MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194145758 · doi:10.1145/3469830.3470892

SPRIG: A Learned Spatial Index for Range and kNN Queries

2021· article· en· W3194145758 on OpenAlexaff
Songnian Zhang, Suprio Ray, Rongxing Lu, Yandong Zheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpatial queryData miningSpatial databaseOverhead (engineering)Index (typography)Spatial analysisInterpolation (computer graphics)Range (aeronautics)GridRange query (database)ExploitFunction (biology)Process (computing)Multivariate interpolationInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceSargableWeb search queryGeographyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A corpus of recent work has revealed that the learned index can improve query performance while reducing the storage overhead. It potentially offers an opportunity to address the spatial query processing challenges caused by the surge in location-based services. Although several learned indexes have been proposed to process spatial data, the main idea behind these approaches is to utilize the existing one-dimensional learned models, which requires either converting the spatial data into one-dimensional data or applying the learned model on individual dimensions separately. As a result, these approaches cannot fully utilize or take advantage of the information regarding the spatial distribution of the original spatial data. To this end, in this paper, we exploit it by using the spatial (multi-dimensional) interpolation function as the learned model, which can be directly employed on the spatial data. Specifically, we design an efficient SPatial inteRpolation functIon based Grid index (SPRIG) to process the range and kNN queries. Detailed experiments are conducted on real-world datasets. The results indicate that, compared to the traditional spatial indexes, our proposed learned index can significantly improve the index building and query processing performance with less storage overhead. Moreover, in the best case, our index achieves up to an order of magnitude better performance than ZM-index in range queries and is about 2.7 × , 3 × , and 9 × faster than the multi-dimensional learned index Flood in terms of index building, range queries, and kNN queries, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207