Bibliographic record
Abstract
We attempt to determine the best order and search algorithm to store $n$ comparable data items in an array, $A$, of length $n$ so that we can, for any query value, $x$, quickly find the smallest value in $A$ that is greater than or equal to $x$. In particular, we consider the important case where there are many such queries to the same array, $A$, which resides entirely in RAM. In addition to the obvious sorted order/binary search combination we consider the Eytzinger (BFS) layout normally used for heaps, an implicit B-tree layout that generalizes the Eytzinger layout, and the van Emde Boas layout commonly used in the cache-oblivious algorithms literature. After extensive testing and tuning on a wide variety of modern hardware, we arrive at the conclusion that, for small values of $n$, sorted order, combined with a good implementation of binary search is best. For larger values of $n$, we arrive at the surprising conclusion that the Eytzinger layout is usually the fastest. The latter conclusion is unexpected and goes counter to earlier experimental work by Brodal, Fagerberg, and Jacob (SODA~2003), who concluded that both the B-tree and van Emde Boas layouts were faster than the Eytzinger layout for large values of $n$. Our fastest C++ implementations, when compiled, use conditional moves to avoid branch mispredictions and prefetching to reduce cache latency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.014 |
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".