MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Basic Data Compression Algorithms in a Distributed Environment

2012· article· en· W2323457000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minhaj Ahmad Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuffman codingData compressionScalabilityCompression ratioAlgorithmServerCompression (physics)Encoding (memory)Transfer (computing)Parallel computingDistributed computingReal-time computingDatabaseComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data compression methods aim at reducing the data size in order to make data transfer more efficient. To accomplish data compression, the basic algorithms such as Huffman, Lempel-Ziv (LZ), Shannon-Fano (SF) and Run-Length Encoding (RLE) are widely used. Most of the applications incorporate different variants of these algorithms. This paper analyzes the execution times, compression ratio and efficiency of compression methods in a client-server distributed environment. The data from a client is distributed to multiple processors/servers, subsequently compressed by the servers at remote locations, and sent back to the client. Our experimentation has been carried out using Simgrid Framework. Our results show that the LZ algorithm attains better efficiency/scalability and compression ratio, however, it works slower than other algorithms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207