MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401646429 · doi:10.14778/2831360.2831363

Finding Pareto optimal groups

2015· article· en· W2401646429 on OpenAlexaff
Jinfei Liu, Li Xiong, Jian Pei, Jun Luo, Haoyu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchScience and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSkylineComputer sciencePruningPareto optimalScalabilityComputationPoint (geometry)HeuristicSet (abstract data type)Pareto principleGroup (periodic table)Data miningAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skyline computation, aiming at identifying a set of skyline points that are not dominated by any other point, is particularly useful for multi-criteria data analysis and decision making. Traditional skyline computation, however, is inadequate to answer queries that need to analyze not only individual points but also groups of points. To address this gap, we generalize the original skyline definition to the novel group-based skyline (G-Skyline), which represents Pareto optimal groups that are not dominated by other groups. In order to compute G-Skyline groups consisting of k points efficiently, we present a novel structure that represents the points in a directed skyline graph and captures the dominance relationships among the points based on the first k skyline layers. We propose efficient algorithms to compute the first k skyline layers. We then present two heuristic algorithms to efficiently compute the G-Skyline groups: the point-wise algorithm and the unit group-wise algorithm, using various pruning strategies. The experimental results on the real NBA dataset and the synthetic datasets show that G-Skyline is interesting and useful, and our algorithms are efficient and scalable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207