Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Knowledge Discovery from Uncertain Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of uncertain data is growing quickly in many essential applications such as environmental surveillance, mobile object tracking and data integration. Recently, storing, collecting, processing, and analyzing uncertain data has attracted increasing attention from both academia and industry. Analyzing and mining uncertain data needs collaboration and joint effort from multiple research communities including reasoning under uncertainty, uncertain databases and mining uncertain data. For example, statistics and probabilistic reasoning can provide support with models for representing uncertainty. The uncertain database community can provide methods for storing and managing uncertain data, while research in mining uncertain data can provide data analysis tasks and methods. It is important to build connections among those communities to tackle the overall problem of analyzing and mining uncertain data. There are many common challenges among the communities. One is to understand the different modeling assumptions made, and how they impact the methods, both in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Different researchers hold different assumptions and this is one of the major obstacles in the research of mining uncertain data. Another is the scalability of proposed management and analysis methods. Finally, to make analysis and mining useful and practical, we need real data sets for testing. Unfortunately, uncertain data sets are often hard to get. The goal of the First ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Knowledge Discovery from Uncertain Data (U'09) is to discuss in depth the challenges, opportunities and techniques on the topic of analyzing and mining uncertain data. The theme of this workshop is to make connections among the research areas of uncertain databases, probabilistic reasoning, and data mining, as well as to build bridges among the aspects of models, data, applications, novel mining tasks and effective solutions. By making connections among different communities, we aim at understanding each other in terms of scientific foundation as well as commonality and differences in research methodology. The workshop program is very stimulating and exciting. We are pleased to feature two invited talks by pioneers in mining uncertain data. Christopher Jermaine will give an invited talk titled Managing and Mining Uncertain Data: What Might We Do Better? Matthias Renz will address the topic Querying and Mining Uncertain Data: Methods, Applications, and Challenges. Moreover, 8 accepted papers in 4 full presentations and 4 concise presentations will cover a bunch of interesting topics and on-going research projects about uncertain data mining.
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 | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".