On Evaluation of Graph Pattern Matching in Large Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, graph databases have been received much attention in the research community due to their extensive applications in practice, such as social networks, biological networks and World Wide Web, which bring forth a lot of challenging data management problems including subgraph search, shortest-path queries, reachability verification, pattern matching, and so on. Among them, the graph pattern matching is to find all matches in a data graph G for a given pattern graph Q and is more general and flexible compared with other problems mentioned above. In this paper, we address a kind of graph matching, the so-called graph matching with d, by which an edge in Q is allowed to match a path of length ≤ δ in G. In order to reduce the search space when exploring G to find matches, we propose a new index structure and a novel pruning technique to eliminate a lot of unqualified vertices before join operations are carried out. Extensive experiments have been conducted, which show that our approach makes great improvements in running time compared to existing ones.
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 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".