Skip to content

Paper on excess algorithms - #49

Open
Malkovsky wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/paper_on_excess
Open

Paper on excess algorithms#49
Malkovsky wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/paper_on_excess

Conversation

@Malkovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

No description provided.

@chatgpt-codex-connectorchatgpt-codex-connectorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit:43d3a91c3e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
../../_extensions No newline at end of file

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Restore journal extensions required by checked-in papers

Removing the _extensions symlink here (and deleting academic/_extensions/) leaves committed papers without the format extensions they still reference (acm-pdf in sample-paper and algorithms_for_excess, ieee-pdf in test-ieee-paper). In this state, running the documented quarto render from those paper directories will fail unless users manually reinstall extensions first, which is a regression from the previously self-contained setup.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@Malkovsky
Malkovskyforce-pushed the feature/paper_on_excess branch from 43d3a91 to e18a4a0CompareMay 23, 2026 15:38

@chatgpt-codex-connectorchatgpt-codex-connectorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit:e18a4a0dcf

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

\end{algorithm}

## Setup
Classical algorithms for finding rank and select are similar to \autoref{prefix-sum}, computing rank is straightforward from the prefix sum, for select one can do a binary search over the prefix sum array, the only problem to properly manipulate bit length of each element so that we don't get overflow.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Fix unresolved autoref to prefix-sum algorithm

This paragraph references \autoref{prefix-sum}, but the only defined label in the document is \label{alg:prefix-sum}. In the rendered paper this produces an unresolved cross-reference (typically ??), so readers lose the intended link to the algorithm. The reference key should match the existing label.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment on lines +77 to +80
\For{$i = 0, \ldots k-1$}{
$R[j] \gets T[A[j]]$\;
}
\Return $R$\;

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Make table-lookup pseudocode variables consistent

The loop is declared over i, but the body writes R[j] from A[j], and then returns R even though \KwOut declares output B. As written, the algorithm uses an undefined index and mismatched output variable names, which makes the method description ambiguous and incorrect for anyone trying to implement it from the paper.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@codecov

codecovBot commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 87.19%. Comparing base (55e4219) to head (e18a4a0).

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #49 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 87.19% 87.19% =======================================
Files 14 14 Lines 3257 3257 Branches 607 607 =======================================
Hits 2840 2840 Misses 285 285 Partials 132 132 
FlagCoverage Δ
gcov87.19% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@Malkovsky