MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164513665 · doi:10.1145/773153.773165

Query containment and rewriting using views for regular path queries under constraints

2003· article· en· W2164513665 on OpenAlexaff
Gösta Grahne, Alex Thomo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRewritingContainment (computer programming)Computer sciencePath (computing)Query optimizationPath expressionQuery languageTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider general path constraints for semistructured databases. Our general constraints do not suffer from the limitations of the path constraints previously studied in the literature. We investigate the containment of regular path queries under general path constraints. We show that when the path constraints and queries are expressed by words, as opposed to languages, the containment problem becomes equivalent to the word rewrite problem for a corresponding semi-Thue system. Consequently, if the corresponding semi-Thue system has an undecidable word problem, the word query containment problem will be undecidable too. Also, we show that there are word constraints, where the corresponding semi-Thue system has a decidable word rewrite problem, but the general query containment under these word constraints is undecidable. In order to overcome this, we exhibit a large, practical class of word constraints with a decidable general query containment problem.Based on the query containment under constraints, we reason about constrained rewritings -using views- of regular path queries. We give a constructive characterization for computing optimal constrained rewritings using views.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations45
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207