“…The implementation performed particularly poorly with the datasets bantudvd (Greenhill and Gray, 2015) (as illustrated by the 0.7053 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.7835 of the Baseline submission), felekesemitic (Feleke, 2021) (0.6661 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.6925 of the baseline). It performed better with datasets beidazihui (Běijīng Dàxué, 1962) (as illustrated by the 0.8356 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.7279 of the baseline), bodtkhobwa (Bodt and List, 2022) (0.7993 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.7566 of the baseline), bremerberta (Bremer, 2016) (0.7915 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.7187 of the baseline), deepadungpalaung (Deepadung et al, 2015) (0.8143 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.7597 of the baseline), wangbai (Wang and Wang, 2004) (0.8326 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.8048 of the baseline), hattorijaponic (Hattori, 1973) (0.8127 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.7889 of the baseline), listsamplesize (List, 2014) (0.5325 B-Cubes for the 10% partition, versus 0.4048 of the baseline). Full results are available along with the submission, with performance for other datasets comparable to the baseline.…”