MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111607365 · doi:10.14778/1687627.1687727

Distance-join

2009· article· en· W2111607365 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Zou, Lei Chen, M. TAMER ÖZSU

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReachabilityJoin (topology)GraphTheoretical computer scienceQuery optimizationShortest path problemData miningMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing popularity of graph databases has generated interesting data management problems, such as subgraph search, shortest-path query, reachability verification, and pattern match. Among these, a pattern match query is more flexible compared to a subgraph search and more informative compared to a shortest-path or reachability query. In this paper, we address pattern match problems over a large data graph G. Specifically, given a pattern graph (i.e., query Q ), we want to find all matches (in G ) that have the similar connections as those in Q. In order to reduce the search space significantly, we first transform the vertices into points in a vector space via graph embedding techniques, coverting a pattern match query into a distance-based multi-way join problem over the converted vector space. We also propose several pruning strategies and a join order selection method to process join processing efficiently. Extensive experiments on both real and synthetic datasets show that our method outperforms existing ones by orders of magnitude.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.008

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations207
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207