Compressing multisets using tries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of efficient and lossless representation of a multiset of m words drawn with repetition from a set of size 2n. One expects that encoding the (unordered) multiset should lead to significant savings in rate as compared to encoding an (ordered) sequence with the same words, since information about the order of words in the sequence corresponds to a permutation. We propose and analyze a practical multiset encoder/decoder based on the trie data structure. The act of encoding requires O(m(n + log m)) operations, and decoding requires O(mn) operations. Of particular interest is the case where cardinality of the multiset scales as m = 1/c2nfor some c >; 1, as n → ∞. Under this scaling, and when the words in the multiset are drawn independently and uniformly, we show that the proposed encoding leads to an arbitrary improvement in rate over encoding an ordered sequence with the same words. Moreover, the expected length of the proposed codes in this setting is asymptotically within a constant factor of 5/3 of the lower bound.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".