Estimating the selectivity of approximate string queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximate queries on string data are important due to the prevalence of such data in databases and various conventions and errors in string data. We present the VSol estimator, a novel technique for estimating the selectivity of approximate string queries. The VSol estimator is based on inverse strings and makes the performance of the selectivity estimator independent of the number of strings. To get inverse strings we decompose all database strings into overlapping substrings of length q (q-grams) and then associate each q-gram with its inverse string: the IDs of all strings that contain the q-gram. We use signatures to compress inverse strings, and clustering to group similar signatures. We study our technique analytically and experimentally. The space complexity of our estimator only depends on the number of neighborhoods in the database and the desired estimation error. The time to estimate the selectivity is independent of the number of database strings and linear with respect to the length of query string. We give a detailed empirical performance evaluation of our solution for synthetic and real-world datasets. We show that VSol is effective for large skewed databases of short strings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".