Computing Maximal Lyndon Substrings of a String
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two reasons to have an efficient algorithm for identifying all maximal Lyndon substrings of a string: firstly, Bannai et al. introduced in 2015 a linear algorithm to compute all runs of a string that relies on knowing all maximal Lyndon substrings of the input string, and secondly, Franek et al. showed in 2017 a linear equivalence of sorting suffixes and sorting maximal Lyndon substrings of a string, inspired by a novel suffix sorting algorithm of Baier. In 2016, Franek et al. presented a brief overview of algorithms for computing the Lyndon array that encodes the knowledge of maximal Lyndon substrings of the input string. Among the presented were two well-known algorithms for computing the Lyndon array: a quadratic in-place algorithm based on iterated Duval's algorithm for Lyndon factorization, and a linear algorithmic scheme based on linear suffix sorting, computing inverse suffix array, and applying to it the Next Smaller Value algorithm. Duval's algorithm works for strings over any ordered alphabet, while for linear suffix sorting, a constant or an integer alphabet is required. The authors at that time were not aware of Baier's algorithm. In 2017, our research group proposed a novel algorithm for the Lyndon array. Though the proposed algorithm is linear in the average case and has O(n log(n)) worst-case complexity, it is interesting as it emulates the fast Fourier algorithm's recursive approach and introduces tau-reduction that might be of independent interest. In 2018, we presented a linear algorithm to compute the Lyndon array of a string inspired by Phase I of Baier's algorithm for suffix sorting. This paper presents theoretical analysis of these two algorithms and provides empirical comparisons of both their C++ implementations with respect to iterated Duval's algorithm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it