MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509577432 · doi:10.1109/icws.2016.27

Scaling Up Web Service Composition with the Skyline Operator

2016· article· en· W2509577432 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Li, Yuhong Yan, Daniel Lemire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkylineComputer scienceScalabilityWeb serviceSearch engine indexingTable (database)DatabaseService (business)Quality of serviceData miningInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web service composition enables the provision of existing resources on the web without investing in new infrastructure. However, searching an optimal composition solution with both functional and non-functional requirements is a computationally demanding problem: the time and space requirements may be insufferable due to the high number of available services. To alleviate this problem, we propose the application of a skyline operation to reduce the search space and improve the scalability. We design a system to solve the composition problem with two separate processes. The Graphplan approach finds a solution in a short time, the database approach may take longer time to find a solution, but the solution returned by this approach always has fewer redundant services with a better QoS value. Full Solution Indexing using Database (FSIDB) approach pre-computes all services combinations and store them as paths in a database. Partial pre-composing approach chooses "popular" paths generated by FSIDB approach and store them in a separate table. If the problem can be solved by these paths, there is no need to search the table with whole paths. We evaluate our approach with a web service challenge dataset.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207