MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138271690 · doi:10.1109/icde.2007.367935

Top-k Query Processing in Uncertain Databases

2007· article· en· W2138271690 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTupleComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Probabilistic logicConstruct (python library)DatabaseQuery languageMaterialized viewQuery optimizationSpace (punctuation)Theoretical computer scienceInformation retrievalData miningViewProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceMathematicsDatabase design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Top-k processing in uncertain databases is semantically and computationally different from traditional top-k processing. The interplay between score and uncertainty makes traditional techniques inapplicable. We introduce new probabilistic formulations for top-k queries. Our formulations are based on "marriage" of traditional top-k semantics and possible worlds semantics. In the light of these formulations, we construct a framework that encapsulates a state space model and efficient query processing techniques to tackle the challenges of uncertain data settings. We prove that our techniques are optimal in terms of the number of accessed tuples and materialized search states. Our experiments show the efficiency of our techniques under different data distributions with orders of magnitude improvement over naive materialization of possible worlds.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Quick stats

Citations428
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207