Probabilistic top- <i>k</i> and ranking-aggregate queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ranking and aggregation queries are widely used in data exploration, data analysis, and decision-making scenarios. While most of the currently proposed ranking and aggregation techniques focus on deterministic data, several emerging applications involve data that is unclean or uncertain. Ranking and aggregating uncertain (probabilistic) data raises new challenges in query semantics and processing, making conventional methods inapplicable. Furthermore, uncertainty imposes probability as a new ranking dimension that does not exist in the traditional settings. In this article we introduce new probabilistic formulations for top- k and ranking-aggregate queries in probabilistic databases. Our formulations are based on marriage of traditional top- k semantics with possible worlds semantics. In the light of these formulations, we construct a generic processing framework supporting both query types, and leveraging existing query processing and indexing capabilities in current RDBMSs. The framework encapsulates a state space model and efficient search algorithms to compute query answers. Our proposed techniques minimize the number of accessed tuples and the size of materialized search space to compute query answers. Our experimental study shows the efficiency of our techniques under different data distributions with orders of magnitude improvement over naïve 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".