MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109010760 · doi:10.1109/ssdbm.2006.6

A Disc-based Approach to Data Summarization and Privacy Preservation

2006· article· en· W2109010760 on OpenAlexaff
Rong Ge, Martin Ester, Wen Jin, Zengjian Hu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceData miningHeuristicConstraint (computer-aided design)Set (abstract data type)Cluster analysisExploitAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data summarization has been recognized as a fundamental operation in database systems and data mining with important applications such as data compression and privacy preservation. While the existing methods such as CF-values and DataBubbles may perform reasonably well, they cannot provide any guarantees on the quality of their results. In this paper, we introduce a summarization approach for numerical data based on discs formalizing the notion of quality. Our objective is to find a minimal set of discs, i.e. spheres satisfying a radius and a significance constraint, covering the given dataset. Since the proposed problem is NP-complete, we design two different approximation algorithms. These algorithms have a quality guarantee, but they do not scale well to large databases. However, the machinery from approximation algorithms allows a precise characterization of a further, heuristic algorithm. This heuristic, efficient algorithm exploits multi-dimensional index structures and can be well-integrated with database systems. The experiments show that our heuristic algorithm generates summaries that outperform the state-of-the-art data bubbles in terms of internal measures as well as in terms of external measures when using the data summaries as input for clustering methods

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207