Paper Reading AI Learner

How far does a hash-only sender go? A pre-registered map of sender memory versus bits for short text messages

2026-11-06 18:31:24
Marcelo Samoilenko

Abstract

Can a sender that only computes hashes, with a language model only at the receiver, transmit short human text more cheaply than a classical sender trained on the same domain? We answer with one pre-registered run on 1,000 English user utterances from Taskmaster-1. The primary endpoint is the cost per message to deliver 100% of the messages (hash bits, plus a 2-byte negative acknowledgement and the raw text when the first attempt fails), paired against an in-domain PPM order-1 sender. The hash-only sender delivered 857 of 1,000 messages on the first attempt and cost 192.8 bits per message, 18.4 bits more than PPM order 1 (95% bootstrap interval 10.9 to 26.3); by the pre-registered rule it spends more and is not equivalent within one byte. As secondary results we map measured sender memory against bits. The hash-only sender (8,190 B on a host build, keyed BLAKE2b tag included, as in every method) was the cheapest point in bits from 8,190 B up to, but excluding, PPM order 1 at 24,844 B, 45 to 46 bits below smaz2 and Unishox2; from PPM order 1 upwards, in-domain senders spend fewer bits, except order 2 pruned to 16 KiB. In airtime it loses to PPM order 1 on all five links priced, to Unishox2 on four, and to raw text with a tag on two, because each failure costs an acknowledgement frame and a fallback frame. A wider receiver search recovers half of the failures and makes the cost 7.7 bits lower than PPM order 1, at about three minutes of receiver time per failure, and still loses in airtime on four of five links. We report the measurement as a delimitation, with every deviation of the run.

Abstract (translated)

URL

https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09848

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.09848.pdf


Tags
3D Action Action_Localization Action_Recognition Activity Adversarial Agent Attention Autonomous Bert Boundary_Detection Caption Chat Classification CNN Compressive_Sensing Contour Contrastive_Learning Deep_Learning Denoising Detection Dialog Diffusion Drone Dynamic_Memory_Network Edge_Detection Embedding Embodied Emotion Enhancement Face Face_Detection Face_Recognition Facial_Landmark Few-Shot Gait_Recognition GAN Gaze_Estimation Gesture Gradient_Descent Handwriting Human_Parsing Image_Caption Image_Classification Image_Compression Image_Enhancement Image_Generation Image_Matting Image_Retrieval Inference Inpainting Intelligent_Chip Knowledge Knowledge_Graph Language_Model LLM Matching Medical Memory_Networks Multi_Modal Multi_Task NAS NMT Object_Detection Object_Tracking OCR Ontology Optical_Character Optical_Flow Optimization Person_Re-identification Point_Cloud Portrait_Generation Pose Pose_Estimation Prediction QA Quantitative Quantitative_Finance Quantization Re-identification Recognition Recommendation Reconstruction Regularization Reinforcement_Learning Relation Relation_Extraction Represenation Represenation_Learning Restoration Review RNN Robot Salient Scene_Classification Scene_Generation Scene_Parsing Scene_Text Segmentation Self-Supervised Semantic_Instance_Segmentation Semantic_Segmentation Semi_Global Semi_Supervised Sence_graph Sentiment Sentiment_Classification Sketch SLAM Sparse Speech Speech_Recognition Style_Transfer Summarization Super_Resolution Surveillance Survey Text_Classification Text_Generation Time_Series Tracking Transfer_Learning Transformer Unsupervised Video_Caption Video_Classification Video_Indexing Video_Prediction Video_Retrieval Visual_Relation VQA Weakly_Supervised Zero-Shot