You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Succinct data structures give space-efficient representations of large amounts of data without sacrificing performance. They rely one cleverly designed data representations and algorithms. We present here the formalization in Coq SSReflect of two different tree-based succinct representations and their accompanying algorithms. One is the Level-Order Unary Degree Sequence, which encodes the structure of a tree in breadth-first order as a sequence of bits, where access operations can be defined in terms of Rank and Select, which work in constant time for static bit sequences. The other represents dynamic bit sequences as binary balanced trees, where Rank and Select present a low logarithmic overhead compared to their static versions, and with efficient insertion and deletion. The two can be stacked to provide a dynamic representation of dictionaries for instance. While both representations are well-known, we believe this to be their first formalization and a needed step towards provably-safe implementations of big data.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: When a C programmer needs an efficient data structure for a particular problem, he or she can often simply look one up in any of a number of good textbooks or handbooks. Unfortunately, programmers in functional languages such as Standard ML or Haskell do not have this luxury. Although some data structures designed for imperative languages such as C can be quite easily adapted to a functional setting, most cannot, usually because they depend in crucial ways on assignments, which are disallowed, or at least discouraged, in functional languages. To address this imbalance, we describe several techniques for designing functional data structures, and numerous original data structures based on these techniques, including multiple variations of lists, queues, double-ended queues, and heaps, many supporting more exotic features such as random access or efficient catenation. In addition, we expose the fundamental role of lazy evaluation in amortized functional data structures. Traditional methods of amortization break down when old versions of a data structure, not just the most recent, are available for further processing. This property is known as persistence, and is taken for granted in functional languages. On the surface, persistence and amortization appear to be incompatible, but we show how lazy evaluation can be used to resolve this conflict, yielding amortized data structures that are efficient even when used persistently. Turning this relationship between lazy evaluation and amortization around, the notion of amortization also provides the first practical techniques for analyzing the time requirements of non-trivial lazy programs. Finally, our data structures offer numerous hints to programming language designers, illustrating the utility of combining strict and lazy evaluation in a single language, and providing non-trivial examples using polymorphic recursion and higher-order, recursive modules.
We had to re-implement red-black trees due to the difference of stored contents. Above formalizations are intended to represent sets, and maintain the ordering invariant. Our trees represent vectors, and maintain both that the contents (as concatenation of the leaves) are unchanged, and that meta-data in inner nodes is correct (see Sect. ). Still, we found many hints in related work. For example, in Sect. about insertion, the balancing functions use Okasaki's well-known purely functional balance algorithm [1] , and we formulate our invariants and propositions similarly to above formalizations.