MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171866929 · doi:10.1017/s0960129515000134

Fast circular dictionary-matching algorithm

2015· article· en· W2171866929 on OpenAlexaff
Tanver Athar, Carl Barton, Widmer Bland, Jia Gao, Costas S. Iliopoulos, Chang Liu, Solon P. Pissis

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsString searching algorithmMatching (statistics)ComputationAlgorithmString (physics)Pattern matchingSpace (punctuation)MathematicsCombinatoricsApproximate string matchingComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circular string matching is a problem which naturally arises in many contexts. It consists in finding all occurrences of the rotations of a pattern of lengthmin a text of lengthn. There exist optimal worst- and average-case algorithms for circular string matching. Here, we present a suboptimal average-case algorithm for circular string matching requiring time $\mathcal{O}$ (n) and space $\mathcal{O}$ (m). The importance of our contribution is underlined by the fact that the proposed algorithm can be easily adapted to deal with circular dictionary matching. In particular, we show how the circular dictionary-matching problem can be solved in average-case time $\mathcal{O}$ (n+M) and space $\mathcal{O}$ (M), whereMis the total length of the dictionary patterns, assuming that the shortest pattern is sufficiently long. Moreover, the presented average-case algorithms and other worst-case approaches were also implemented. Experimental results, using real and synthetic data, demonstrate that the implementation of the presented algorithms can accelerate the computations by more than a factor of two compared to the corresponding implementation of other approaches.

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Structures in Computer ScienceSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207