MOHAMMAD ALI SAFARI Universiy of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We give experimental evidence for the benefits of order preserving compression in sorting algorithms. While in general any algorithm might benefit from compressed data due to reduced paging requirements, we identified two natural candidates that would further benefit from order preserving compression, namely string-oriented sorting algorithms and word-RAM algorithms for keys of bounded length. The word-RAM model has some of the fastest known sorting algorithms in practice. These algorithms are designed for keys of bounded length, usually 32 or 64 bits, which limits their direct applicability for strings. One possibility is to use an order preserving compression scheme, so that a bounded-key-length algorithm can be applied. For the case of standard algorithms we took what is considered to be the among the fastest non-word RAM string sorting algorithms, Fast MKQSort, and measured its performance on compressed data. The Fast MKQ-Sort algorithm of Bentley and Sedgewick is optimized to handle text strings. Our experiments show that order compression techniques results in savings of approx. 15 % over the same algorithm on non-compressed data. For the word-RAM we modified Andersson’s sorting algorithm to handle variable length keys. The resulting algorithm is faster than the standard Unix sort by a factor of 1.5x. Lastly we used an order preserving scheme that is within a constant additive term of the
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".