MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036015462 · doi:10.4230/lipics.esa.2020.54

Fast Preprocessing for Optimal Orthogonal Range Reporting and Range Successor with Applications to Text Indexing

2020· preprint· en· W3036015462 on OpenAlexaff
Younan Gao, Meng He, Yakov Nekrich

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuccessor cardinalCombinatoricsSearch engine indexingData structureRange (aeronautics)Word (group theory)Linear spaceMathematicsSpace (punctuation)PreprocessorDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometryMathematical analysisInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the word RAM model, we design three data structures that can be constructed in $O(n\sqrt{\lg n})$ time over $n$ points in an $n \times n$ grid. The first data structure is an $O(n\lg^ε n)$-word structure supporting orthogonal range reporting in $O(\lg\lg n+k)$ time, where $k$ denotes output size and $ε$ is an arbitrarily small constant. The second is an $O(n\lg\lg n)$-word structure supporting orthogonal range successor in $O(\lg\lg n)$ time, while the third is an $O(n\lg^ε n)$-word structure supporting sorted range reporting in $O(\lg\lg n+k)$ time. The query times of these data structures are optimal when the space costs must be within $O(n\ polylog\ n)$ words. Their exact space bounds match those of the best known results achieving the same query times, and the $O(n\sqrt{\lg n})$ construction time beats the previous bounds on preprocessing. Previously, among 2d range search structures, only the orthogonal range counting structure of Chan and Pǎtraşcu (SODA 2010) and the linear space, $O(\lg^ε n)$ query time structure for orthogonal range successor by Belazzougui and Puglisi (SODA 2016) can be built in the same $O(n\sqrt{\lg n})$ time. Hence our work is the first that achieve the same preprocessing time for optimal orthogonal range reporting and range successor. We also apply our results to improve the construction time of text indexes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.138 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207