MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791839450 · doi:10.3233/fi-2019-1819

Universal (and Existential) Nulls

2019· preprint· en· W2791839450 on OpenAlexaff
Gösta Grahne, Ali Moallemi

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismSet (abstract data type)MathematicsStar (game theory)Representation (politics)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgebra over a fieldComputer sciencePure mathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incomplete Information research is quite mature when it comes to so called existential nulls, where an existential null is a value stored in the database, representing an unknown object. For some reason universal nulls, that is, values representing all possible objects, have received almost no attention. We remedy the situation in this paper, by showing that a suitable finite representation mechanism, called Star Cylinders, handling universal nulls can be developed based on the Cylindric Set Algebra of Henkin, Monk and Tarski. We provide a finitary version of the cylindric set algebra, called Cylindric Star Algebra, and show that our star-cylinders are closed under this algebra. Moreover, we show that any First Order Relational Calculus query over databases containing universal nulls can be translated into an equivalent expression in our cylindric star-algebra, and vice versa. All cylindric star-algebra expressions can be evaluated in time polynomial in the size of the database. The representation mechanism is then extended to Naive Star Cylinders, which are star-cylinders allowing existential nulls in addition to universal nulls. For positive queries (with universal quantification), the well known naive evaluation technique can still be applied on the existential nulls, thereby allowing polynomial time evaluation of certain answers on databases containing both universal and existential nulls. If precise answers are required, certain answer evaluation with universal and existential nulls remains in coNP. Note that the problem is coNP-hard, already for positive existential queries and databases with only existential nulls. If inequalities ¬( x i ≈ x j ) are allowed, reasoning over existential databases is known to be [Formula: see text]-complete, and it remains in [Formula: see text] when universal nulls and full first order queries are allowed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.017
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207