MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043277617 · doi:10.1109/dcc.2014.86

Better Compression through Better List Update Algorithms

2014· article· en· W2043277617 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData compressionAlgorithmLogarithmCompression (physics)OracleCompression ratioComputationOnline algorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

List update is a key step during the Burrows-Wheeler transform (BWT) compression. Previous work has shown that careful study of the list update step leads to better BWT compression. Surprisingly, the theoretical study of list update algorithms for compression has lagged behind its use in real practice. To be more precise, the standard model by Sleator and Tarjan for list update considers a 'linear cost-of-access' model while compression incurs a logarithmic cost of access, i.e. accessing item i in the list has cost Theta(i) in the standard model but Theta(log i) in compression applications. These models have been shown, in general, not to be equivalent. This paper has two contributions: (1) We give the first theoretical proof that the commonly used Move-To-Front (MTF) has good performance under the compression logarithmic cost-of-access model. This has long been known in practice but a formal proof under the logarithmic cost compression model was missing until now, (2) we further refine the online compression model to reflect its use under compression by applying the recently developed 'online algorithms with advice' model. This advice model was initially a purely theoretical construct in which the online algorithm has access to an all powerful oracle during the computation. We show that surprisingly, this seemingly unrealistic model can be used to produce better multi-pass compression algorithms. More precisely, we introduce an 'almost-online' list update algorithm, which we term BIB which results in a compression scheme which is superior to schemes using standard online algorithms, in particular those of MTF and TIMESTAMP. For example, for the files in the standard Canterbury Corpus, the compression ratio of the scheme that uses BIB is 33.66 on average, while the compression ratios for the schemes that use MTF and TIMESTAMP are respectively 34.25 and 36.30.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207