Meaningful keyword search in relational databases with large and complex schema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keyword search over relational databases offers an alternative way to SQL to query and explore databases that is effective for lay users who may not be well versed in SQL or the database schema. This becomes more pertinent for databases with large and complex schemas. An answer in this context is a join tree spanning tuples containing the query's keywords. As there are potentially many answers to the query, and the user is often only interested in seeing the top-k answers, how to rank the answers based on their relevance is of paramount importance. We focus on the relevance of join as the fundamental means to rank answers. We devise means to measure relevance of relations and foreign keys in the schema over the information content of the database. This can be done offline with no need for external models. We compare the proposed measures against a gold standard we derive from a real workload over TPC-E and evaluate the effectiveness of our methods. Finally, we test the performance of our measures against existing techniques to demonstrate a marked improvement, and perform a user study to establish naturalness of the ranking of the answers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".