Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lot of research activity has recently taken place around the chase procedure, due to its usefulness in data integration, data exchange, query optimization, peer data exchange and data correspondence, to mention a few. As the chase has been investigated and further developed by a number of research groups and authors, many variants of the chase have emerged and associated results obtained. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the area it is frequently difficult to verify the scope of each result. In this paper we take closer look at recent developments, and provide additional results. Our analysis allows us create a taxonomy of the chase variations and the properties they satisfy. Two of the most central problems regarding the chase is termination, and discovery of restricted classes of sets of dependencies that guarantee termination of the chase. The search for the restricted classes has been motivated by a fairly recent result that shows that it is undecidable (RE-complete, to be more precise) to determine whether the chase with a given dependency set will terminate on a given instance. There is a small dissonance here, since the quest has been for classes of sets of dependencies guaranteeing termination of the chase on all instances, even though the latter problem was not known to be undecidable. We resolve the dissonance in this paper by showing that determining whether the chase with a given set of dependencies terminates on all instances is unsolvable, and on level ∏ 2 0 in the Arithmetical Hierarchy. For this we use a reduction from word rewriting systems, thereby also showing the close connection between the chase and word rewriting. The same reduction also gives us the aforementioned instance-dependent RE-completeness result as a byproduct. For one of the restricted classes guaranteeing termination on all instances, the stratified sets dependencies, we provide new complexity results for the problem of testing whether a given set of dependencies belongs to it. These results rectify some previous claims that have occurred in the literature.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".