MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1627186833 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.cs/0611099

On the space complexity of one-pass compression

2006· preprint· en· W1627186833 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsBinary logarithmOrder (exchange)String (physics)Memory footprintCompression (physics)Entropy (arrow of time)FootprintSpace (punctuation)Discrete mathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study how much memory one-pass compression algorithms need to compete with the best multi-pass algorithms. We call a one-pass algorithm an (f (n, \ell))-footprint compressor if, given $n$, $\ell$ and an $n$-ary string $S$, it stores $S$ in ((\rule{0ex}{2ex} O (H_\ell (S)) + o (\log n)) |S| + O (n^{\ell + 1} \log n)) bits -- where (H_\ell (S)) is the $\ell$th-order empirical entropy of $S$ -- while using at most (f (n, \ell)) bits of memory. We prove that, for any (ε> 0) and some (f (n, \ell) \in O (n^{\ell + ε} \log n)), there is an (f (n, \ell))-footprint compressor; on the other hand, there is no (f (n, \ell))-footprint compressor for (f (n, \ell) \in o (n^\ell \log n)).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it