Bibliographic record
Abstract
The $r$-index represented a breakthrough in compressed indexing of repetitive text collections, outperforming its alternatives by orders of magnitude in query time. Its space usage, $O(r)$ where $r$ is the number of runs in the Burrows--Wheeler Transform of the text, is however higher than Lempel--Ziv (LZ) and grammar-based indexes, and makes it uninteresting in various real-life scenarios of milder repetitiveness. We introduce the $sr$-index, a variant that limits the space to $O(\min(r,n/s))$ for a text of length $n$ and a given parameter $s$, at the expense of multiplying by $s$ the time per occurrence reported. The $sr$-index is obtained subsampling the text positions indexed by the $r$-index, being still able to support pattern matching with guaranteed performance. Our experiments show that the theoretical analysis falls short in describing the practical advantages of the $sr$-index, because it performs much better on real texts than on synthetic ones: the $sr$-index retains the performance of the $r$-index while using 1.5--4.0 times less space, sharply outperforming {\em virtually every other} compressed index on repetitive texts in both time and space. Only a particular LZ-based index uses less space than the $sr$-index, but it is an order of magnitude slower. Our second contribution are the $r$-csa and $sr$-csa indexes. Just like the $r$-index adapts the well-known FM-Index to repetitive texts, the $r$-csa adapts Sadakane's Compressed Suffix Array (CSA) to this case. We show that the principles used on the $r$-index turn out to fit naturally and efficiently in the CSA framework. The $sr$-csa is the corresponding subsampled version of the $r$-csa. While the CSA performs better than the FM-Index on classic texts with alphabets larger than DNA, we show that the $sr$-csa outperforms the $sr$-index on repetitive texts over those larger alphabets and some DNA texts as well.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".