SIMD Compression and the Intersection of Sorted Integers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sorted lists of integers are commonly used in inverted indexes and database systems. They are often compressed in memory. We can use the SIMD instructions available in common processors to boost the speed of integer compression schemes. Our S4-BP128-D4 scheme uses as little as 0.7 CPU cycles per decoded integer while still providing state-of-the-art compression. \nHowever, if the subsequent processing of the integers is slow, the effort spent on optimizing decoding speed can be wasted. To show that it does not have to be so, we (1) vectorize and optimize the intersection of posting lists; (2) introduce the SIMD Galloping algorithm. We exploit the fact that one SIMD instruction can compare 4 pairs of integers at once. \nWe experiment with two TREC text collections, GOV2 and ClueWeb09 (Category B), using logs from the TREC million-query track. We show that using only the SIMD instructions ubiquitous in all modern CPUs, our techniques for conjunctive queries can double the speed of a state-of-the-art approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".