MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2732566993 · doi:10.1007/s00453-019-00637-x

Fast Compressed Self-indexes with Deterministic Linear-Time Construction

2019· preprint· en· W2732566993 on OpenAlexaff
J. Ian Munro, Gonzalo Navarro, Yakov Nekrich

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithmica · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed suffix arrayBinary logarithmAlphabetCombinatoricsSuffixLog-log plotTime complexitySigmaMathematicsSuffix arrayAlgorithmOmegaDiscrete mathematicsSuffix treeArithmeticPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a compressed suffix array representation that, on a text T of length n over an alphabet of size \(\sigma \) , can be built in O ( n ) deterministic time, within \(O(n\log \sigma )\) bits of working space, and counts the number of occurrences of any pattern P in T in time \(O(|P| + \log \log _w \sigma )\) on a RAM machine of \(w=\Omega (\log n)\) -bit words. This time is almost optimal for large alphabets ( \(\log \sigma =\Theta (\log n)\) ), and it outperforms all the other compressed indexes that can be built in linear deterministic time, as well as some others. The only faster indexes can be built in linear time only in expectation, or require \(\Theta (n\log n)\) bits. For smaller alphabets, where \(\log \sigma = o(\log n)\) , we show how, by using space proportional to a compressed representation of the text, we can build in linear time an index that counts in time \(O(|P|/\log _\sigma n + \log _\sigma ^\epsilon n)\) for any constant \(\epsilon >0\) . This is almost RAM-optimal in the typical case where \(w=\Theta (\log n)\) .

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)0.012
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmicaSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207