MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415312698 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14734

Compressing Suffix Trees by Path Decompositions

2025· preprint· en· W4415312698 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ruben Becker, Davide Cenzato, Travis Gagie, Sunghwan Kim, Ragnar Groot Koerkamp, Giovanni Manzini, Nicola Prezza

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsSuffix treeSuffixCompressed suffix arrayGeneralized suffix treePath (computing)String (physics)Bounded functionTime complexity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The suffix tree is arguably the most fundamental data structure on strings: introduced by Weiner (SWAT 1973) and McCreight (JACM 1976), it allows solving a myriad of computational problems on strings in linear time. Motivated by its large space usage, subsequent research focused first on reducing its size by a constant factor via Suffix Arrays, and later on reaching space proportional to the size of the compressed string. Modern compressed indexes, such as the r-index (Gagie et al., JACM 2020), fit in space proportional to r, the number of runs in the Burrows-Wheeler transform (a strong and universal repetitiveness measure). These advances, however, came with a price: while modern compressed indexes boast optimal bounds in the RAM model, they are often orders of magnitude slower than uncompressed counterparts in practice due to catastrophic cache locality. This reality gap highlights that Big-O complexity in the RAM model has become a misleading predictor of real-world performance, leaving a critical question unanswered: can we design compressed indexes that are efficient in the I/O model of computation? We answer this in the affirmative by introducing a new Suffix Array sampling technique based on particular path decompositions of the suffix tree. We prove that sorting the suffix tree leaves by specific priority functions induces a decomposition where the number of distinct paths (each corresponding to a string suffix) is bounded by r. This allows us to solve indexed pattern matching efficiently in the I/O model using a Suffix Array sample of size at most r, strictly improving upon the (tight) 2r bound of Suffixient Arrays, another recent compressed Suffix Array sampling technique. Experiments confirm that this theoretical I/O efficiency translates to practice in pangenomic applications: our index locates pattern occurrences using less space and orders of magnitude less time than the r-index when performing pattern matching on repetitive DNA collections. Beyond this, our contributions are twofold: (i) unlike Suffixient Arrays, our technique supports most standard suffix tree operations in O(r) space on top of the text while matching the I/O complexity of uncompressed suffix trees; and (ii) we establish a general framework where any valid path decomposition induces a Suffix Array sampling whose size is a new strong repetitiveness measure; we provide a universal mechanism for locating all pattern occurrences for each such path decomposition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207