MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994941531 · doi:10.1145/3376122

Xor Filters

2020· article· en· W2994941531 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBloom filterFilter (signal processing)CuckooGeneralizationSet (abstract data type)Bitwise operationFilter design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bloom filter provides fast approximate set membership while using little memory. Engineers often use these filters to avoid slow operations such as disk or network accesses. As an alternative, a cuckoo filter may need less space than a Bloom filter and it is faster. Chazelle et al. proposed a generalization of the Bloom filter called the Bloomier filter. Dietzfelbinger and Pagh described a variation on the Bloomier filter that can answer approximate membership queries over immutable sets. It has never been tested empirically, to our knowledge. We review an efficient implementation of their approach, which we call the xor filter. We find that xor filters can be faster than Bloom and cuckoo filters while using less memory. We further show that a more compact version of xor filters (xor+) can use even less space than highly compact alternatives (e.g., Golomb-compressed sequences) while providing speeds competitive with Bloom filters.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.222 · 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