MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162783807 · doi:10.14778/2021017.2021025

Keyword search in graphs

2011· article· en· W2162783807 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

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstructureCliqueComputer scienceGraphCombinatoricsTheoretical computer scienceTime complexityMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keyword search over a graph finds a substructure of the graph containing all or some of the input keywords. Most of previous methods in this area find connected minimal trees that cover all the query keywords. Recently, it has been shown that finding subgraphs rather than trees can be more useful and informative for the users. However, the current tree or graph based methods may produce answers in which some content nodes (i.e., nodes that contain input keywords) are not very close to each other. In addition, when searching for answers, these methods may explore the whole graph rather than only the content nodes. This may lead to poor performance in execution time. To address the above problems, we propose the problem of finding r -cliques in graphs. An r -clique is a group of content nodes that cover all the input keywords and the distance between each two nodes is less than or equal to r . An exact algorithm is proposed that finds all r -cliques in the input graph. In addition, an approximation algorithm that produces r -cliques with 2-approximation in polynomial delay is proposed. Extensive performance studies using two large real data sets confirm the efficiency and accuracy of finding r -cliques in graphs.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.183 · 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