Trajectory similarity join in spatial networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The matching of similar pairs of objects, called similarity join, is fundamental functionality in data management. We consider the case of trajectory similarity join (TS-Join), where the objects are trajectories of vehicles moving in road networks. Thus, given two sets of trajectories and a threshold θ , the TS-Join returns all pairs of trajectories from the two sets with similarity above θ . This join targets applications such as trajectory near-duplicate detection, data cleaning, ridesharing recommendation, and traffic congestion prediction. With these applications in mind, we provide a purposeful definition of similarity. To enable efficient TS-Join processing on large sets of trajectories, we develop search space pruning techniques and take into account the parallel processing capabilities of modern processors. Specifically, we present a two-phase divide-and-conquer algorithm. For each trajectory, the algorithm first finds similar trajectories. Then it merges the results to achieve a final result. The algorithm exploits an upper bound on the spatiotemporal similarity and a heuristic scheduling strategy for search space pruning. The algorithm's per-trajectory searches are independent of each other and can be performed in parallel, and the merging has constant cost. An empirical study with real data offers insight in the performance of the algorithm and demonstrates that is capable of outperforming a well-designed baseline algorithm by an order of magnitude.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".