MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127114148 · doi:10.1109/icde.2011.5767832

Decomposing DAGs into spanning trees: A new way to compress transitive closures

2011· article· en· W2127114148 on OpenAlexaff
Yangjun Chen, Yibin Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReachabilityDigraphTransitive closureCombinatoricsComputer scienceTransitive relationSpanning treeGraphTransitive reductionMathematicsDirected acyclic graphTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsLine graphVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G(V, E) be a digraph (directed graph) with n nodes and e edges. Digraph G* = (V, E*) is the reflexive, transitive closure if (v, u) ∈ E* iff there is a path from v to u in G. Efficient storage of G* is important for supporting reachability queries which are not only common on graph databases, but also serve as fundamental operations used in many graph algorithms. A lot of strategies have been suggested based on the graph labeling, by which each node is assigned with certain labels such that the reachability of any two nodes through a path can be determined by their labels. Among them are interval labelling, chain decomposition, and 2-hop labeling. However, due to the very large size of many real world graphs, the computational cost and size of labels using existing methods would prove too expensive to be practical. In this paper, we propose a new approach to decompose a graph into a series of spanning trees which may share common edges, to transform a reachability query over a graph into a set of queries over trees. We demonstrate both analytically and empirically the efficiency and effectiveness of our method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations43
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207