Compression by Substring Enumeration Using Sorted Contingency Tables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes two variants of improved Compression by Substring Enumeration (CSE) with a finite alphabet. In previous studies on CSE, an encoder utilizes inequalities which evaluate the number of occurrences of a substring or a minimal forbidden word (MFW) to be encoded. The inequalities are derived from a contingency table including the number of occurrences of a substring or an MFW. Moreover, codeword length of a substring and an MFW grows with the difference between the upper and lower bounds deduced from the inequalities, however the lower bound is not tight. Therefore, we derive a new tight lower bound based on the contingency table and consequently propose a new CSE algorithm using the new inequality. We also propose a new encoding order of substrings and MFWs based on a sorted contingency table such that both its row and column marginal total are sorted in descending order instead of a lexicographical order used in previous studies. We then propose a new CSE algorithm which is the first proposed CSE algorithm using the new encoding order. Experimental results show that compression ratios of all files of the Calgary corpus in the proposed algorithms are better than those of a previous study on CSE with a finite alphabet. Moreover, compression ratios under the second proposed CSE get better than or equal to that under a well-known compressor for 11 files amongst 14 files in the corpus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".