MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000482994 · doi:10.14778/1978665.1978666

Similarity join size estimation using locality sensitive hashing

2011· article· en· W2000482994 on OpenAlexaff
Hongrae Lee, Raymond T. Ng, Kyuseok Shim

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocality-sensitive hashingJoinsNearest neighbor searchSimilarity (geometry)Join (topology)Computer scienceGeneralizationData miningHash functionRange (aeronautics)Sampling (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsHash table

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similarity joins are important operations with a broad range of applications. In this paper, we study the problem of vector similarity join size estimation (VSJ). It is a generalization of the previously studied set similarity join size estimation (SSJ) problem and can handle more interesting cases such as TF-IDF vectors. One of the key challenges in similarity join size estimation is that the join size can change dramatically depending on the input similarity threshold. We propose a sampling based algorithm that uses Locality-Sensitive-Hashing (LSH). The proposed algorithm LSH-SS uses an LSH index to enable effective sampling even at high thresholds. We compare the proposed technique with random sampling and the state-of-the-art technique for SSJ (adapted to VSJ) and demonstrate LSH-SS offers more accurate estimates throughout the similarity threshold range and small variance using real-world data sets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207