Predicting Deduplication Performance: An Analytical Model and Empirical Evaluation
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
Deduplication is a technique to find and eliminate redundant blocks of data for efficient data backups, efficient versioning, reduced data transfers, and reduced data-storage overheads. For large datasets, especially with incremental updates over time (e.g., instrumentation data) and subsetting (e.g., for auxiliary experiments), deduplication makes data management faster and more efficient. The primary parameter of deduplication systems is the expected chunk size, and while many existing systems use accepted default values (e.g., 4 KB or 8 KB chunks), our experiments find that these values are suboptimal for finding duplicate data. Suboptimal deduplication and data management makes it harder for researchers to manipulate, share, and experiment with large datasets.We present the design, implementation, and an empirical validation of our analytical model that predicts the performance of deduplication parameters (i.e., ability to find duplicate data) on any given dataset. The empirical evaluation includes workloads based on source code (i.e., Linux kernel, Kubernetes, TensorFlow), an open-research dataset (i.e., CORD-19), and Wikipedia. Our experiments show that our model finds deduplication parameters that reduce the storage requirements by up to an additional 30.72% compared to a commonly used baseline. Our model is up to 19.8x faster than scanning, and the resulting deduplicated datasets are all within 5.14% of the deduped sizes found via the scan-based search.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| 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