 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Localitysensitive bucketing functions for the edit distance
Algorithms for Molecular Biology volumeÂ 18, ArticleÂ number:Â 7 (2023)
Abstract
Background
Many bioinformatics applications involve bucketing a set of sequences where each sequence is allowed to be assigned into multiple buckets. To achieve both high sensitivity and precision, bucketing methods are desired to assign similar sequences into the same bucket while assigning dissimilar sequences into distinct buckets. Existing kmerbased bucketing methods have been efficient in processing sequencing data with low error rates, but encounter much reduced sensitivity on data with high error rates. Localitysensitive hashingÂ (LSH) schemes are able to mitigate this issue through tolerating the edits in similar sequences, but stateoftheart methods still have large gaps.
Results
In this paper, we generalize the LSH function by allowing it to hash one sequence into multiple buckets. Formally, a bucketing function, which maps a sequence (of fixed length) into a subset of buckets, is defined to be \((d_1, d_2)\)sensitive if any two sequences within an edit distance of \(d_1\) are mapped into at least one shared bucket, and any two sequences with distance at least \(d_2\) are mapped into disjoint subsets of buckets. We construct localitysensitive bucketingÂ (LSB) functions with a variety of values of \((d_1,d_2)\) and analyze their efficiency with respect to the total number of buckets needed as well as the number of buckets that a specific sequence is mapped to. We also prove lower bounds of these two parameters in different settings and show that some of our constructed LSB functions are optimal.
Conclusion
These results lay the theoretical foundations for their practical use in analyzing sequences with high error rates while also providing insights for the hardness of designing ungapped LSH functions.
Background
Comparing a set of given sequences is a common task involved in many bioinformatics applications, such as homology detection [1], overlap detection and the construction of overlap graphs [2,3,4], phylogenetic tree reconstruction, and isoform detection from circular consensus sequence (CCS) reads [5], to name a few. The naive allvsall comparison gives the most comprehensive information but does not scale well. An efficient and widelyused approach that avoids unnecessary comparisons is bucketing: a linear scan is employed to assign each sequence into one or multiple buckets, followed by pairwise comparisons within each bucket. The procedure of assigning sequences into buckets, which we refer to as a bucketing function, is desired to be both â€śsensitiveâ€ť, i.e., two similar sequences ideally appear in at least one shared bucket so that they can be compared, and â€śspecificâ€ť, i.e., two dissimilar sequences ideally appear in disjoint buckets so that they can be exempt from comparison. The criteria of similar/dissimilar sequences are applicationdependent; in this work we study bucketing functions for the edit distanceÂ (Levenshtein distance).
A simple yet popular bucketing function is to put a sequence into buckets labeled with its own kmers. The popular seedandextend strategy [6, 7] implicitly uses this approach. Various sketching methods such as minimizer [8,9,10,11] and universal hitting set [12, 13] reduce the number of buckets a sequence is assigned to by only considering a subset of representative kmers. These bucketing methods based on exact kmer matching enjoyed tremendous success in analyzing nextgeneration sequencingÂ (NGS) data, but are challenged by the thirdgeneration longreads sequencing data represented by PacBio [14] and Oxford Nanopore [15] technologies; due to the high error rates, sequences that should be assigned to the same buckets hardly share any identical kmersÂ (for a reasonably large k such as \(k = 21\) with 15% error rate), and therefore results in poor sensitivity.
To address this issue, it is required to be able to recognize similar but not necessarily identical sequences. A general solution is localitysensitive hashing (LSH) [16, 17] where with high probability, similar sequences are sent into the same bucketÂ (i.e., there is a hash collision), and with high probability dissimilar sequences are sent into different buckets. However, designing localitysensitive hashing functions for the edit distance is hard; the stateoftheart method Order Min Hash (OMH) is proved to be a gapped LSH but admits a large gap [16]. Another related approach is embedding the metric space induced by the edit distance into more wellstudied normed spaces [4, 18, 19]. However, such an embedding is also hard; for example, it is known that the embedding into \(L_1\) cannot be distortionfree [20]. In addition, there are seeding/sketching methods such as spaced kmer [21, 22], indel seeds [23], and the more recent strobemer [24] that allow gaps in the extracted seeds to accommodate some edits, but an edit that happens within the chosen seed can still cause mismatches.
It is worth noting that localitysensitive hashing functions, when interpreted as bucketing functions, assign a sequence into exactly one bucket: buckets are labeled with hash values, and a sequence is put into the single bucket where it is hashed to. In this work, we propose the concept of localitysensitive bucketingÂ (LSB) functions as a generalization of LSH functions by allowing it to assign a sequence into multiple buckets. Formally, a bucketing function, which maps a sequence (of fixed length) into one or more buckets, is defined to be \((d_1, d_2)\)sensitive if any two sequences within an edit distance of \(d_1\) are mapped into at least one shared bucket, and any two sequences with an edit distance at least \(d_2\) are mapped into disjoint subsets of buckets. While a stochastic definition by introducing a distribution on a family of bucketing functions can be made in a similar way as the definition of LSH functions, here we focus on this basic, deterministic definition. We design several LSB functions for a variety of values of \((d_1,d_2)\) including both ungappedÂ (\(d_2 = d_1 + 1\)) and gappedÂ (\(d_2 > d_1 + 1\)) ones. This demonstrates that allowing one sequence to appear in multiple buckets makes the localitysensitive properties easier to satisfy. Moreover, our lower bound proof shows that any (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function must put each sequenceÂ (of length n) into at least n buckets (see LemmaÂ 2), suggesting that certain ungapped localitysensitive hashing functions, where each sequence is sent to a single bucket, may not exist.
In the following sections, we first introduce the precise definition of LSB functions and propose criteria to measure them. Two different approaches of designing LSB functions are then presented with results summarized in TableÂ 1. We also show experimental studies of the performance of gapped LSB functions.
Basics of localitysensitive bucketingÂ (LSB) functions
Given an alphabet \(\Sigma\) with \(\Sigma >1\) and a natural number n, let \(\mathcal {S}_n=\left( \Sigma ^n, \text {edit}\right)\) be the metric space of all lengthn sequences equipped with the Levenshtein (edit) distance. Given a set B of buckets, a bucketing function f maps \(\mathcal {S}_n\) to \(\mathcal {P}(B)\), the power set of B. This can be viewed as assigning a sequence \(\varvec{s}\) of length n to a subset of buckets \(f(\varvec{s})\subset B\). Let \(d_1 < d_2\) be two nonnegative integers, we say a bucketing function f is \(\left( d_1, d_2\right)\)sensitive if for all \(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\in \mathcal {S}_n\),
We refer to the above two conditions as LSBpropertiesÂ (1) and (2) respectively. Intuitively, the LSBproperties state that, if two lengthn sequences are within an edit distance of \(d_1\), then the bucketing function f guarantees assigning them to at least one common bucket, and if two lengthn sequences have an edit distance at least \(d_2\), then the bucketing function f guarantees not assigning them to any shared bucket. In other words, \((d_1,d_2)\)sensitive bucketing functions perfectly distinguish lengthn sequences within distance \(d_1\) from those with distances at least \(d_2\). It is easy to show that if \(f:\mathcal {S}_n\rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) is a \((d_1, d_2)\)sensitive bucketing function, then \(f(\varvec{s})\ne \emptyset\) for all \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\). In fact, since \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{s}\right) =0\le d_1\), the LSBpropertyÂ (1) implies that \(f(\varvec{s})=f(\varvec{s})\cap f(\varvec{s})\ne \emptyset\). If \(d_1=d_21\) then we say the bucketing function is ungapped; otherwise it is called gapped.
We note that the above definition of LSB functions generalizes the (deterministic) LSH functions: if we require that \(f(\varvec{s}) = 1\) for every sequence \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), i.e., f maps a sequence to a single bucket, then \(f(\varvec{s})\cap f(\varvec{t})\ne \emptyset\) implies \(f(\varvec{s}) = f(\varvec{t})\) and \(f(\varvec{s})\cap f(\varvec{t}) = \emptyset\) implies \(f(\varvec{s})\ne f(\varvec{t})\).
Two related parameters can be used to measure an LSB function: B, the total number of buckets, and \(f(\varvec{s})\), the number of different buckets that contain a specific sequence \(\varvec{s}\). From a practical perspective, it is desirable to keep both parameters small. We therefore aim to design LSB functions that minimize B and \(f(\varvec{s})\). Specifically, in the following sections, we will construct \((d_1, d_2)\)sensitive bucketing functions with a variety of values of \((d_1,d_2)\), and analyze their corresponding B and \(f(\varvec{s})\); we will also prove lower bounds of B and \(f(\varvec{s})\) in different settings and show that some of our constructed LSB functions are optimal, in terms of minimizing these two parameters.
The bounds of B and \(f(\varvec{s})\) are closely related to the structure of the metric space \(\mathcal {S}_n\). For a sequence \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), its dneighborhood, denoted by \(N_n^d(\varvec{s})\), is the subspace of all sequences of length n with edit distance at most d from \(\varvec{s}\); formally \(N_n^d(\varvec{s}) = \{\varvec{t} \in \mathcal {S}_n \mid \text {edit}(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}) \le d\}\). The following simple fact demonstrates the connection between the bound of \(f(\varvec{s})\) and the structure of \(\mathcal {S}_n\), which will be used later.
Lemma 1
Let \(\varvec{s}\) be a sequence of length n. If \(N_n^{d_1}(\varvec{s})\) contains a subset X with \(X=x\) such that every two sequences in X have an edit distance at least \(d_2\), then for any \((d_1,d_2)\)sensitive bucketing function f we must have \(f(\varvec{s}) \ge x\).
Proof
Let f be an arbitrary \((d_1,d_2)\)sensitive bucketing function. By the LSBpropertyÂ (2), the x sequences in X must be assigned to distinct buckets by f. On the other hand, since they are all in \(N_n^{d_1}(\varvec{s})\), the LSBpropertyÂ (1) requires that \(f(\varvec{s})\) overlaps with \(f(\varvec{t})\) for each sequence \(\varvec{t}\in X\). Combined, we have \(f(\varvec{s}) \ge x\). \(\square\)
An optimal (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function
In the most general setting of LSB functions, the labels of buckets in B are just symbols that are irrelevant to the construction of the bucketing function. Hence we can let \(B=\{1, \ldots , B\}\). The remaining of this section studies (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing functions in this general case. We first prove lower bounds of B and \(f(\varvec{s})\) in this setting; we then give algorithms to construct an optimal (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function f that matches these bounds.
Lemma 2
If \(f: \mathcal {S}_n \rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) is (1,Â 2)sensitive, then for each \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), \(f(\varvec{s})\ge n\).
Proof
According to LemmaÂ 1 with \(d_1 = 1\) and \(d_2 = 2\), we only need to show that \(N_n^1(\varvec{s})\) contains n different sequences with pairwise edit distances at least 2. For \(i=1, \ldots , n\), let \(\varvec{t}^i\) be a sequence obtained from \(\varvec{s}\) by a single substitution at position i. If \(i\ne j\), then \(\varvec{t}^i\) differs from \(\varvec{t}^j\) at two positions, namely i and j. Then we must have \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}^i, \varvec{t}^j\right) \ge 2\) as \(\varvec{t}^i\) cannot be transformed into \(\varvec{t}^j\) with a single substitution or a single insertion or deletion. Hence, \(\left\{ \varvec{t}^1,\ldots , \varvec{t}^n\right\}\) forms the required set. \(\square\)
Lemma 3
If \(f: \mathcal {S}_n \rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) is (1,Â 2)sensitive, then \(B\ge n\Sigma ^{n1}\).
Proof
Consider the collection of pairs \(H=\left\{ (\varvec{s}, b) \,\, {\varvec{s}}\in {\mathcal {S}}_n{\text { and }} b\in f({\varvec{s}}) \right\}\). We bound the size of H from above and below. For an arbitrary sequence \(\varvec{s}\), let \(b\in f(\varvec{s})\) be a bucket that contains \(\varvec{s}\). According to the LSBpropertyÂ (2), any other sequence in b has edit distance 1 from \(\varvec{s}\), i.e., a substitution. Suppose that the bucket b contains two sequences \(\varvec{u}\) and \(\varvec{v}\) that are obtained from \(\varvec{s}\) by a single substitution at different positions. Then \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{u}, \varvec{v}\right) =2\) and \(f(\varvec{u})\cap f(\varvec{v})\ne \emptyset\), which contradicts the LSBpropertyÂ (2). Therefore, all the sequences in b can only differ from \(\varvec{s}\) at some fixed position i. There are \(\Sigma \) such sequences (including \(\varvec{s}\) itself). So each bucket \(b\in B\) can appear in at most \(\Sigma \) pairs in H. Thus \(H\le \Sigma \cdot B\).
On the other hand, according to LemmaÂ 2, each \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\) needs to appear in at least n different buckets, and hence at least n pairs in H. So \(H\ge n \mathcal {S}_n=n\Sigma ^n\). Together, we have \(\Sigma \cdot B\ge n \Sigma ^n\), or \(B\ge n \Sigma ^{n1}\). \(\square\)
We now construct a bucketing function \(f:\mathcal {S}_n\rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) that is (1,Â 2)sensitive using the algorithm given below. It has exponential running time with respect to n but primarily serves as a constructive proof that (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing functions exist. Assign to the alphabet \(\Sigma\) an arbitrary order \(\sigma :\{1, \ldots , \Sigma \}\rightarrow \Sigma\) (for conciseness, we also write \(\sigma _i=\sigma (i)\) and assume the inverse function \(\sigma ^{1}(\sigma _i) = i\)).
A toy example of the bucketing function f with \(n=2\) and \(\Sigma =\{\sigma _1=\textrm{A},\sigma _2=\textrm{C}, \sigma _3=\textrm{G},\sigma _4=\textrm{T}\}\) constructed using the above algorithmÂ (where the sequences are processed in the lexicographical order induced by \(\sigma\)) is given below, followed by the contained sequences in the resulting buckets.
\(f(\textrm{AA})=\{1, 2\}\),  \(f(\textrm{AC})=\{2, 3\}\),  \(f(\textrm{AG})=\{2, 4\}\),  \(f(\textrm{AT})=\{2, 5\}\), 
\(f(\textrm{CA})=\{1, 6\}\),  \(f(\textrm{CC})=\{3, 6\}\),  \(f(\textrm{CG})=\{4, 6\}\),  \(f(\textrm{CT})=\{5, 6\}\), 
\(f(\textrm{GA})=\{1, 7\}\),  \(f(\textrm{GC})=\{3, 7\}\),  \(f(\textrm{GG})=\{4, 7\}\),  \(f(\textrm{GT})=\{5, 7\}\), 
\(f(\textrm{TA})=\{1, 8\}\),  \(f(\textrm{TC})=\{3, 8\}\),  \(f(\textrm{TG})=\{4, 8\}\),  \(f(\textrm{TT})=\{5, 8\}\). 
bucket #  sequences  bucket #  sequences 

1  AA, CA, GA, TA  2  AA, AC, AG, AT 
3  AC, CC, GC, TC  4  AG, CG, GG, TG 
5  AT, CT, GT, TT  6  CA, CC, CG, CT 
7  GA, GC, GG, GT  8  TA, TC, TG, TT 
Lemma 4
The constructed bucketing function \(f:\mathcal {S}_n\rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) satisfies: (i) each bucket contains \(\Sigma \) sequences, (ii) \(f(\varvec{s})=n\) for each \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), and (iii) \(B=n\Sigma ^{n1}\).
Proof
ClaimÂ (i) follows directly from the constructionÂ (the most inner forloop). In the algorithm, each sequence \(\varvec{s} \in \mathcal {S}_n\) is added to n different buckets, one for each position. Specifically, let \(\varvec{s} = s_1s_2\cdots s_n\), then \(\varvec{s}\) is added to a new bucket when we process the sequence \(\varvec{s}^i = s_1 s_2 \cdots s_{i1} \sigma _1 s_{i+1} \cdots s_n\), \(1 \le i \le n\). Hence, \(f(\varvec{s})=n\). To calculate B, observe that a new bucket is used whenever we encounter the smallest character \(\sigma _1\) in some sequence \(\varvec{s}\). So B is the same as the number of occurrences of \(\sigma _1\) among all sequences in \(\mathcal {S}_n\). The total number of characters in \(\mathcal {S}_n\) is \(n\Sigma ^n\). By symmetry, \(\sigma _1\) appears \(n\Sigma ^{n1}\) times. \(\square\)
Lemma 5
The constructed bucketing function f is (1,Â 2)sensitive.
Proof
We show that for \(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le 1\) if and only if \(f(\varvec{s})\cap f(\varvec{t})\ne \emptyset\). For the forward direction, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le 1\) implies that \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) can differ by at most one substitution at some position i. Let \(\varvec{r}\) be the sequence that is identical to \(\varvec{s}\) except at the ith position where it is substituted by \(\sigma _1\) (it is possible that \(\varvec{r} = \varvec{s}\)). According to the algorithm, when processing \(\varvec{r}\), both \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) are added to a same bucket m. Therefore, \(m\in f(\varvec{s})\cap f(\varvec{t})\).
For the backward direction, let m be an integer from \(f(\varvec{s})\cap f(\varvec{t})\). By construction, all the \(\Sigma \) sequences in the bucket m differ by a single substitution. Hence, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le 1\). \(\square\)
Combining LemmasÂ 2â€“5, we have shown that the above (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function is optimal in the sense of minimizing B and \(f(\varvec{s})\). This is summarized below.
Theorem 1
Let \(B=\{1, \ldots , n \Sigma ^{n1}\}\), there is a (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function \(f:\mathcal {S}_n \rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) with \(f(\varvec{s}) = n\) for each \(\varvec{s} \in \mathcal {S}_n\). No (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function exists if B is smaller or \(f(\varvec{s})< n\) for some sequence \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\).
An efficient construction algorithm
In practice, instead of considering the entire \(\mathcal {S}_n\), one is often interested in some specific subset X. For example, X can be the set of all lengthn strings that appear in a genome. Given an LSB function f on \(\mathcal {S}_n\), let \(f_X\) be its restriction to X. Then \(f_X\) satisfies the LSBpropertiesÂ (1) and (2) for all \(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\in X\). In the case that X is much smaller in size comparing to \(\mathcal {S}_n\), it is desirable to compute \(f_X\) directly.
The above algorithm constructs an optimal (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function by assigning n buckets to each \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\) with a global counter. It runs in \(O\left( n\Sigma ^n\right)\) time. We now show that the n buckets assigned to a sequence \(\varvec{s}\) can be computed directly in O(n) time, implying a O(nX)time algorithm that computes a (1,Â 2)sensitive bucketing function for an arbitrary subset \(X\subset \mathcal {S}_n\).
Recall that in the above algorithm, a new integer bucket is used whenever we encounter the smallest character \(\sigma _{1} \in \Sigma\) in a sequence \(\varvec{s}\), then all \(\Sigma \) sequences with a single mutation at this position, including \(\varvec{s}\) itself, are added to this bucket. If the sequences are processed in the lexicographical order induced by \(\sigma\), this integer is essentially counting the number of occurrences of \(\sigma _{1}\) that come before (in this lexicographical order) the current \(\sigma _{1}\). For instance, in the previous example, the character A in AT triggers a new bucket 5 because there are four Aâ€™s come before it in the lexicographical order; AT is also in bucket 2 because it can be obtained by a single mutation of AA where the underlined A is the second in the lexicographical order. In general, the sequence \(\varvec{s}=s_1s_2\cdots s_n\in \mathcal {S}_n\) is assigned to n buckets triggered by the underlined \(\sigma _1\)â€™s in the n (not necessarily distinct) sequences \(\varvec{s}^1 = \underline{\sigma _1}s_2\cdots s_n\), \(\varvec{s}^2 = s_1\underline{\sigma _1}s_3\cdots s_n\), \(\ldots\), \(\varvec{s}^n = s_1\cdots s_{n1}\underline{\sigma _1}\), respectively.
For \(\varvec{t} \in \mathcal {S}_n\), let \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})\) be the set of sequences in \(\mathcal {S}_n\) that come before \(\varvec{t}\) in the lexicographical order induced by \(\sigma\), namely, \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})\) contains \(\sigma _1^n, \sigma _1^{n1}\sigma _2, \ldots\) up to the lengthn sequence immediately before \(\varvec{t}\). Define \(\text {count}(\varvec{t})\) to be the total number of \(\sigma _{1}\)â€™s among all sequences in \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})\). Let \(\#_i^1(\varvec{t})\) be the number of \(\sigma _1\)â€™s in the lengthi prefix of \(\varvec{t}\). Then \(\varvec{s}\) is added to the buckets \(\left\{ \text {count}\left( \varvec{s}^i\right) + \#_{i1}^1\left( \varvec{s}\right) + 1 \,\, i=1, \ldots , n\right\}\).
We first consider the computation of \(\text {count}\left( \varvec{t}\right) =\text {count}\left( t_1t_2\cdots t_n\right)\). If \(t_1=\sigma _1\), then all sequences in \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})\) begin with \(\sigma _1\), there are \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})=S_{\sigma }(t_2\cdots t_n)\) of them; removing the first character of all the sequences in \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})\) produces the set \(S_{\sigma }(t_2\cdots t_n)\). So \(\text {count}(t_1t_2\cdots t_n) = S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t}) + \text {count}(t_2\cdots t_n)\). If \(t_1\ne \sigma _1\), consider the sequence \(\varvec{m} = {\hat{t}}_1 \sigma _{\Sigma }^{n1}\) where \({\hat{t}}_1\) is the character precedes \(t_1\) according to \(\sigma\). We compute \(\text {count}(\varvec{t})\) by partition \(S_{\sigma }(\varvec{t})\) into three sets: the set of sequences come before \(\varvec{m}\), the set of sequences come after \(\varvec{m}\) (but before \(\varvec{t}\)), and the singleton set \(\{\varvec{m}\}\). For the first set, the number of \(\sigma _1\) is \(\text {count}(\varvec{m})\) by definition. For the second set, all the sequences begin with \(t_1\ne \sigma _1\) (note that the sequence immediately after \(\varvec{m}\) is \(t_1\sigma _1^{n1}\)), so removing the first character does not affect the number of \(\sigma _1\)â€™s; observe that this produces the set \(S_{\sigma }(t_2\cdots t_n)\). For the third set, the only possible occurrence of \(\sigma _1\) is \({\hat{t}}_1\). In summary, \(\text {count}(\varvec{t})\) can be computed by the following recursive formula:
with base case \(\text {count}(\varepsilon ) = 0\) and \(S_{\sigma }(\varepsilon )=\emptyset\) where \(\varepsilon\) denotes the empty string.
In the first case, the number of length\((n1)\) sequences before \(t_{2}\cdots t_n\) in the lexicographical order has the closedform expression (corresponds to the base\(\Sigma \) numeral encoding of the sequence \(t_{2}\cdots t_n\) with respect to \(\sigma\)):
Expanding the second case by the recursion, we have
where in the second equation, the first term is by symmetry of all characters from \(\left\{ \sigma _1^{n1}, \ldots , \sigma _{\Sigma }^{n1}\right\} =\mathcal {S}_{n1}\) (technically, \(\text {count}\left( \sigma _{\Sigma }^{n1}\right)\) excludes \(\sigma _1\)â€™s from \(\sigma _{\Sigma }^{n1}\), but there is none); and the second term is simply \(\left \mathcal {S}_{n1}\setminus \left\{ \sigma _{\Sigma }^{n1}\right\} \right\). Expanding the third case by the recursion until the first character becomes \(\sigma _1\), we have
For conciseness, define for \(i=1, 2,\ldots , n\):
Then the recursion can be simplified to
By equationÂ (3), the \(\mu _i(\varvec{t})\)â€™s can be computed iteratively from n to 1 yielding a linear time algorithm for computing \(\text {count}(t_1\cdots t_n)\). (Here we assume that all arithmitic operations involved take constant time.)
For the n buckets \(\left\{ \text {count}\left( \varvec{s}^i\right) + \#_{i1}^1\left( \varvec{s}\right) + 1 \,\, i=1, \ldots , n\right\}\), computing each \(\text {count}\left( \varvec{s}^i\right)\) separatedly takes \(O\left(n^2\right)\) time in total. We aim to reduce the running time by exploring the similarity between \(\text {count}\left( \varvec{s}\right)\) and \(\text {count}\left( \varvec{s}^i\right)\). For \(j<i\), consider \(\mu _j(\varvec{s}) = \mu \left( s_j\cdots s_{i1}s_is_{i+1}\cdots s_n\right)\) and \(\mu _j\left( \varvec{s}^i\right) = \mu \left( s_j\cdots s_{i1}\sigma _1s_{i+1}\cdots s_n\right)\), if \(s_j=\sigma _1\), according to equationÂ (3), their values differ by \((\sigma ^{1}(s_i)1)\Sigma ^{ni}\); and if \(s_j\ne \sigma _1\), they are the same by definition. Recall that the number of occurrences of \(\sigma _1\) among the first \(i1\) characters in \(\varvec{s}\) is \(\#_{i1}^1(\varvec{s})\), hence the values of \(\sum _{j=1}^{i1}\mu _j(\varvec{s})\) and \(\sum _{j=1}^{i1}\mu _j\left( \varvec{s}^i\right)\) differ by \(\#_{i1}^1(\varvec{s})(\sigma ^{1}(s_i)1)\Sigma ^{ni}\). For \(j>i\), \(\mu _j(\varvec{s})=\mu _j\left( \varvec{s}^i\right)\) because the two suffixes starting from position j are identical. Therefore, we have
The following pseudocode first calculates and stores in linear time and space the values of \(\mu _i(\varvec{s})\), \(\#_i^1(\varvec{s})\), and \(\nu _i(\varvec{s}) = S_\sigma (s_{i}\cdots s_n)\); then each of the n buckets is computed in constant time. We also provide an implementation of both the global counter algorithm and this efficient individual bucketing algorithm at [25].
Mapping to sequences of length n
We continue to explore LSB functions with different values of \(d_1\) and \(d_2\). Here we focus on a special case where \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\), namely, each bucket in B is labeled by a lengthn sequence. The idea of designing such LSB functions is to map a sequence \(\varvec{s}\) to its neighboring sequences that are in B. Formally, given a subset \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) and an integer \(r\ge 1\), we define the bucketing function \(f^r_B:\mathcal {S}_n\rightarrow \mathcal {P}(B)\) by
We now derive the conditions for \(f^r_B\) to be an LSB function. For any sequence \(\varvec{s}\), all the buckets in \(f^r_B(\varvec{s})\) are labeled by its neighboring sequences within radius r. Therefore, if two sequences \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) share a bucket labeled by \(\varvec{v}\), then \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r\). Recall that \(\mathcal {S}_n\) is a metric space, in particular, the triangle inequality holds. So \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le \text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) +\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) \le 2r\). In other words, if \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) are \(2r + 1\) edits apart, then they will be mapped to disjoint buckets. Formally, if \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \ge 2r + 1\), then \(f^r_B(\varvec{s}) \cap f^r_B(\varvec{t}) = \emptyset\). This implies that \(f^r_B\) satisfies the LSBpropertyÂ (2) with \(d_2 = 2r + 1\). We note that this statement holds regardless of the choice of B.
Hence, to make \(f^r_B\) a \((d_1, 2r+1)\)sensitive bucketing function for some integer \(d_1\), we only need to determine a subset B so that \(f^r_B\) satisfies the LSBpropertyÂ (1). Specifically, B should be picked such that for any two lengthn sequences \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) within an edit distance of \(d_1\), we always have
For the sake of simplicity, we say a set of buckets \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) is \((d_1,r)\)guaranteed if and only if \(N_n^r(\varvec{s}) \cap N_n^r(\varvec{t}) \cap B \ne \emptyset\) for every pair of sequences \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le d_1\). Equivalently, following the above arguments, B is \((d_1,r)\)guaranteed if and only if the corresponding bucketing function \(f_B^r\) is \((d_1, 2r+1)\)sensitive. Note that the \((d_1, r)\)guaranteed set is not a new concept, but rather an abbreviation to avoid repeating the long phrase â€śa set whose corresponding bucketing function is guaranteed to be \((d_1, 2r+1)\)sensitiveâ€ť. In the following sections, we show several \((d_1, r)\)guaranteed subsets \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) for different values of \(d_1\).
(2r,Â r)guaranteed and \((2r  1, r)\)guaranteed subsets
We first consider an extreme case where \(B = \mathcal {S}_n\).
Lemma 6
Let \(B = \mathcal {S}_n\). Then B is (2r,Â r)guaranteed if r is even, and B is \((2r1,r)\)guaranteed if r is odd.
Proof
First consider the case that r is even. Let \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) be two lengthn sequences with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le 2r\). Then there are 2r edits that transforms \(\varvec{s}\) to \(\varvec{t}\). (If \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) <2r\), we can add in trivial edits that substitute a character with itself.) Because \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) have the same length, these 2r edits must contain the same number of insertions and deletions. Reorder the edits so that each insertion is followed immediately by a deletion (i.e., a pair of indels) and all the indels come before substitutions. Because r is even, in this new order, the first r edits contain an equal number of insertions and deletions. Namely, applying the first r edits on \(\varvec{s}\) produces a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{v}\). Clearly, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r\), i.e., \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})= N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})\cap B\).
For the case that r is odd. Let \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) be two lengthn sequences with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le 2r1\). By the same argument as above, \(\varvec{s}\) can be transformed to \(\varvec{t}\) by \(2r1\) edits and we can assume that all the indels appear in pairs and they come before all the substitutions. Because r is odd, \(r1\) is even. So applying the first \(r1\) edits on \(\varvec{s}\) produces a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{v}\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r1<r\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) \le 2r1(r1)=r\). Therefore, \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})= N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})\cap B\). \(\square\)
By definition, setting \(B=\mathcal {S}_n\) makes \(f^r_B\) \((2r, 2r+1)\)sensitive if r is even and \((2r1, 2r+1)\)sensitive if r is odd. This provides nearly optimal bucketing performance in the sense that there is no gapÂ (when r is even) or the gap is just oneÂ (when r is odd). It is evident from the proof that the gap at 2r indeed exists when r is odd because if \(\varvec{s}\) can only be transformed to \(\varvec{t}\) by r pairs of indels, then there is no lengthn sequence \(\varvec{v}\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) =r\).
Properties of (r,Â r)guaranteed subsets
In the above section all sequences in \(\mathcal {S}_n\) are used as buckets. A natural question is, can we use a proper subset of \(\mathcal {S}_n\) to achieve (gapped) LSB functions? This can be viewed as downsampling \(\mathcal {S}_n\) such that if two lengthn sequences \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) are similar, then a lengthn sequence is always sampled from their common neighborhood \(N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})\).
Here we focus on the case that \(d_1 = r\), i.e., we aim to construct B that is (r,Â r)guaranteed. Recall that this means for any \(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\in \mathcal {S}_n\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le r\), we have \(N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})\cap B\ne \emptyset\). In other words, \(f^r_B\) is \((r, 2r+1)\)sensitive. To prepare the construction, we first investigate some structural properties of (r,Â r)guaranteed subsets. We propose a conjecture that such sets form a hierarchical structure with decreasing r:
Conjecture 1
If \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) is (r,Â r)guaranteed, then B is also \((r+1,r+1)\)guaranteed.
We prove a weaker statement:
Lemma 7
If \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) is (r,Â r)guaranteed, then B is \((r+2,r+2)\)guaranteed.
Proof
Let \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) be two lengthn sequences with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) \le r+2\); we want to show that \(N_n^{r+2}(\varvec{s}) \cap N_n^{r+2}(\varvec{t}) \cap B \ne \emptyset\). Consider a list of edits that transforms \(\varvec{s}\) to \(\varvec{t}\): skipping a pair of indels or two substitutions gives a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{m}\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{m}\right) \le r\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{m}\right) =2\). Because \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{m}\) are within a distance of r and B is (r,Â r)guaranteed, we have that \(N_n^r(\varvec{s}) \cap N_n^r(\varvec{m}) \cap B \ne \emptyset\), i.e., there exists a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{v}\in B\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{m}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r\). By triangle inequality, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) \le \text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{m}\right) +\text {edit}\left( \varvec{m}, \varvec{v}\right) \le r+2\). Hence, we have \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^{r+2}(\varvec{t})\). Clearly, \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^{r}(\varvec{s})\) implies that \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^{r+2}(\varvec{s})\). Combined, we have \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^{r+2}(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^{r+2}(\varvec{t})\cap B\). \(\square\)
The next lemma shows that (1,Â 1)guaranteed subsets have the strongest condition.
Lemma 8
If \(B\subset S_n\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed, then B is (r,Â r)guaranteed for all \(r\ge 1\).
Proof
According to the previous lemma, we only need to show that B is (2,Â 2)guaranteed. Given two lengthn sequences \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) =2\), consider a list Q of two edits that transforms \(\varvec{s}\) to \(\varvec{t}\). There are two possibilities:

If both edits in Q are substitutions, let i be the position of the first substitution.

If Q consists of one insertion and one deletion, let i be the position of the character that is going to be deleted from \(\varvec{s}\).
In either case, let \(\varvec{m}\) be a lengthn sequence obtained by replacing the ith character of \(\varvec{s}\) with another character in \(\Sigma\). Then \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{m}\right) =1\). Because B is (1,Â 1)guaranteed, there is a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{v}\in B\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) \le 1\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{m}, \varvec{v}\right) \le 1\). Observe that either \(\varvec{s}=\varvec{v}\) or \(\varvec{v}\) is obtained from \(\varvec{s}\) by one substitution at position i. So applying the two edits in Q on \(\varvec{v}\) also produces \(\varvec{t}\), i.e., \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{v}\right) \le 2\). Therefore, \(\varvec{v}\in N_n^{2}(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^{2}(\varvec{t})\cap B\). \(\square\)
Now we bound the size of a (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset from below.
Lemma 9
If B is (1,1)guaranteed, then
Proof
Let \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) be an arbitrary (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset. For partÂ (i), because \(\varvec{s}\in N_n^1(\varvec{s})\), if \(\varvec{s}\) is also in B, then \(\varvec{s}\) is in their intersection, hence \(\left N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap B\right \ge 1\). If \(\varvec{s}=s_1s_2\ldots s_n \not \in B\), then it must have at least n 1neighbors \(\varvec{v}^i\in B\), one for each position \(1\le i\le n\), where \(\varvec{v}^i = s_1\ldots s_{i1}v_is_{i+1}\ldots s_n\), \(v_i\ne s_i\). Suppose conversely that this is not the case for a particular i. Let \(\varvec{t}= s_1\ldots s_{i1}t_is_{i+1}\ldots s_n\) where \(t_i\ne s_i\). We have \(\text {edit}\left( {\varvec{s}}, {\varvec{t}}\right) =1\). Also, \(N_n^1({\varvec{s}})\cap N_n^1({\varvec{t}}) = \{x\in \Sigma \mid s_1\ldots s_{i1}xs_{i+1}\ldots s_n\}\), but none of them is in BÂ (consider the two cases \(x=s_i\) and \(x\ne s_i\)), i.e., \(N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^1(\varvec{t}) \cap B = \emptyset\). This contradicts the assumption that B is (1,Â 1)guaranteed.
For partÂ (ii), consider the set of pairs \(H=\left\{ (\varvec{s}, \varvec{v})\,\mid \, \varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n \text { and } \varvec{v}\in N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap B \right\}\). For all \(\varvec{v}\in B\), the number of sequences \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) \le 1\) is \(n\left( \Sigma 1\right) +1\). So \(H = \left( n\left( \Sigma 1\right) +1\right) B\). On the other hand, partÂ (i) implies that \(H\ge B+ n\left( \Sigma ^nB\right)\). Combined, we have \(B\ge \Sigma ^{n1}\), as claimed. \(\square\)
Next, we give an algorithm to construct a (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset B that achieves the size \(B = \Sigma ^{n1}\); furthermore, the corresponding (1,Â 3)sensitive bucketing function \(f^1_B\) satisfies \(\left f^1_B(\varvec{s})\right =1\) if \(\varvec{s}\in B\) and \(\left f^1_B(\varvec{s})\right =n\) if \(\varvec{s}\not \in B\). This shows that the lower bounds proved above in LemmaÂ 9 are tight and that the constructed (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset B is optimal in the sense of minimizing both B and \(\left f^1_B(\varvec{s})\right\). Notice that this result improves LemmaÂ 6 with \(r = 1\) where we showed that \(\mathcal {S}_n\) is a (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset of size \(\Sigma ^n\). According to LemmaÂ 8, this constructed B is also (r,Â r)guaranteed. So the corresponding bucketing function \(f_B^r\) is \((r, 2r+1)\)sensitive for all integers \(r\ge 1\).
Construction of optimal (1,Â 1)guaranteed subsets
Let \(m=\Sigma \) and denote the characters in \(\Sigma\) by \(c_1, c_2, \ldots , c_m\). We describe a recursive procedure to construct a (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset of \(\mathcal {S}_n\). In fact, we show that \(\mathcal {S}_n\) can be partitioned into m subsets \(B_n^1 \sqcup B_n^2\sqcup \cdots \sqcup B_n^m\) such that each \(B_n^i\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed. Here the notation \(\sqcup\) denotes disjoint union. The partition of \(\mathcal {S}_{n}\) is built from the partition of \(\mathcal {S}_{n1}\). The base case is \(\mathcal {S}_1=\{c_1\}\sqcup \cdots \sqcup \{c_m\}\).
Suppose that we already have the partition for \(\mathcal {S}_{n1} = B_{n1}^1 \sqcup B_{n1}^2\sqcup \cdots \sqcup B_{n1}^m\). Let
where \(c\circ B\) is the set obtained by prepending the character c to each sequence in the set B. For \(B_n^2\), the construction is similar where the partitions of \(\mathcal {S}_{n1}\) are shifted (rotated) by one such that \(c_1\) is paired with \(B_{n1}^2\), \(c_2\) is paired with \(B_{n1}^3\), and so on. In general, for \(1\le i\le m\),
Examples of this partition for \(\Sigma =\{\)A, C, G, T\(\}\) and \(n=2, 3\) are shown below.
Note that each sequence in \(\mathcal {S}_n\) appears in exactly one of the subsets \(B_n^i\), justifying the use of the disjoint union notation. (The induction proof of this claim has identical structure as the following proofs of LemmaÂ 10 and 11, so we leave it out for conciseness.) Now we prove the correctness of this construction.
Lemma 10
Each constructed \(B_n^i\) is a minimum (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset of \(\mathcal {S}_n\).
Proof
By LemmaÂ 9, we only need to show that each \(B_n^i\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed and has size \(\Sigma ^{n1} = m^{n1}\). The proof is by induction on n. The base case \(\mathcal {S}_1=\{c_1\}\sqcup \cdots \sqcup \{c_m\}\) is easy to verify.
As the induction hypothesis, suppose that \(\mathcal {S}_{n1}=\bigsqcup _{j=1}^m B_{n1}^j\), where each \(B_{n1}^j\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed and has size \(m^{n2}\). Consider an arbitrary index \(1\le i\le m\). By construction, we have \(\left B_n^i\right =\sum _{j=1}^m \left B_{n1}^j\right = m^{n1}\). To show that \(B_n^i\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed, consider two sequences \(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\in \mathcal {S}_n\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) =1\). If the single substitution happens on the first character, let \(\varvec{x}\in \mathcal {S}_{n1}\) be the common \((n1)\)suffix of \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\). Since \(\bigsqcup _{j=1}^m B_{n1}^j\) is a partition of \(\mathcal {S}_{n1}\), \(\varvec{x}\) must appear in one of the subsets \(B_{n1}^{\ell }\). In \(B_n^i\), it is paired with one of the characters \(c_k\). Let \(\varvec{y}=c_k\circ \varvec{x}\), then \(\varvec{y}\in B_n^i\). Furthermore, \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) can each be transformed to \(\varvec{y}\) by at most one substitution on the first character. Thus, \(\varvec{y}\in N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^1(\varvec{t})\cap B_n^i\).
If the single substitution between \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) does not happen on the first position, then they share the common first character \(c_k\). In \(B_n^i\), \(c_k\) is paired with one of the subsets \(B_{n1}^{\ell }\). Let \(\varvec{s'}\) and \(\varvec{t'}\) be \((n1)\)suffixes of \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\), respectively. It is clear that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{t'}\right) =1\). By the induction hypothesis, \(B_{n1}^{\ell }\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed. So there is a sequence \(\varvec{x}\in B_{n1}^{\ell }\) of length \(n1\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{x}\right) \le 1\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t'}, \varvec{x}\right) \le 1\). Let \(\varvec{y}=c_k\circ \varvec{x}\), then \(\varvec{y}\in B_n^i\) by the construction. Furthermore, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{y}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{x}\right) \le 1\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{y}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t'}, \varvec{x}\right) \le 1\). Thus, \(\varvec{y}\in N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^1(\varvec{t})\cap B_n^i\). Therefore, \(B_n^i\) is (1,Â 1)guaranteed. Since the index i is arbitrary, this completes the proof. \(\square\)
It remains to show that for each \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), \(\left N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap B_n^i\right\) matches the lower bound in LemmaÂ 9. Together with LemmaÂ 10, this proves that each constructed \(B_n^i\) yields an optimal (1,Â 3)sensitive bucketing function in terms of minimizing both the total number of buckets and the number of buckets each lengthn sequence is sent to.
Lemma 11
For \(\varvec{s}\in \mathcal {S}_n\), each constructed \(B_n^i\) satisfies
Proof
We proceed by induction on n. The base case \(n=1\) is trivially true because \(B_1^i=1\) and all singlecharacter sequences are within one edit of each other. Suppose that the claim is true for \(n1\). Consider an arbitrary index i. If \(\varvec{s}\in B_n^i\), we show that any other lengthn sequence \(\varvec{t}\in B_n^i\) has edit distance at least 2 from \(\varvec{s}\), namely \(N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap B_n^i=\{\varvec{s}\}\). Let \(\varvec{s'}\) and \(\varvec{t'}\) be the \((n1)\)suffixes of \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) respectively. According to the construction, if \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) have the same first character, then \(\varvec{s'}\) and \(\varvec{t'}\) are in the same \(B_{n1}^j\) for some index j. By the induction hypothesis, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{t'}\right) \ge 2\) (otherwise \(\left N_{n1}^1\left( \varvec{s'}\right) \cap B_{n1}^j\right \ge 2\)), and therefore \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{t'}\right) \ge 2\). If \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) are different at the first character, then \(\varvec{s'}\) and \(\varvec{t'}\) are not in the same \(B_{n1}^j\), so \(\varvec{s'}\ne \varvec{t'}\) (recall that \(B_{n1}^j\) and \(B_{n1}^{k}\) are disjoint if \(j\ne k\)), namely \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{t'}\right) \ge 1\). Together with the necessary substitution at the first character, we have \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) =1+\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s'}, \varvec{t'}\right) \ge 2\).
If \(\varvec{s}\not \in B_n^i\), LemmaÂ 9 and 10 guarantee that \(\varvec{s}\) has at least n 1neighbors \(\varvec{v}^{k}\) in \(B_n^i\), \(k=1,\ldots , n\), where \(\varvec{v}^{k}\) is obtained from \(\varvec{s}\) by a single substitution at position k. Let \(\varvec{t}\ne \varvec{s}\) be a 1neighbor of \(\varvec{s}\). Since \(\varvec{t}\) can only differ from \(\varvec{s}\) by a single substitution at some position \(\ell\), we know that either \(\varvec{t}=\varvec{v}^{\ell }\) or the edit distance between \(\varvec{t}\) and \(\varvec{v}^{\ell }\) is 1. In the latter case, \(\varvec{t}\) cannot be in \(B_n^i\) otherwise \(\left N_n^1\left( \varvec{v}^{\ell }\right) \cap B_n^i\right \ge 2\), contradicting the result of the previous paragraph. Therefore, \(N_n^1(\varvec{s})\cap B_n^i=\left\{ \varvec{v}^1,\ldots \varvec{v}^{n}\right\}\) which has size n. \(\square\)
We end this section by showing that a membership query can be done in O(n) time on the (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset B constructed aboveÂ (i.e., \(B=B_n^i\) for some i). Thanks to its regular structure, the query is performed without explicit construction of B. Consequently, the bucketing functions using B can be computed without computing and storing this subset of size \(\Sigma ^{n1}\).
Specifically, suppose that we choose \(B=B_n^i\) for some fixed \(1\le i\le m\). Let \(\varvec{s}\) be a given lengthn sequence; we want to query if \(\varvec{s}\) is in B or not. This is equivalent to determining whether the index of the partition of \(\mathcal {S}_n\) that \(\varvec{s}\) falls into is i or not. Write \(\varvec{s}=s_1s_2\ldots s_n\) and let \(\varvec{s}'=s_2\ldots s_n\) be the \((n1)\)suffix of \(\varvec{s}\). Suppose that it has been determined that \(\varvec{s}'\in B_{n1}^j\) for some index \(1\le j\le m\), i.e., the sequence \(\varvec{s}'\) of length \(n1\) comes from the jth partition of \(\mathcal {S}_{n1}\). By construction, the index \(\ell\) for which \(\varvec{s}\in B_n^{\ell }\) is uniquely determined by the character \(s_1=c_k\in \Sigma\) and the index j according to the formula \(\ell = (j+m+1k)\bmod m\). The base case \(n=1\) is trivially given by the design that \(c_p\in B_1^p\) for all \(1\le p\le m\). This easily translates into a lineartime algorithm that scans the input lengthn sequence \(\varvec{s}\) backwards and compute the index \(\ell\) such that \(\varvec{s}\in B_n^{\ell }\). To answer the membership query, we only need to check whether \(\ell =i\). We provide an implementation of both the construction and the efficient membership query of a (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset at [25].
A (3,Â 5)sensitive bucketing function
Let \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) be one of the constructed (1,Â 1)guaranteed subsets. Recall that the resulting bucketing function \(f^r_B\) is \((r, 2r + 1)\)sensitive for all integers \(r\ge 1\); in particular, \(f^2_B\) is (2,Â 5)sensitive. We are able to strengthen this result by showing that \(f^2_B\) is in fact (3,Â 5)sensitive.
Theorem 2
Let \(B\subset \mathcal {S}_n\) be a (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset. The bucketing function \(f^2_B\) is (3,Â 5)sensitive.
Proof
As \(f_B^r\) is already proved to be (2,Â 5)sensitive, to show it is (3,Â 5)sensitive, we just need to prove that, for any two sequences \(\varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\in \mathcal {S}_n\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{t}\right) =3\), \(f^2_B(\varvec{s})\cap f^2_B(\varvec{t}) = N^2_n(\varvec{s}) \cap N^2_n(\varvec{t}) \cap B \ne \emptyset\). If the three edits are all substitutions, then there are lengthn sequences \(\varvec{x}\) and \(\varvec{y}\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{x}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{y}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{y}, \varvec{t}\right) =1\). Since B is (1,Â 1)guaranteed, there is a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{z}\in B\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 1\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{y}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 1\). By triangle inequality, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{z}\right) \le \text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{x}\right) +\text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 2\); \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{z}\right) \le \text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{y}\right) +\text {edit}\left( \varvec{y}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 2\). So \(\varvec{z}\in N^2_n(\varvec{s}) \cap N^2_n(\varvec{t}) \cap B\).
If the three edits are one substitution and a pair of indels, then there is a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{x}\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{x}\right) =1\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{t}\right) =2\) where the two edits between \(\varvec{x}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) can only be achieved by one insertion and one deletion. Let i be the position in \(\varvec{x}\) where the deletion between \(\varvec{x}\) and \(\varvec{t}\) takes place. Let \(\varvec{y}\) be a lengthn sequence obtained from \(\varvec{x}\) by a substitution at position i, so \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{y}\right) =1\). Since B is (1,Â 1)guaranteed, there is a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{z}\in B\) with \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 1\) and \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{y}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 1\). Then \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{z}\right) \le \text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{x}\right) + \text {edit}\left( \varvec{x}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 2\). Observe that \(\varvec{x}\) and \(\varvec{z}\) differ by at most one substitution at position i, which will be deleted when transforming to \(\varvec{t}\). So the two edits from \(\varvec{x}\) to \(\varvec{t}\) can also transform \(\varvec{z}\) to \(\varvec{t}\), namely, \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{t}, \varvec{z}\right) \le 2\). Thus, \(\varvec{z}\in N^2_n(\varvec{s}) \cap N^2_n(\varvec{t}) \cap B\). \(\square\)
Summary of proved LSB functions
We proposed two sets of LSB functions and studied the efficiency of them in terms of B, the total number of buckets, and \(f(\varvec{s})\), the number of buckets a specific lengthn sequence \(\varvec{s}\) occupies. The results are summarized in TableÂ 1.
Experimental results on the gapped LSB functions
Now we experimentally investigate the behavior of the gapped LSB functions at their respective gaps. We pick 3 LSB functions to experiment, corresponding to the rows 2â€“4 in Table 1. For \(d=1, 2, \ldots , 6\), we generate 100,Â 000 random pairs \((\varvec{s}, \varvec{t})\) of sequences of length 20 with edit distance d. Each one of the picked LSB functions \(f^r_B\) is applied and the number of pairs that share a bucket under \(f^r_B\) is recorded. The code can be found at [25]. The results are shown in Fig.Â 1.
Recall that LemmaÂ 6 implies \(f^r_{\mathcal {S}_n}\) is \((2r1, 2r+1)\)sensitive when r is odd. The discussion after the proof shows that the gap at 2r indeed exists. In particular, if \(\varvec{s}\) can only be transformed to \(\varvec{t}\) by r pairs of indels, then \(N_n^r(\varvec{s})\cap N_n^r(\varvec{t})=\emptyset\). On the other hand, if there are some substitutions among the 2r edits between \(\varvec{s}\) and \(\varvec{t}\), then by a similar construction as in the case where r is even, we can find a lengthn sequence \(\varvec{v}\) such that \(\text {edit}\left( \varvec{s}, \varvec{v}\right) =\text {edit}\left( \varvec{v}, \varvec{t}\right) =r\). Motivated by this observation, we further explore the performance of the LSB functions at the gap for different types of edits. Given a gapped LSB function f, for the gap at d, define categories \(0,\ldots ,\lfloor d/2\rfloor\) corresponding to the types of edits: a pair of lengthn sequences with edit distance d is in the ith category if they can be transformed to each other with i pairs of indels (and \(d2i\) substitutions) but not \(i1\) pairs of indels (and \(d2i+2\) substitutions). FigureÂ 2 shows the results for the three LSB functions in Fig.Â 1 at their respective gaps with respect to different types of edits. Observe that the result for \(f^1_{\mathcal {S}_n}\) (in red) agrees with our analysis above.
Conclusions
We introduce localitysensitive bucketingÂ (LSB) functions, that generalize localitysensitive hashingÂ (LSH) functions by allowing it to map a sequence into multiple buckets. This generalization makes the LSB functions easier to construct, while guaranteeing high sensitivity and specificity in a deterministic manner. We construct such functions, prove their properties, and show that some of them are optimal under proposed criteria. We also reveal several properties and structures of the metric space \(\mathcal {S}_n\), which are of independent interests for studying LSH functions and the edit distance.
Our results for LSB functions can be improved in several aspects. An obvious open problem is to design \((d_1, d_2)\)sensitive functions that are not covered here. For this purpose, one direction is to construct optimal (r,Â r)guaranteed subsets for \(r>1\). As an implication of LemmaÂ 11, it is worth noting that the optimal (1,Â 1)guaranteed subset is a maximal independent set in the undirected graph \(G_n^1\) whose vertex set is \(\mathcal {S}_n\) and each sequence is connected to all its 1neighbors. It is natural to suspect that similar results hold for (r,Â r)guaranteed subsets with larger r. Another approach is to use other more wellstudied sets as buckets and define LSB functions based on their connections with \(\mathcal {S}_n\). This is closely related to the problem of embedding \(\mathcal {S}_n\) which is difficult as noted in the introduction. Our results suggest a new angle to this challenging problem: instead of restricting our attention to embedding \(\mathcal {S}_n\) into metric spaces, it may be beneficial to consider a broader category of spaces that are equipped with a nontransitive relation (here in LSB functions we used subsets of integers with the â€śhave a nonempty intersectionâ€ť relation). Yet another interesting future research direction would be to explore the possibility of improving the practical time and space efficiency of computing and applying LSB functions.
A technique commonly used to boost the sensitivity of an LSH function is known as the ORamplification. It combines multiple LSH functions in parallel, which can be viewed as sending each sequence into multiple buckets such that the probability of having similar sequences in one bucket is higher than using the individual functions separately. However, as a side effect, the ORamplification hurts specificity: the chance that dissimilar sequences share a bucket also increases. It is therefore necessary to combine it with other techniques and choosing parameters to balance sensitivity and specificity is a delicate work. On contrast, the LSB function introduced in this paper achieves a provably optimal separation of similar and dissimilar sequences. In addition, the ORamplification approach can also be applied on top of the LSB functions as needed.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
 LSH:

Localitysensitive hashing
 LSB:

Localitysensitive bucketing
References
Chen J, Guo M, Wang X, Liu B. A comprehensive review and comparison of different computational methods for protein remote homology detection. Briefings Bioinform. 2018;19(2):231â€“44.
Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(18):3094â€“100.
Berlin K, Koren S, Chin CS, Drake JP, Landolin JM, Phillippy AM. Assembling large genomes with singlemolecule sequencing and localitysensitive hashing. Nature Biotechnol. 2015;33(6):623â€“30.
Song Y, Tang H, Zhang H, Zhang Q. Overlap detection on long, errorprone sequencing reads via smooth \(q\)gram. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(19):4838â€“45.
Sahlin K, Tomaszkiewicz M, Makova KD, Medvedev P. Deciphering highly similar multigene family transcripts from IsoSeq data with IsoCon. Nature Commun. 2018;9(1):1â€“12.
Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403â€“10.
Altschul SF, Madden TL, SchĂ¤ffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. Gapped blast and psiblast: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucl Acids Res. 1997;25(17):3389â€“402.
Roberts M, Hayes W, Hunt BR, Mount SM, Yorke JA. Reducing storage requirements for biological sequence comparison. Bioinformatics. 2004;20(18):3363â€“9.
Schleimer S, Wilkerson DS, Aiken A. Winnowing: local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD (International Conference on Management of Data), 2003;pp. 76â€“85.
Roberts M, Hunt BR, Yorke JA, Bolanos RA, Delcher AL. A preprocessor for shotgun assembly of large genomes. J Comput Biol. 2004;11(4):734â€“52.
MarĂ§ais G, DeBlasio D, Kingsford C. Asymptotically optimal minimizers schemes. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(13):13â€“22.
Orenstein Y, Pellow D, MarĂ§ais G, Shamir R, Kingsford C. Designing small universal \(k\)mer hitting sets for improved analysis of highthroughput sequencing. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13(10):1005777.
DeBlasio D, Gbosibo F, Kingsford C, MarĂ§ais G. Practical universal \(k\)mer sets for minimizer schemes. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health InformaticsÂ (BCBâ€™19). Association for Computing Machinery. New York. 2019.
Rhoads A, Au KF. PacBio sequencing and its applications. Genom Proteom Bioinform. 2015;13(5):278â€“89.
Jain M, Koren S, Miga KH, Quick J, Rand AC, Sasani TA, Tyson JR, Beggs AD, Dilthey AT, Fiddes IT, et al. Nanopore sequencing and assembly of a human genome with ultralong reads. Nature Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):338â€“45.
MarĂ§ais G, DeBlasio D, Pandey P, Kingsford C. Localitysensitive hashing for the edit distance. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(14):127â€“35.
McCauley S. Approximate similarity search under edit distance using localitysensitive hashing. In: 24th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2021) 2021; Schloss DagstuhlLeibnizZentrum fĂĽr Informatik
BarYossef Z, Jayram TS, Krauthgamer R, Kumar R. Approximating edit distance efficiently. In: 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2004;pp. 550â€“559.
Ostrovsky R, Rabani Y. Low distortion embeddings for edit distance. J ACM (JACM). 2007;54(5):23.
Krauthgamer R, Rabani Y. Improved lower bounds for embeddings into \(l_1\). SIAM J Comput. 2009;38(6):2487â€“98.
Califano A, Rigoutsos I. FLASH: A fast lookup algorithm for string homology. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1993;pp. 353â€“359. IEEE
Ma B, Tromp J, Li M. Patternhunter: faster and more sensitive homology search. Bioinformatics. 2002;18(3):440â€“5.
Mak D, Gelfand Y, Benson G. Indel seeds for homology search. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(14):341â€“9.
Sahlin K. Effective sequence similarity detection with strobemers. Genome Res. 2021;31(11):2080â€“94.
Chen K, Shao M. Implementation and evaluation of the localitysensitive bucketing functions. https://github.com/ShaoGroup/lsbucketing 2022; Accessed 27 Mar 2023.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work is supported by the US National Science Foundation (DBI2019797 to M.S.) and the US National Institutes of Health (R01HG011065 to M.S.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the conception and design of the presented algorithms as well as other theoretical results. Both authors drafted and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, K., Shao, M. Localitysensitive bucketing functions for the edit distance. Algorithms Mol Biol 18, 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13015023002342
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13015023002342