MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783349915 · doi:10.1109/cyberc.2017.26

Searching BWT against Pattern Matching Machine to Find Multiple String Matches

2017· article· en· W2783349915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsString searching algorithmComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Pattern matchingString (physics)Approximate string matchingArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss an indexing method for solving the multiple string pattern matching problem, by which we are given a set of short strings R = {r1, ..., rl} and required to locate all substrings of a target string s such that each of them matches an rj in R. The main idea is to construct a pattern matching machine A and transform the reverse of s to a BWT-array as an index, denoted as BWT(s̅), and search A against it. During the process, the failure function of A is used to decrease the subranges of BWT(s̅) to be searched at each step. In addition, we change a single-character checking against BWT(s̅) to a multiple-character checking, by which multiple searches of BWT(s̅) are reduced to a single scanning. In this way, high efficiency can be achieved. Extensive experiments have been conducted, which shows that our method works better than almost all the existing methods for this problem.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207