Indexing spatio-temporal trajectories with Chebyshev polynomials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we attempt to approximate and index a d- dimensional (d ≥ 1) spatio-temporal trajectory with a low order continuous polynomial. There are many possible ways to choose the polynomial, including (continuous)Fourier transforms, splines, non-linear regressino, etc. Some of these possiblities have indeed been studied beofre. We hypothesize that one of the best possibilities is the polynomial that minimizes the maximum deviation from the true value, which is called the minimax polynomial. Minimax approximation is particularly meaningful for indexing because in a branch-and-bound search (i.e., for finding nearest neighbours), the smaller the maximum deviation, the more pruning opportunities there exist. However, in general, among all the polynomials of the same degree, the optimal minimax polynomial is very hard to compute. However, it has been shown thta the Chebyshev approximation is almost identical to the optimal minimax polynomial, and is easy to compute [16]. Thus, in this paper, we explore how to use the Chebyshev polynomials as a basis for approximating and indexing d-dimenstional trajectories.The key analytic result of this paper is the Lower Bounding Lemma. that is, we show that the Euclidean distance between two d-dimensional trajectories is lower bounded by the weighted Euclidean distance between the two vectors of Chebyshev coefficients. this lemma is not trivial to show, and it ensures that indexing with Chebyshev cofficients aedmits no false negatives. To complement that analystic result, we conducted comprehensive experimental evaluation with real and generated 1-dimensional to 4-dimensional data sets. We compared the proposed schem with the Adaptive Piecewise Constant Approximation (APCA) scheme. Our preliminary results indicate that in all situations we tested, Chebyshev indexing dominates APCA in pruning power, I/O and CPU costs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".