MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054300598 · doi:10.1002/spe.982

Post BWT stages of the Burrows–Wheeler compression algorithm

2010· article· en· W2054300598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jürgen Abel

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLossless compressionAlgorithmComputer scienceData compressionEntropy encodingContext (archaeology)Compression (physics)Permutation (music)Entropy (arrow of time)Image compressionSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)HistoryImage processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The lossless Burrows–Wheeler compression algorithm has received considerable attention over recent years for both its simplicity and effectiveness. It is based on a permutation of the input sequence—the Burrows–Wheeler transformation (BWT)—which groups symbols with a similar context close together. In the original version, this permutation was followed by a Move‐To‐Front transformation and a final entropy coding stage. Later versions used different algorithms, placed after the BWT, since the following stages have a significant influence on the compression rate. This paper describes different algorithms and improvements for these post BWT stages including a new context‐based approach. The results for compression rates are presented together with compression and decompression times on the Calgary corpus, the Canterbury corpus, the large Canterbury corpus and the Lukas 2D 16‐bit medical image corpus. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Practice and ExperienceSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207