MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903819099 · doi:10.1049/iet-its.2018.5036

Efficient processing of distance–time <i>k</i> th‐order skyline queries in bicriteria networks

2018· article· en· W2903819099 on OpenAlexaff
Jiping Zheng, Shunqing Jiang, Jialiang Chen, Wei Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Intelligent Transport Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSkylineComputer scienceOrder (exchange)CombinatoricsMathematicsData miningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing complexity of traffic conditions in road networks, the nearest destination cannot be necessarily reached in the fastest time. The traditional nearest neighbor (NN) and k NN searches in spatial network databases with single cost criterion are often strongly restrictive. In this paper, the authors consider the problem of k th‐order skyline queries in bicriteria networks, where edges represent road segments. Their proposed k th‐order skyline queries consider distance, time preferences of each edge, thus having two kinds of skyline queries, named distance optimal k th‐order skyline query (DO‐ k OSQ) and time optimal k th‐OSQ (TO‐ k OSQ). They design algorithms for the two kinds of skyline queries in bicriteria networks based on incremental network expansion method and further develop a maximum distance/time restriction strategy to improve the efficiency of the algorithms. Experimental results show that all of their methods are far below 1000 input–output input/output (IO) accesses and 1 s of central processing unit (CPU) time. For real road networks, their k OSQ+ queries need only 51.6% IO accesses and 59.6% CPU time of those for k OSQ queries, whereas for the larger road network the percentages are 51.8% and 51.2%, respectively. Thus, the results indicate the efficiency and effectiveness of their proposed methods.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Intelligent Transport SystemsSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207