MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394952598

Mitigating the Curse of Dimensionality for Exact kNN Retrieval

2014· article· en· W2394952598 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Schuh, Tim Wylie, Rafal A. Angryk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Florida AI Research Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurse of dimensionalitySearch engine indexingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Data miningk-nearest neighbors algorithmFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient data indexing and exact k-nearest-neighbor (kNN) retrieval are still challenging tasks in high-dimensional spaces. This work highlights the difficulties of indexing in high-dimensional and tightly-clustered dataspaces by exploring several important tunable parameters for optimizing kNN query performance using the iDistance and iDStar algorithms. We experiment on real and synthetic datasets of varying size, cluster density, and dimensionality, and compare performance primarily through filter-and-refine efficiency and execution time. Results show great variability over parameter values and provide new insights and justifications in support of prior best-use practices. Local segmentation with iDStar consistently outperforms iDistance in any clustered space below 256 dimensions, setting a new benchmark for efficient and exact kNN retrieval in high-dimensional spaces. We propose several directions of future work to further increase performance in high-dimensional real-world settings.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Florida AI Research SocietySame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207