Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, several authors presented linear recursive algorithms for sorting suffixes of a string. All these algorithms employ a similar three-step approach, based on an initial division of the suffixes of x into two sets: Step 1 sorts the first set using recursive reduction of the problem, Step 2 determines the order of the suffixes in the second set based on the order of the suffixes in the first set, and Step 3 merges the two sets together. To optimize such an algorithm either for space or time, it may not be sufficient to optimize one of the three steps, since in doing so, one might increase the resources required for the others to an unacceptable extent. \n \nFranek, Lu, and Smyth introduced two-pattern strings as a generalization of Sturmian strings. Like Sturmian strings, two-pattern strings are generated by iterated morphisms, but they exhibit a much richer structure. In this paper we show that the suffixes of two-pattern strings can be sorted in linear time using a variant of the three-step approach outlined above, but without the need for recursion. It turns out that, given the order of the suffixes in a two-pattern string, one can almost directly list in linear time all the suffixes of its expansion under a two-pattern morphism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".