Efficient and Compact Representations of Some Non-Canonical Prefix-Free Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many kinds of prefix-free codes there are efficient and compact alternatives to the traditional tree-based representation. Since these put the codes into canonical form, however, they can only be used when we can choose the order in which codewords are assigned to symbols. In this paper we first show how, given a probability distribution over an alphabet of $σ$ symbols, we can store an optimal alphabetic prefix-free code in $\Oh{σ\log L}$ bits such that we can encode and decode any codeword of length $\ell$ in $\Oh{\min (\ell, \log L)}$ time, where $L$ is the maximum codeword length. With $\Oh{2^{L^ε}}$ further bits, for any constant $ε>0$, we can encode and decode $\Oh{\log \ell}$ time. We then show how to store a nearly optimal alphabetic prefix-free code in \(o (σ)\) bits such that we can encode and decode in constant time. We also consider a kind of optimal prefix-free code introduced recently where the codewords' lengths are non-decreasing if arranged in lexicographic order of their reverses. We reduce their storage space to $\Oh{σ\log L}$ while maintaining encoding and decoding times in $\Oh{\ell}$. We also show how, with $\Oh{2^{εL}}$ further bits, we can encode and decode in constant time. All of our results hold in the word-RAM model.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".