MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081533422 · doi:10.1145/1142473.1142477

Approximately detecting duplicates for streaming data using stable bloom filters

2006· article· en· W2081533422 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBloom filterComputer scienceBloomAlgorithmGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional duplicate elimination techniques are not applicable to many data stream applications. In general, precisely eliminating duplicates in an unbounded data stream is not feasible in many streaming scenarios. Therefore, we target at approximately eliminating duplicates in streaming environments given a limited space. Based on a well-known bitmap sketch, we introduce a data structure, Stable Bloom Filter, and a novel and simple algorithm. The basic idea is as follows: since there is no way to store the whole history of the stream, SBF continuously evicts the stale elements so that SBF has room for those more recent ones. After finding some properties of SBF analytically, we show that a tight upper bound of false positive rates is guaranteed. In our empirical study, we compare SBF to alternative methods. The results show that our method is superior in terms of both accuracy and time efficiency when a fixed small space and an acceptable false positive rate are given. 1.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Quick stats

Citations181
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207