MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160921566 · doi:10.1145/1497290.1497300

Algorithms for distributional and adversarial pipelined filter ordering problems

2009· article· en· W2160921566 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Condon, Amol Deshpande, Lisa Hellerstein, Ning Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Information and Intelligent SystemsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceTupleFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmContext (archaeology)Data stream miningSet (abstract data type)MathematicsData miningDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipelined filter ordering is a central problem in database query optimization. The problem is to determine the optimal order in which to apply a given set of commutative filters (predicates) to a set of elements (the tuples of a relation), so as to find, as efficiently as possible, the tuples that satisfy all of the filters. Optimization of pipelined filter ordering has recently received renewed attention in the context of environments such as the Web, continuous high-speed data streams, and sensor networks. Pipelined filter ordering problems are also studied in areas such as fault detection and machine learning under names such as learning with attribute costs, minimum-sum set cover, and satisficing search. We present algorithms for two natural extensions of the classical pipelined filter ordering problem: (1) a distributional-type problem where the filters run in parallel and the goal is to maximize throughput, and (2) an adversarial-type problem where the goal is to minimize the expected value of multiplicative regret . We present two related algorithms for solving (1), both running in time O ( n 2 ), which improve on the O ( n 3 log n ) algorithm of Kodialam. We use techniques from our algorithms for (1) to obtain an algorithm for (2).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on AlgorithmsSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207