
(T_{i}) = (T_{i}) ;
this result is proved as Theorem 4 below. In words, this means that after scanning the first i characters of the text string T, the machine is in state (T_{i}) = q, where q = (T_{i}) is the length of the longest suffix of T_{i} that is also a prefix of the pattern P. If the next character scanned is T[i + 1] = a, then the machine should make a transition to state (T_{i }+ 1) = (T_{i}a). The proof of the theorem shows that (T_{i}a) = (P_{q}a). That is, to compute the length of the longest suffix of T_{i}a that is a prefix of P, we can compute the longest suffix of P_{q}a that is a prefix of P. At each state, the machine only needs to know the length of the longest prefix of P that is a suffix of what has been read so far. Therefore, setting (q, a) = (P_{q}a) maintains the desired invariant (4). This informal argument will be made rigorous shortly.
In the stringmatching automaton of Figure 6, for example, we have (5, b) = 4. This follows from the fact that if the automaton reads a b in state q = 5, then P_{q}b = ababab, and the longest prefix of P that is also a suffix of ababab is P_{4} = abab.
To clarify the operation of a stringmatching automaton, we now give a simple, efficient program for simulating the behavior of such an automaton (represented by its transition function ) in finding occurrences of a pattern P of length m in an input text T[1 . . n]. As for any stringmatching automaton for a pattern of length m, the state set Q is , the start state is 0, and the only accepting state is state m.
FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER(T, , m)
1n length[T]
2q 0
3for i 1 to n
4do q (q, T[i])
5if q = m
6then s i  m
7print 'Pattern occurs with shift' s
The simple loop structure of FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER implies that its running time on a text string of length n is O(n). This running time, however, does not include the time required to compute the transition function . We address this problem later, after proving that the procedure FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER operates correctly.
Consider the operation of the automaton on an input text T[1 . . n]. We shall prove that the automaton is in state (T_{j}) after scanning character T[i]. Since (T_{i}) = m if and only if , the machine is in the accepting state m if and only if the pattern P has just been scanned. To prove this result, we make use of the following two lemmas about the suffix function .
Lemma 2
For any string x and character a, we have (xa) (x) + 1.
Proof Referring to Figure 7, let r = (xa). If r = 0, then the conclusion r (x) + 1 is trivially satisfied, by the nonnegativity of (x). So assume that r > 0. Now, , by the definition of . Thus, , by dropping the a from the end of P_{r} and from the end of xa. Therefore, r  1 (x), since (x) is largest k such that .
Lemma 3
For any string x and character a, if q = (x), then (xa) = (P_{q}a).
Proof From the definition of , we have . As Figure 8 shows, . If we let r = (xa), then r q + 1 by Lemma 2. Since , and Pr Pqa, Lemma 1 implies that . Therefore, r (P_{q}a), that is, (xa) (P_{q}a). But we also have (P_{q}a) (xa), since . Thus, (xa) = (P_{q}a).
We are now ready to prove our main theorem characterizing the behavior of a stringmatching automaton on a given input text. As noted above, this theorem shows that the automaton is merely keeping track, at each step, of the longest prefix of the pattern that is a suffix of what has been read so far.
Theorem 4
If is the finalstate function of a stringmatching automaton for a given pattern P and T[1 . . n] is an input text for the automaton, then
Proof The proof is by induction on i. For i = 0, the theorem is trivially true, since T_{0} = . Thus, .
Now, we assume that and prove that . Let q denote , and let a denote T[i + 1]. Then,
By induction, the theorem is proved.
By Theorem 4, if the machine enters state q on line 4, then q is the largest value such that . Thus, we have q = m on line 5 if and only if an occurrence of the pattern P has just been scanned. We conclude that FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER operates correctly.
The following procedure computes the transition function from a given pattern P[1 . . m].
COMPUTETRANSITIONFUNCTION(P, )
1 m length[P]
2 for q 0 to m
3do for each character a *
4do k min (m + 1, q + 2)
5repeat k k  1
7(q, a) k
8 return
This procedure computes (q, a) in a straightforward manner according to its definition. The nested loops beginning on lines 2 and 3 consider all states q and characters a, and lines 47 set (q, a) to be the largest k such that . The code starts with the largest conceivable value of k, which is min(m, q + 1), and decreases k until .
The running time of COMPUTETRANSITIONFUNCTION is O(m^{3}), because the outer loops contribute a factor of m , the inner repeat loop can run at most m + 1 times, and the test on line 6 can require comparing up to m characters. Much faster procedures exist; the time required to compute from P can be improved to O(m) by utilizing some cleverly computed information about the pattern P (see Exercise 46). With this improved procedure for computing , the total running time to find all occurrences of a lengthm pattern in a lengthn text over an alphabet is O(n + m).
31
Construct the stringmatching automaton for the pattern P = aabab and illustrate its operation on the text string T = aaababaabaababaab.
32
Draw a statetransition diagram for a stringmatching automaton for the pattern ababbabbababbababbabb over the alphabet = .
33
We call a pattern P nonoverlappable if implies k = 0 or k = q. Describe the statetransition diagram of the stringmatching automaton for a nonoverlappable pattern.
34
Given two patterns P and P', describe how to construct a finite automaton that determines all occurrences of either pattern. Try to minimize the number of states in your automaton.
35
Given a pattern P containing gap characters (see Exercise 15), show how to build a finite automaton that can find an occurrence of P in a text T in O(n) time, where n = T.
We now present a lineartime stringmatching algorithm due to Knuth, Morris, and Pratt. Their algorithm achieves a (n + m) running time by avoiding the computation of the transition function altogether, and it does the pattern matching using just an auxiliary function [1 . . m] precomputed from the pattern in time O(m). The array allows the transition function to be computed efficiently (in an amortized sense) 'on the fly' as needed. Roughly speaking, for any state q = 0, 1, . . . , m,and any character a , the value [q] contains the information that is independent of a and is needed to compute (q, a). (This remark will be clarified shortly.) Since the array has only m entries, whereas has O(m ) entries, we save a factor of in the preprocessing by computing rather than .
The prefix function for a pattern encapsulates knowledge about how the pattern matches against shifts of itself. This information can be used to avoid testing useless shifts in the naive patternmatching algorithm or to avoid the precomputation of for a stringmatching automaton.
Consider the operation of the naive string matcher. Figure 9(a) shows a particular shift s of a template containing the pattern P = ababaca against a text T. For this example, q = 5 of the characters have matched successfully, but the 6th pattern character fails to match the corresponding text character. The information that q characters have matched successfully determines the corresponding text characters. Knowing these q text characters allows us to determine immediately that certain shifts are invalid. In the example of the figure, the shift s + 1 is necessarily invalid, since the first pattern character, an a, would be aligned with a text character that is known to match with the second pattern character, a b. The shift s + 2 shown in part (b) of the figure, however, aligns the first three pattern characters with three text characters that must necessarily match. In general, it is useful to know the answer to the following question:
Given that pattern characters P[1 . . q] match text characters T[s + 1 . . s + q], what is the least shift s' > s such that
P[1 . . k] = T[s' 1 . . s' k],
where s' + k = s + q?
Such a shift s' is the first shift greater than s that is not necessarily invalid due to our knowledge of T[s + 1 . . s + q]. In the best case, we have that s' = s + q, and shifts s + 1, s + 2, . . . , s + q  1 are all immediately ruled out. In any case, at the new shift s' we don't need to compare the first k characters of P with the corresponding characters of T, since we are guaranteed that they match by equation (5).
The necessary information can be precomputed by comparing the pattern against itself, as illustrated in Figure 9(c). Since T[s' + 1 . . s' + k] is part of the known portion of the text, it is a suffix of the string P_{q}. Equation (5) can therefore be interpreted as asking for the largest k < q such that .Then, s' = s + (q  k) is the next potentially valid shift. It turns out to be convenient to store the number k of matching characters at the new shift s', rather than storing, say, s'  s. This information can be used to speed up both the naive stringmatching algorithm and the finiteautomaton matcher.
We formalize the precomputation required as follows. Given a pattern P[1 . . m], the prefix function for the pattern P is the function : such that
That is, [q] is the length of the longest prefix of P that is a proper suffix of P_{q}. As another example, Figure 10(a) gives the complete prefix function for the pattern ababababca.
The KnuthMorrisPratt matching algorithm is given in pseudocode below as the procedure KMPMATCHER. It is mostly modeled after FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER, as we shall see. KMPMATCHER calls the auxiliary procedure COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION to compute .
KMPMATCHER(T, P)
1 n length[T]
2 m length[P]
3 COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION(P)
4 q 0
5 for i 1 to n
6do while q > 0 and P[q + 1] T[i]
7do q [q]
8if P[q + 1] = T[i]
9then q q + 1
10if q = m
11then print 'Pattern occurs with shift' i  m
12q [q]
COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION(P)
1 m length[P]
2 [1] 0
3 k 0
4 for q 2 to m
5 do while k > 0 and P[k + 1 P[q]
6do k [k]
7if P[k + 1] = P[q]
8then k k + 1
9[q] k
10 return
We begin with an analysis of the running times of these procedures. Proving these procedures correct will be more complicated.
The running time of COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION is O(m), using an amortized analysis (see Chapter 18). We associate a potential of k with the current state k of the algorithm. This potential has an initial value of 0, by line 3. Line 6 decreases k whenever it is executed, since [k] < k. Since [k] 0 for all k, however, k can never become negative. The only other line that affects k is line 8, which increases k by at most one during each execution of the for loop body. Since k < q upon entering the for loop, and since q is incremented in each iteration of the for loop body, k < q always holds. (This justifies the claim that [q] < q as well, by line 9.) We can pay for each execution of the while loop body on line 6 with the corresponding decrease in the potential function, since [k] < k. Line 8 increases the potential function by at most one, so that the amortized cost of the loop body on lines 59 is O(1). Since the number of outerloop iterations is O(m), and since the final potential function is at least as great as the initial potential function, the total actual worstcase running time of COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION is O(m).
The KnuthMorrisPratt algorithm runs in time O(m + n). The call of COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION takes O(m) time as we have just seen, and a similar amortized analysis, using the value of q as the potential function, shows that the remainder of KMPMATCHER takes O(n) time.
Compared to FlNITEAUTOMATONMATCHER, by using rather than , we have reduced the time for preprocessing the pattern from O(m ) to O(m), while keeping the actual matching time bounded by O(m + n).
We start with an essential lemma showing that by iterating the prefix function , we can enumerate all the prefixes P_{k} that are suffixes of a given prefix P_{q}. Let
*[q] = ,
where ^{i}[q] is defined in terms of functional composition, so that ^{0}[q] = q and ^{i+1}[q] = [^{i}[q]] for i > 1, and where it is understood that the sequence in *[q] stops when ^{t}[q] = 0 is reached.
Lemma 5
Let P be a pattern of length m with prefix function . Then, for q = 1, 2, . . . , m, we have .
Proof We first prove that
i *[q] implies .
If i *[q], then i = ^{u}[q] for some u. We prove equation (6) by induction on u. For u = 0, we have i = q, and the claim follows since . Using the relation and the transitivity of establishes the claim for all i in *[q]. Therefore, .
We prove that by contradiction. Suppose to the contrary that there is an integer in the set , and let j be the largest such value. Because q is in , we have j < q, and so we let j' denote the smallest integer in *[q] that is greater than j. (We can choose j' = q if there is no other number in *[q] that is greater than j.) We have because because j' *[q]; thus, by Lemma 1. Moreover, j is the largest such value with this property. Therefore, we must have [j'] = j and thus j *[q]. This contradiction proves the lemma.
Figure 10 illustrates this lemma.
The algorithm COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION computes [q] in order for q = 1, 2, . . . , m. The computation of [1] = 0 in line 2 of COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION is certainly correct, since [q] < q for all q. The following lemma and its corollary will be used to prove that COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION computes [q] correctly for q > 1.
Lemma 6
Let P be a pattern of length m, and let be the prefix function for P. For q = 1, 2, . . . , m, if [q] > 0, then [q]  1 *[q  1].
Proof If k = [q] > 0, then (by dropping the last character from P_{k} and P_{q}). By Lemma 5, therefore, k  l *[q  1].
For q = 2, 3, . . . , m, define the subset E_{q}_{1 }*[q  1] by
E_{q}_{1} = .
The set E_{q}_{1} consists of the values k for which (by Lemma 5); because P[k + 1] = P[q], it is also the case that for these values of k, . Intuitively, E_{q }_{ 1} consists of those values k *[q  1] such that we can extend P_{k} to P_{k}_{+1} and get a suffix of P_{q}.
Corollary 7
Let P be a pattern of length m, and let be the prefix function for P. For q = 2, 3, . . . , m,
Proof If r = [q], then , and so r 1 implies P[r] = P[q]. By Lemma 6, therefore, if r 1, then
r = 1 + max .
But the set maximized over is just E_{q}1, so that r = 1 + max and E_{q}1 is nonempty. If r = 0, there is no k *[q  1] for which we can extend P_{k} to P_{k}_{+1} and get a suffix of P_{q}, since then we would have [q] > 0. Thus, .
We now finish the proof that COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION computes correctly. In the procedure COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION, at the start of each iteration of the for loop of lines 49, we have that k = [q  1]. This condition is enforced by lines 2 and 3 when the loop is first entered, and it remains true in each successive iteration because of line 9. Lines 58 adjust k so that it now becomes the correct value of [q]. The loop on lines 56 searches through all values k *[q  1] until one is found for which P[k + 1] = P[q]; at that point, we have that k is the largest value in the set E_{q}1, so that, by Corollary 7, we can set [q] to k + 1. If no such k is found, k = 0 in lines 79, and [q] is set to 0. This completes our proof of the correctness of COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION.
The procedure KMPMATCHER can be viewed as a reimplementation of the procedure FINlTEAUTOMATONMATCHER. Specifically, we shall prove that the code on lines 69 of KMPMATCHER is equivalent to line 4 of FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER, which sets q to (q,T[i]). Instead of using a stored value of (q, T[i]), however, this value is recomputed as necessary from . Once we have argued that KMPMATCHER simulates the behavior of FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER, the correctness of KMPMATCHER follows from the correctness of FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER (though we shall see in a moment why line 12 in KMPMATCHER is necessary).
The correctness of KMPMATCHER follows from the claim that either (q, T[i]) = 0 or else (q, T[i])  1 *[q]. To check this claim, let k = (q, T[i]). Then, by the definitions of and . Therefore, either k = 0 or else k 1 and by dropping the last character from both P_{k} and P_{q}T[i] (in which case k  1 *[q]). Therefore, either k = 0 or k  1 *[q], proving the claim.
The claim is used as follows. Let q' denote the value of q when line 6 is entered. We use the equivalence to justify the iteration q [q] that enumerates the elements of . Lines 69 determine (q', T[i]) by examining the elements of *[q'] in decreasing order. The code uses the claim to begin with q = (T_{i } 1) = (T_{i } 1) and perform the iteration q [q] until a q is found such that q = 0 or P[q + 1] = T[i]. In the former case, (q', T[i]) = 0; in the latter case, q is the maximum element in E_{q'}, so that (q', T[i]) = q + 1 by Corollary 7.
Line 12 is necessary in KMPMATCHER to avoid a possible reference to P[m + 1] on line 6 after an occurrence of P has been found. (The argument that q = (T_{i } 1) upon the next execution of line 6 remains valid by the hint given in Exercise 46: (m, a) = ([m], a) or, equivalently, (Pa) = (P[m]_{a}) for any a .) The remaining argument for the correctness of the KnuthMorrisPratt algorithm follows from the correctness of FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER, since we now see that KMPMATCHER simulates the behavior of FINITEAUTOMATONMATCHER.
41
Compute the prefix function for the pattern ababbabbababbababbabb when the alphabet is = .
42
Give an upper bound on the size of *[q] as a function of q. Give an example to show that your bound is tight.
43
Explain how to determine the occurrences of pattern P in the text T by examining the function for the string PT (the string of length m + n that is the concatenation of P and T).
44
Show how to improve KMPMATCHER by replacing the occurrence of in line 7 (but not line 12) by ', where ' is defined recursively for q = 1, 2, . . . , m by the equation
Explain why the modified algorithm is correct, and explain in what sense this modification constitutes an improvement.
45
Give a lineartime algorithm to determine if a text T is a cyclic rotation of another string T'. For example, arc and car are cyclic rotations of each other.
46
If the pattern P is relatively long and the alphabet is reasonably large, then an algorithm due to Robert S. Boyer and J. Strother Moore is likely to be the most efficient stringmatching algorithm.
BOYERMOOREMATCHER(T, P, )
1 n length[T]
2 m length[P]
3 COMPUTELASTOCCURRENCEFUNCTION(P, m, )
4 COMPUTEGOODSUFFIXFUNCTION(P, m)
5 s 0
6 while s n  m
7do j m
8while j > 0 and P[j] = T[s + j]
9do j j  1
10if j = 0
11then print 'Pattern occurs at shift' s
12s s + [0]
13else s s + max([j], j  [T[s + j]])
Aside from the mysteriouslooking 's and 's, this program looks remarkably like the naive stringmatching algorithm. Indeed, suppose we comment out lines 34 and replace the updating of s on lines 1213 with simple incrementations as follows:
12s s + 1
13else s s + 1
The modified program now acts exactly like the naive string matcher: the while loop beginning on line 6 considers each of the n  m + 1 possible shifts s in turn, and the while loop beginning on line 8 tests the condition P[1 . . m] = T[s + 1 . . s + m] by comparing P[j] with T[s + j] for j = m, m  1, . . . , 1. If the loop terminates with j = 0, a valid shift s has been found, and line 11 prints out the value of s. At this level, the only remarkable features of the BoyerMoore algorithm are that it compares the pattern against the text from right to left and that it increases the shift s on lines 1213 by a value that is not necessarily 1.
The BoyerMoore algorithm incorporates two heuristics that allow it to avoid much of the work that our previous stringmatching algorithms performed. These heuristics are so effective that they often allow the algorithm to skip altogether the examination of many text characters. These heuristics, known as the 'badcharacter heuristic' and the 'goodsuffix heuristic,' are illustrated in Figure 11. They can be viewed as operating independently in parallel. When a mismatch occurs, each heuristic proposes an amount by which s can safely be increased without missing a valid shift. The BoyerMoore algorithm chooses the larger amount and increases s by that amount: when line 13 is reached after a mismatch, the badcharacter heuristic proposes increasing s by j  [T[s + j]], and the goodsuffix heuristic proposes increasing s by [j].
When a mismatch occurs, the badcharacter heuristic uses information about where the bad text character T[s + j] occurs in the pattern (if it occurs at all) to propose a new shift. In the best case, the mismatch occurs on the first comparison (P[m] T[s + m]) and the bad character T[s + m] does not occur in the pattern at all. (Imagine searching for a^{m }in the text string b^{n}.) In this case, we can increase the shift s by m, since any shift smaller than s + m will align some pattern character against the bad character, causing a mismatch. If the best case occurs repeatedly, the BoyerMoore algorithm examines only a fraction 1/m of the text characters, since each text character examined yields a mismatch, thus causing s to increase by m. This bestcase behavior illustrates the power of matching righttoleft instead of lefttoright.
In general, the badcharacter heuristic works as follows. Suppose we have just found a mismatch: P[j] T[s + j] for some j, where 1 j m. We then let k be the largest index in the range 1 k m such that T[s + j] = P[k], if any such k exists. Otherwise, we let k = 0. We claim that we may safely increase s by j  k. We must consider three cases to prove this claim, as illustrated by Figure 12.
k = 0: As shown in Figure 12(a), the bad character T[s + j] didn't occur in the pattern at all, and so we can safely increase s by j without missing any valid shifts.
k < j: As shown in Figure 12(b), the rightmost occurrence of the bad character is in the pattern to the left of position j, so that j  k > 0 and the pattern must be moved j  k characters to the right before the bad text character matches any pattern character. Therefore, we can safely increase s by j  k without missing any valid shifts.
k > j: As shown in Figure 12(c), j  k < 0, and so the badcharacter heuristic is essentially proposing to decrease s. This recommendation will be ignored by the BoyerMoore algorithm, since the goodsuffix heuristic will propose a shift to the right in all cases.
The following simple program defines [a] to be the index of the rightmost position in the pattern at which character a occurs, for each a . If a does not occur in the pattern, then [a] is set to 0. We call the lastoccurrence function for the pattern. With this definition, the expression j  [T[s + j]] on line 13 of BOYERMOORE MATCHER implements the badcharacter heuristic. (Since j  [T[s + j]] is negative if the rightmost occurrence of the bad character T[s + j] in the pattern is to the right of position j, we rely on the positivity of [j], proposed by the goodsuffix heuristic, to ensure that the algorithm makes progress at each step.)
COMPUTELASTOCCURRENCEFUNCTION(P, m, )
1 for each character a
2do [a] = 0
3 for j 1 to m
4do [P[j]] j
5 return
The running time of procedure COMPUTELASTOCCURRENCEFUNCTION is O( + m).
Let us define the relation Q ~ R (read 'Q is similar to R') for strings Q and R to mean that . If two strings are similar, then we can align them with their rightmost characters matched, and no pair of aligned characters will disagree. The relation '~' is symmetric: Q ~ R if and only if R ~ Q. We also have, as a consequence of Lemma 1, that
If we find that P[j] T[s + j], where j < m, then the goodsuffix heuristic says that we can safely advance s by
[j] = m  max .
We now show how to compute the goodsuffix function . We first observe that [j] m  [m] for all j, as follows. If w = [m], then by the definition of . Furthermore, since for any j, we have P_{w} ~ P[j + 1 . . m], by equation (7). Therefore, [j] m  [m] for all j.
We can now rewrite our definition of as
[j] = m  max .
The condition that P[j + 1 . . m] ~ P_{k} holds if either . But the latter possibility implies that and thus that k [m], by the definition of . This latter possibility cannot reduce the value of [j] below m  [m]. We can therefore rewrite our definition of still further as follows:
(The second set may be empty.) It is worth observing that the definition implies that [j] > 0 for all j = 1, 2, . . . , m, which ensures that the BoyerMoore algorithm makes progress.
To simplify the expression for further, we define P' as the reverse of the pattern P and ' as the corresponding prefix function. That is P'[i] = P[m  i + 1] for i = 1, 2, . . . , m, and '[t] is the largest u such that u < t and .
If k is the largest possible value such that , then we claim that
'[l] = m  j ,
where l = (m  k) + (m  j). To see that this claim is well defined, note that implies that m  j k, and thus l m. Also, j < m and k m, so that l 1. We prove this claim as follows. Since . Therefore, '[l] m  j. Suppose now that p > m  j, where p = '[l]. Then, by the definition of ', we have or, equivalently, P'[1 . . p] = P'[l  p + 1 . . l]. Rewriting this equation in terms of P rather than P', we have P[m  p + 1 . . m] = P[m  l + 1 . . m  l + p]. Substituting for l = 2m  k  j, we obtain P[m  p + 1 . . m] = P[k  m + j + 1 . . k  m + j +p], which implies . Since p > m  j, we have j + 1 > mp+1, and so , implying that by the transitivity of . Finally, since p > m  j, we have k' > k, where k' = k  m + j + p, contradicting our choice of k as the largest possible value such that . This contradiction means that we can't have p > m  j, and hus = m  j, which proves the claim (8).
Using equation (8), and noting that '[l] = m  j implies that j = m  '[l] and k = m  l + '[l], we can rewrite our definition of still further:
[j]=m  max(
)
=min(
) .
Again, the second set may be empty.
We are now ready to examine the procedure for computing .
COMPUTEGOODSUFFIXFUNCTION(P, m)
1 COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION(P)
2 P' reverse(P)
3 ' COMPUTEPREFIXFUNCTION(P')
4 for j 0 to m
5do [j] m  [m]
6 for l 1 to m
7do j m  '[l]
8if [j] > l  '[l]
9then [j] l  '[l]
10 return
The procedure COMPUTEGOODSUFFIXFUNCTION is a straightforward implementation of equation (9). Its running time is O(m).
The worstcase running time of the BoyerMoore algorithm is clearly O((n  m +1)m + ), since COMPUTELASTOCCURRENCEFUNCTION takes time O(m + ), COMPUTEGOODSUFFIXFUNCTION takes time O(m), and the BoyerMoore algorithm (like the RabinKarp algorithm) spends O(m) time validating each valid shift s. In practice, however, the BoyerMoore algorithm is often the algorithm of choice.
51
Compute the and functions for the pattern P = 0101101201 and the alphabet = .
52
Give examples to show that by combining the badcharacter and goodsuffix heuristics, the BoyerMoore algorithm can perform much better than if it used just the goodsuffix heuristic.
53
An improvement to the basic BoyerMoore procedure that is often used in practice is to replace the function by ', defined by
'[j] = m  max .
In addition to ensuring that the characters in the good suffix will be mismatched at the new shift, the ' function also guarantees that the same pattern character will not be matched up against the bad text character. Show how to compute the ' function efficiently.
341 String matching based on repetition factors
Let y^{i} denote the concatenation of string y with itself i times. For example, (ab)^{3} = ababab. We say that a string x ^{*} has repetition factor r if x = y^{r }for some string y ^{*} and some r > 0. Let p(x) denote the largest r such that x has repetition factor r.
a. Give an efficient algorithm that takes as input a pattern P[1 . . m] and computes (P_{i}) for_{ }i = 1, 2, . . . , m. What is the running time of your algorithm?
b. For any pattern P[1 . . m], let p*(P) be defined as max_{1}i_{m} (P_{i}). Prove that if the pattern P is chosen randomly from the set of all binary strings of length m, then the expected value of *(P) is O(1).
c. Argue that the following stringmatching algorithm correctly finds all occurrences of pattern P in a text T[1 . . n] in time O(*(P)n + m).
REPETITIONMATCHER(P,T)
1 m length[P]
2 n length[T]
3 k 1 + p^{*}(P)
4 q 0
5 s 0
6 while s n  m
7do if T[s + q + 1] = P[q + 1]
8then q q + 1
9if q = m
10then print 'Pattern occurs with shift' s
11if q = m or T[s + q + 1] P[q + 1]
12then s s + max(1, q/k)
13q 0
This algorithm is due to Galil and Seiferas. By extending these ideas greatly, they obtain a lineartime stringmatching algorithm that uses only O(1) storage beyond what is required for P and T.
342 Parallel string matching
Consider the problem of string matching on a parallel computer. Assume that for a given pattern, we have a stringmatching automaton M with state set Q. Let be the finalstate function for M. Suppose that our input ext is T[1 . . n]. We wish to compute (T_{i}) for i = 1, 2, . . . , n; that is, we wish to compute the final state for each refix. Our strategy is to use the parallel prefix computation described in Section 30.1.2.
For any input string x, define the function _{x} : Q Q such that if M starts in state q and reads input x, then M ends in state _{x}(q).
a. Prove that denotes functional composition:
b. Argue that is an associative operation.
c. Argue that _{xy} can be computed from tabular representations of _{x }and _{y} in O(1) time on a CREW PRAM. Analyze how many processors are needed in terms of Q.'
d. Prove that (T_{i}) = T_{i}(q_{0}), where q_{0} is the start state for M.
e. Show how to find all occurrences of a pattern in a text of length n in O(lg n ) time on a CREW PRAM. Assume that the pattern is supplied in the form of the corresponding stringmatching automaton.
The relation of string matching to the theory of finite automata is discussed by Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman [4]. The KnuthMorrisPratt algorithm [125] was invented independently by Knuth and Pratt and by Morris; they published their work jointly. The RabinKarp algorithm was proposed by Rabin and Karp [117], and the BoyerMoore algorithm is due to Boyer and Moore [32]. Galil and Seiferas [78] give an interesting deterministic lineartime stringmatching algorithm that uses only O(1) space beyond that required to store the pattern and text.

Vizualizari: 2026
Importanta:
Termeni si conditii de utilizare  Contact
© SCRIGROUP 2019 . All rights reserved
Distribuie URL
Adauga cod HTML in site