Let c denote a non-negative constant. Suppose that we are given an edge-weighted bipartite graph G=(V,E) with its 2-layered drawing and a family X of intersecting edge pairs. We consider the problem of finding a maximum weighted matching M* such that each edge in M* intersects with at most c other edges in M*, and that all edge crossings in M* are contained in X. In the present paper, we propose polynomial-time algorithms for the problem for c=1 and 2. The time complexities of the algorithms are O((k+m)log n) for c=1 and O(m^4log n+k^3+n(k^2+log n)) for c=2, respectively, where n=|V|, m=|E| and k=|X|.
The MW-0-CPEMP is an extension of the longest common subsequence problem on given two sequences @cite_16 . It has an application in the sequence alignment problem that appears in bioinformatics @cite_12 and in natural language processing @cite_18 .
@cite_18 @cite_16 @cite_12
2420634262 1507039213 2002638840
A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... The longest common subsequence problem is examined from the point of view of parameterized computational complexity. There are several different ways in which parameters enter the problem, such as the number of sequences to be analyzed, the length of the common subsequence, and the size of the alphabet. Lower bounds on the complexity of this basic problem imply lower bounds on a number of other sequence alignment and consensus problems. An issue in the theory of parameterized complexity is whether a problem which takes input (x, k) can be solved in time ƒ(k) · nα where α is independent of k (termed fixed-parameter tractability). It can be argued that this is the appropriate asymptotic model of feasible computability for problems for which a small range of parameter values covers important applications — a situation which certainly holds for many problems in biological sequence analysis. Our main results show that: 1. (1) The longest common subsequence (LCS) parameterized by the number of sequences to be analyzed is hard for W[t] for all t. 2. (2) The LCS problem, parameterized by the length of the common subsequence, belongs to W[P] and is hard for W[2]. 3. (3) The LCS problem parameterized both by the number of sequences and the length of the common subsequence, is complete for W[1]. All of the above results are obtained for unrestricted alphabet sizes. For alphabets of a fixed size, problems (2) and (3) are fixed-parameter tractable. We conjecture that (1) remains hard.