Optimal alphabet for single text compression
원문 초록
A text written using symbols from a given alphabet can be compressed using the Huffman code, which minimizes the length of the encoded text. It is necessary, however, to employ a text-specific codebook, i.e. the symbol-codeword dictionary, to decode the original text. Thus, the compression performance should be evaluated by the full code length, i.e. the length of the encoded text plus the length of the codebook. We studied several alphabets for compressing texts -- letters, n-grams of letters, syllables, words, and phrases. If only sufficiently short texts are retained, an alphabet of letters or two-grams of letters is optimal. For the majority of Project Gutenberg texts, the best alphabet (the one that minimizes the full code length) is given by syllables or words, depending on the representation of the codebook. Letter 3 and 4-grams, having on average comparable length to syllables/words, perform noticeably worse than syllables or words. Word 2-grams also are never the best alphabet, on the account of having a very large codebook. We also show that the codebook representation is important -- switching from a naive representation to a compact one significantly improves the matters for alphabets with large number of symbols, most notably the words. Thus, meaning-expressing elements of the language (syllables or words) provide the best compression alphabet.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
TokAlign: Efficient Vocabulary Adaptation via Token Alignment
Scaling Multi-Document Event Summarization: Evaluating Compression vs. Full-Text Approaches
L3TC: Leveraging RWKV for Learned Lossless Low-Complexity Text Compression
IntellectSeeker: A Personalized Literature Management System with the Probabilistic Model and Large Language Model
FineZip : Pushing the Limits of Large Language Models for Practical Lossless Text Compression
AlphaZip: Neural Network-Enhanced Lossless Text Compression
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.