Towards a Definitive Compressibility Measure for Repetitive Sequences

October 04, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Tomasz Kociumaka, Gonzalo Navarro, Nicola Prezza arXiv ID 1910.02151 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 58 Venue Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Unlike in statistical compression, where Shannon's entropy is a definitive lower bound, no such clear measure exists for the compressibility of repetitive sequences. Since statistical entropy does not capture repetitiveness, ad-hoc measures like the size $z$ of the Lempel--Ziv parse are frequently used to estimate it. The size $b \le z$ of the smallest bidirectional macro scheme captures better what can be achieved via copy-paste processes, though it is NP-complete to compute and it is not monotonic upon symbol appends. Recently, a more principled measure, the size $γ$ of the smallest string \emph{attractor}, was introduced. The measure $γ\le b$ lower bounds all the previous relevant ones, yet length-$n$ strings can be represented and efficiently indexed within space $O(γ\log\frac{n}γ)$, which also upper bounds most measures. While $γ$ is certainly a better measure of repetitiveness than $b$, it is also NP-complete to compute and not monotonic, and it is unknown if one can always represent a string in $o(γ\log n)$ space. In this paper, we study an even smaller measure, $δ\le γ$, which can be computed in linear time, is monotonic, and allows encoding every string in $O(δ\log\frac{n}δ)$ space because $z = O(δ\log\frac{n}δ)$. We show that $δ$ better captures the compressibility of repetitive strings. Concretely, we show that (1) $δ$ can be strictly smaller than $γ$, by up to a logarithmic factor; (2) there are string families needing $Ω(δ\log\frac{n}δ)$ space to be encoded, so this space is optimal for every $n$ and $δ$; (3) one can build run-length context-free grammars of size $O(δ\log\frac{n}δ)$, whereas the smallest (non-run-length) grammar can be up to $Θ(\log n/\log\log n)$ times larger; and (4) within $O(δ\log\frac{n}δ)$ space we can not only...
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted