Similarity Join and Similarity Self-Join Size Estimation in a Streaming Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of similarity self-join and similarity join size estimation in a streaming setting where the goal is to estimate, in one scan of the input and with sublinear space in the input size, the number of record pairs that have a similarity within a given threshold. The problem has many applications in data cleaning and query plan generation, where the cost of a similarity join may be estimated before actually doing the join. On unary input where two records either match or don't match, the problem becomes join and self-join size estimation for which one-pass algorithms are readily available. Our work addresses the problem for d-ary input, for d ≥ 1, where the degree of similarity can vary from 1 to d. We show that our proposed algorithm gives an accurate estimate and scales well with the input size. We provide error bounds and time and space costs, and conduct an extensive experimental evaluation of our algorithm, comparing its estimation accuracy to a few competitors, including some multi-pass algorithms. Our results show that given the same space, the proposed algorithm has an order of magnitude less error for a large range of similarity thresholds.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".