<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Extending the Applicability of Bloom Filters by Relaxing their Parameter Constraints · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.02193/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.02193/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Extending the Applicability of Bloom Filters by Relaxing their Parameter Constraints — mentioned by rh3939</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44100865</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2502.02193:44100865</guid><pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 19:38:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Author here. Totally agree that H.264 can be lossless. Generally its lossy. My idea(which I am still working out) is to compress the difference of frames using a rational bloom filter. I previously posted here about using conditional bloom filter that rely on rational k. The idea was to use different values of k based on whether the url was more likely to be malicious than not. This results in a lower fp rate for the same filter size when compared to integer k. I then saw this paper[https://arxiv.org/html/2502.02193v2] was posted recently which describes an almost identical approach(theirs is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.02193/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DS</category></item></channel></rss>
