Download Implementation of DCA Compression Method

List of Tables
2.1
Canterbury Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
3.1
Suffix array for text “abcaab” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3.2
Suffix array used for antidictionary construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
3.3
Example of node gains as antiwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
3.4
Dynamic compression example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
4.1
DCAstate structure implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.2
Compressed file format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
5.1
Parallel antidictionaries using static compression scheme . . . . . . . . . .
65
5.2
Parallel antidictionaries using dynamic compression scheme . . . . . . . .
65
5.3
Best compression ratios obtained on Canterbury Corpus . . . . . . . . . .
70
5.4
Compressed file sizes obtained on Canterbury Corpus
. . . . . . . . . . .
75
5.5
Compressed file sizes obtained on Calgary Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
5.6
Pros and cons of different methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
xxi