MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2442049918 · doi:10.1145/2882903.2882944

Query Planning for Evaluating SPARQL Property Paths

2016· article· en· W2442049918 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSPARQLComputer scienceQuery optimizationRDF query languageRDFQuery planProperty (philosophy)Query languagePlan (archaeology)GraphQuery expansionSargableInformation retrievalDatabaseWeb query classificationTheoretical computer scienceWeb search querySearch engineSemantic Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extension of SPARQL in version 1.1 with property paths offers a type of regular path query for RDF graph databases. Such queries are difficult to optimize and evaluate efficiently, however. We have embarked on a project, Waveguide, to build a cost-based optimizer for SPARQL queries with property paths. Waveguide builds a query plan--- which we call a waveplan (WP)--- which guides the query evaluation. There are numerous choices in the construction of a plan, and a number of optimization methods, so the space of plans for a query can be quite large. Execution costs of plans for the same query can vary by orders of magnitude. A WGP's costs can be estimated, which opens the way to cost-based optimization. We demonstrate that the plan space of Waveguide properly subsumes existing techniques and that the new plans it adds are relevant.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207