Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- From: "jacko" <jackokring@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Jul 2006 11:23:36 -0700
Herbert Glarner wrote:
jacko wrote:overlap percentage!
all given prime number identifier
start with smallest
join to all of increasing size (if possible and give composite id
number)
Is there a qualitative reason for proceding from the smallest pattern to
the largest instead of the other way round? My intuition does suggest,
that eliminating the largest patterns first (by merging into the
hypermatrix) leads to less comparisons for the later smaller patterns:
the "hypermatrix" already is a compressed representation in either case,
but initially it is small and thus there is not much to check. As it
grows, I certainly would be thankful for smaller patterns reducing the
overall number of comparisons.
However, the efficiency question still remains, as with n patterns INo when composite join found merge and give composite id, but nust
need to compare n(n-1)/2 patterns, and comparing two two-dimensional
patterns isn't quite effective, as both Boyer-Moore and KPM seem to be a
large overhead. If I understand your approach correctly, you suggest to
compare "all-with-all" prior any actual merging.
continue as there may be a more optimal merge.
In this case I wouldyou have to compare them :-)
tend to hash a sequenced array's possible windows to avoid multiple
comparisions of the same patterns over and over again. However, then
there is the issue of storage. A single exemplary 10*10 matrix produces
2000 possibly matching subarrays involving edges, not counting the inner
"edge free" submatrices. Assuming 10000 patterns, we already get 20m
possible matches.
> delete the smallest when all joins tried with bigger?? when all merges of one to all rest found why keep it?
> loop with next smallest until generated composite of all (id)
"Deletion" sounds fine to me, only that the hypermatrix has grown due to
merging operation. All remaining patterns then still are existent, and
the hashes still are valid for them. But the hypermatrix' hashes are
pretty much obsolete now, as the linearization has changed, so it will
require a new hashing process with more submatrices than before.
As you can see: I'm still trying to find a way to reduce this enormousgood luck
comparison overhead. *g*
Thanks for your input, though
//Herbert
--
http://herbert.wikispaces.com
.
- References:
- Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- From: Herbert Glarner
- Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- From: neleai
- Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- From: jacko
- Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- From: Herbert Glarner
- Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- Prev by Date: Re: Any pointers?
- Next by Date: Mapping rationals to binary strings while preserving order
- Previous by thread: Re: Two-dimensional pattern matching/compression
- Next by thread: Re: multithreaded programs with exponential diameter
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|