Trie — where it appears
Named by 17 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The shift a set of patterns allows
Aho-Corasick reads every character of the text exactly once, whatever the number of patterns. Commentz-Walter reads backwards inside a window and steps over what it can, and on eight patterns of ten characters it looks at sixty-two per cent of a twenty-thousand-character text. The rule that does the skipping is not the one everybody implements.
One pass for every pattern at once
Sixty-four patterns, one text, twenty thousand characters read. Running this site's KMP once per pattern reads 1,595,445 — and an implementation missing one kind of link finds fewer occurrences, reads exactly as much, and looks better on every counter.
The table that walks every pair
The exact shift rules cost 769,724 character comparisons to build for 128 patterns and the published ones cost 5,604. The scan they are both built for reads 41,580 characters, so one of the two constructions is eighteen times the work it is there to save.
The ceiling the shortest pattern sets
A matcher that skips is described as faster than one that reads every character, and the description leaves out what decides it. No shift can exceed the shortest pattern in the set, so adding one two-character pattern to fifteen of sixteen characters takes a run from reading fifty-eight per cent of the text to reading all of it twice.
The shift somebody published
The exact rules for shifting a multi-pattern window are a definition that quantifies over every pattern at every offset. The 1979 rules are two tables read off the trie's own failure links, they are computed in one pass, and on this pattern set they agree with the definition at every node.
The columns the candidates share
Three thousand tables against one query, and most of them begin the same way. Stored as a trie, the 2,424-word vocabulary has 7,710 distinct prefixes holding 17,239 letters, and a search that computes one column per prefix reads 61,449 cells against 156,714 — before it applies any bound at all. Apply the bound at a prefix instead of at a word and it reads 16,958, beating a list search that was told the answer in advance.
The case a failure link does not cover
Compute the exact good-suffix rule from the failure links alone and eighteen of twenty-two entries come out too large. The matcher then steps past sixty-six of two thousand and twenty-five occurrences, and every match it does report is a match.
A trie fitted to its queries
A nearest-word search over a trie of 2,424 words gives a column to about 30% of the prefixes each query, and it was proposed that a stream of queries would pick out a part of the trie worth keeping and a part worth collapsing. A hundred queries have visited 93% of it; two thousand, 99.5%. A stream does not choose a part of the trie. It chooses a distance: misspelt vocabulary words all lie within two edits, and a search that starts at the median past answer does a fifth of the work of one that discovers its bound. Misspellings of words the vocabulary lacks break that, unless the search tries the learned bound once and then gives it up.
A second try before any feature
A nearest-word search that learned one starting bound for a whole stream was proposed a bound for each query instead, read off features the search can compute before it walks. The proposed feature separates nothing: 58% of misspelt vocabulary words and 53% of words the vocabulary lacks begin with a real three-letter prefix. Length and unseen letter-triples do predict distance, and still buy about 1%, because the best start is two for almost every class. What closes half the gap to an oracle is a second cheap walk: one, then two, then discover.
The table the links already knew
The exact good-suffix rule costs 757,058 character comparisons to build from its definition at 128 patterns, and 3,824 from the trie's failure links. Same table, checked at every node — a factor of 198, and the definition was never the algorithm.
A checker that stops at two edits
A nearest-word search that must always answer pays most of its price on the queries whose answer is useless: misspellings of words the vocabulary does not have, whose nearest vocabulary word can be twenty edits away. Capping the answer at two edits keeps every suggestion a misspelt vocabulary word could get and costs 42% of the uncapped search. What it does not do is stop the false suggestions. It declines 95% of unfamiliar words of eleven letters or more and 1% of those of three or four, because two edits is most of a short word, and 72% of what it still says to an unfamiliar word is wrong — against 77% with no cap at all.
The triples a typo writes
A spelling checker capped at two edits keeps every correction it could make and still gives a false suggestion to 72% of the unfamiliar words it answers, because on short words distance cannot tell a typo of a vocabulary word from a word the vocabulary lacks. The query's letters were proposed as the second test: decline a query whose letter-triples the vocabulary has never seen. They cannot separate the two either. One edit writes about one unseen triple into any word, familiar or not, while an unfamiliar word brings 0.59 of its own, and two thirds bring none. Declining at two unseen triples removes a quarter of the false suggestions and costs half the corrections — twenty-two corrections for every false suggestion removed.
The counts only short words carry
A spelling checker capped at two edits still gives a false suggestion to many words its vocabulary lacks, and the one evidence about a writer's intention it already holds is how often each vocabulary word is used. Scored by its nearest words' counts, weighed a tenth for each edit, an answer was predicted to separate a slip from an unfamiliar word on short queries. On the streams the checker was built against, whose typos are of words drawn evenly from the list, the false suggestions go to commoner words than the corrections do, and the test gives up sixteen corrections for each false suggestion it removes. Drawn as a writer mistypes, in proportion to use, the counts separate the two at last — and still trade worse than a plain cap of one edit, except on words of four letters or fewer, where a threshold removes a ninth of the false suggestions for one correction in ninety-six.
The commonest word at the distance
A spelling checker that lists every nearest word counts a correction whenever the intended word is somewhere in the list, and on a short query that list averages three or four words. Offering only the commonest of them was predicted to keep nine in ten of the list's corrections on short words when misspellings follow use, and far fewer when they are drawn evenly from the word list. It keeps 77% on words of three or four letters, and on the even stream it keeps 48% — less than a choice that ignores the counts. Across all lengths the two streams look the same, which is how the difference stays hidden.
A list as long as the doubt
A spelling checker that offers one word is right 64% of the time on short misspellings, and one that offers three is right 80% of the time. Between them sits the obvious design: one word when the commonest nearest word's count dominates the next, more when the counts are close. The counts do know when the commonest word is right, from 36% of the time at a ratio under two to 91% over a hundred. Yet a list sized by that ratio beats a blind mix of one word and three by at most two and a half points, a plain list of two does as well, and on misspellings drawn evenly from the word list the ratio is worse than not reading it.
A second word judged by its own share
A spelling checker that offered its commonest nearest word alone when that word's count was many times the next, and two or three words otherwise, beat a coin's mix of one-word and three-word lists by at most two and a half points, and a plain list of two did better. The ratio measures how dominant the first word is, not how likely the second is. Judged instead by its own share of everything within two edits of the misspelling, the second word is shown only when that share is at least 0.15: on short words drawn by use the checker then sits 4.5 points over the coin's line at 1.32 words a query, nearly twice the ratio's lift and above the list of two, and the weight given a two-edit word moves the result by a tenth of a point. A second word with a share under 0.01 is never the source. On misspellings drawn evenly the share is no guide at all, and the list of two wins.
What the approximation gives up
Compared at every one of the 3,736 decisions a search could ask about, the published shift rules and the exact ones agree at all of them on a set of 128 patterns. At two patterns they differ at five of 84, by up to four positions — and the run reads 6.3% more characters.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Measured countEdit distanceWorkloadExpected costMulti patternShift ruleAho-corasickCorpusMeasurementPreprocessingCommentz-walterFailure link