MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099328971

Ad-hoc top-k query answering for data streams

2007· article· en· W2099328971 on OpenAlexaff
Gautam Das, Dimitrios Gunopulos, Nick Koudas, Nikos Sarkas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTupleSearch engine indexingPruningSet (abstract data type)Information retrievalData miningWireless ad hoc networkData stream miningRepresentation (politics)Spatial queryDatabaseTheoretical computer scienceSargableWeb search querySearch engine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A top-k query retrieves the k highest scoring tuples from a data set with respect to a scoring function defined on the attributes of a tuple. The efficient evaluation of top-k queries has been an active research topic and many different instantiations of the problem, in a variety of settings, have been studied. However, techniques developed for conventional, centralized or distributed databases are not directly applicable to highly dynamic environments and on-line applications, like data streams. Recently, techniques supporting top-k queries on data streams have been introduced. Such techniques are restrictive however, as they can only efficiently report top-k answers with respect to a pre-specified (as opposed to ad-hoc) set of queries. In this paper we introduce a novel geometric representation for the top-k query problem that allows us to raise this restriction. Utilizing notions of geometric arrangements, we design and analyze algorithms for incrementally maintaining a data set organized in an arrangement representation under streaming updates. We introduce query evaluation strategies that operate on top of an arrangement data structure that are able to guarantee efficient evaluation for ad-hoc queries. The performance of our core technique is augmented by incorporating tuple pruning strategies, minimizing the number of tuples that need to be stored and manipulated. This results in a main memory indexing technique supporting both efficient incremental updates and the evaluation of ad-hoc top-k queries. A thorough experimental study evaluates the efficiency of the proposed technique.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations85
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207