MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009268872 · doi:10.1109/dcc.2014.68

Improving Compression via Substring Enumeration by Explicit Phase Awareness

2014· article· en· W2009268872 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Beliveau, Danny Dubé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLossless compressionSubstringComputer scienceCompression (physics)Data compressionByteAlgorithmSynchronization (alternating current)EnumerationCode (set theory)Universal codePhase (matter)Compression ratioTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsData structureDecoding methodsBlock codeDiscrete mathematicsProgramming languageLinear codeTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compression by Substring Enumeration (CSE) is a recent and promising lossless compression scheme. The first experiments on CSE showed that it yields compression ratios that favorably compare to other lossless compression techniques. However, the experiments also showed that it tends to incur a performance loss on non-textual, byte-oriented sources and it was conjectured that CSE's phase unawareness was responsible for this loss of performance. Subsequent work confirmed the conjecture by obtaining improved compression ratios when synchronization codes get inserted in the data source, indirectly solving the phase-unawareness problem. This indirect solution does not give an absolute measure of the loss incurred by the phase unawareness problem. This paper presents a modified CSE algorithm that is made explicitly phase aware. It compares the synchronization-code approach to the explicitly phase-aware approach and shows that, in the end, the approach based on synchronization codes is almost as good as the phase-aware approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207