MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The LBF R-Tree

2010· book-chapter· en· W2505904285 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Eavis

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData warehouseTree (set theory)TrieSearch engine indexingData miningBlock (permutation group theory)TerabyteConstruct (python library)R-treeData structureTheoretical computer scienceDatabaseInformation retrievalMathematicsSpatial databaseSpatial analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multi-dimensional database environments, such as those typically associated with contemporary data warehousing, we generally require effective indexing mechanisms for all but the smallest data sets. While numerous such methods have been proposed, the R-tree has emerged as one of the most common and reliable indexing models. Nevertheless, as user queries grow in terms of both size and dimensionality, R-tree performance can deteriorate significantly. Moreover, in the multi-terabyte spaces of today’s enterprise warehouses, the combination of data and indexes ? R-tree or otherwise ? can produce unacceptably large storage requirements. In this chapter, the authors present a framework that addresses both of these concerns. First, they propose a variation of the classic R-tree that specifically targets data warehousing architectures. Their new LBF R-tree not only improves performance on common user-defined range queries, but gracefully degrades to a linear scan of the data on pathologically large queries. Experimental results demonstrate a reduction in disk seeks of more than 50% relative to more conventional R-tree designs. Second, the authors present a fully integrated, block-oriented compression model that reduces the storage footprint of both data and indexes. It does so by exploiting the same Hilbert space filling curve that is used to construct the LBF R-tree itself. Extensive testing demonstrates compression rates of more than 90% for multi-dimensional data, and up to 98% for the associated indexes.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207