Free Online Productivity Tools
i2Speak
i2Symbol
i2OCR
iTex2Img
iWeb2Print
iWeb2Shot
i2Type
iPdf2Split
iPdf2Merge
i2Bopomofo
i2Arabic
i2Style
i2Image
i2PDF
iLatex2Rtf
Sci2ools

11

Voted
WG

1999

Springer

1999

Springer

The diversity of application areas relying on tree-structured data results in wide interest in algorithms which determine diﬀerences or similarities among trees. One way of measuring the similarity between trees is to ﬁnd the smallest common superstructure or supertree, where common elements are typically deﬁned in terms of a mapping or embedding. In the simplest case, a supertree will contain exact copies of each input tree, so that for each input tree, each vertex of a tree can be mapped to a vertex in the supertree such that each edge maps to the corresponding edge. More general mappings allow for the extraction of more subtle common elements captured by looser deﬁnitions of similarity. We consider supertrees under the general mapping of minor containment. Minor containment generalizes both subgraph isomorphism and topological embedding; as a consequence of this generality, however, it is NP-complete to determine whether or not G is a minor of H, even for general trees. By ...

Added |
05 Aug 2010 |

Updated |
05 Aug 2010 |

Type |
Conference |

Year |
1999 |

Where |
WG |

Authors |
Naomi Nishimura, Prabhakar Ragde, Dimitrios M. Thilikos |

Comments (0)