Durable Top-K Instant-Stamped Temporal Records with User-Specified Scoring Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A way of finding interesting or exceptional records from instant-stamped temporal data is to consider their "durability," or, intuitively speaking, how well they compare with other records that arrived earlier or later, and how long they retain their supremacy. For example, people are naturally fascinated by claims with long durability, such as: "On January 22, 2006, Kobe Bryant dropped 81 points against Toronto Raptors. Since then, this scoring record has yet to be broken." In general, given a sequence of instant-stamped records, suppose that we can rank them by a user-specified scoring function $f$, which may consider multiple attributes of a record to compute a single score for ranking. This paper studies "durable top-$k$ queries", which find records whose scores were within top-$k$ among those records within a "durability window" of given length, e.g., a 10-year window starting/ending at the timestamp of the record. The parameter $k$, the length of the durability window, and parameters of the scoring function (which capture user preference) can all be given at the query time. We illustrate why this problem formulation yields more meaningful answers in some practical situations than other similar types of queries considered previously. We propose new algorithms for solving this problem, and provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis on the complexities of the problem itself and of our algorithms. Our algorithms vastly outperform various baselines (by up to two orders of magnitude on real and synthetic datasets).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".