Recursive Prefix-Free Parsing for Building Big BWTs
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
Abstract Prefix-free parsing is useful for a wide variety of purposes including building the BWT, constructing the suffix array, and supporting compressed suffix tree operations. This linear-time algorithm uses a rolling hash to break an input string into substrings, where the resulting set of unique substrings has the property that none of the substrings’ suffixes (of more than a certain length) is a proper prefix of any of the other substrings’ suffixes. Hence, the name prefix-free parsing. This set of unique substrings is referred to as the dictionary . The parse is the ordered list of dictionary strings that defines the input string. Prior empirical results demonstrated the size of the parse is more burdensome than the size of the dictionary for large, repetitive inputs. Hence, the question arises as to how the size of the parse can scale satisfactorily with the input. Here, we describe our algorithm, recursive prefix-free parsing , which accomplishes this by computing the prefix-free parse of the parse produced by prefix-free parsing an input string. Although conceptually simple, building the BWT from the parse-of-the-parse and the dictionaries is significantly more challenging. We solve and implement this problem. Our experimental results show that recursive prefix-free parsing is extremely effective in reducing the memory needed to build the run-length encoded BWT of the input. Our implementation is open source and available at https://github.com/marco-oliva/r-pfbwt .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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