MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207319399

Automata methods and techniques for graph-structured data

2011· dissertation· en· W2207319399 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Thomo, Maryam Shoaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceGraph databaseMaterialized viewTime complexityGraphFocus (optics)AutomatonData miningAlgorithmDatabase designView
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph-structured data (GSD) is a popular model to represent complex information in a wide variety of applications such as social networks, biological data management, digital libraries, and traffic networks. The flexibility of this model allows the information to evolve and easily integrate with heterogeneous data from many sources. In this dissertation we study three important problems on GSD. A consistent theme of our work is the use of automata methods and techniques to process and reason about GSD. First, we address the problem of answering queries on GSD in a distributed environment. We focus on regular path queries (RPQs) – given by regular expressions matching paths in graph-data. RPQs are the building blocks of almost any mechanism for querying GSD. We present a fault-tolerant, message-efficient, and truly distributed algorithm for answering RPQs. Our algorithm works for the larger class of weighted RPQs on weighted GSDs. Second, we consider the problem of answering RPQs on incomplete GSD, where different data sources are represented by materialized database views. We explore the connection between “certain answers” (CAs) and answers obtained from “view-based rewritings” (VBRs) for RPQs. CAs are answers that can be obtained on each database consistent with the views. Computing all of CAs for RPQs is NP-hard, and one has to resort to an exponential algorithm in the size of the data–view materializations. On the other hand, VBRs are query reformulations in terms of the view definitions. They can be used to obtain query answers in polynomial time in the size of the data. These answers are CAs, but unfortunately for RPQs, not all of the CAs can be obtained in this way. In this work, we show the surprising result that for RPQs under local semantics, using VBRs to answer RPQs gives all the CAs. The importance of this result is that under such semantics, the CAs can be obtained in polynomial time in the size of the data. Third, we focus on XML–an important special case of GSD. The scenario we consider is streaming XML between exchanging parties. The problem we study is flexible validation of streaming XML under the realistic assumption that the schemas of the exchanging parties evolve, and thus diverge from one another. We represent schemas by using Visibly Pushdown Automata (VPAs), which recognize Visibly Pushdown Languages (VPLs). We model evolution for XML by defining formal language operators on VPLs. We show that VPLs are closed under the defined language operators and this enables us to expand the schemas (for XML) in order to account for flexible or constrained evolution.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207