MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248260714 · doi:10.1145/376284.375693

SPARTAN

2001· article· en· W4248260714 on OpenAlexaff
Shivnath Babu, Minos Garofalakis, Rajeev Rastogi

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMOD Record · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpartanLossy compressionData miningTable (database)Data compressionData structureTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While a variety of lossy compression schemes have been developed for certain forms of digital data (e.g., images, audio, video), the area of lossy compression techniques for arbitrary data tables has been left relatively unexplored. Nevertheless, such techniques are clearly motivated by the ever-increasing data collection rates of modern enterprises and the need for effective, guaranteed-quality approximate answers to queries over massive relational data sets. In this paper, we propose SPARTAN , a system that takes advantage of attribute semantics and data-mining models to perform lossy compression of massive data tables. SPARTAN is based on the novel idea of exploiting predictive data correlations and prescribed error tolerances for individual attributes to construct concise and accurate Classification and Regression Tree (CaRT) models for entire columns of a table. More precisely, SPARTAN selects a certain subset of attributes for which no values are explicitly stored in the compressed table; instead, concise CaRTs that predict these values (within the prescribed error bounds) are maintained. To restrict the huge search space and construction cost of possible CaRT predictors, SPARTAN employs sophisticated learning techniques and novel combinatorial optimization algorithms. Our experimentation with several real-life data sets offers convincing evidence of the effectiveness of SPARTAN 's model-based approach — SPARTAN is able to consistently yield substantially better compression ratios than existing semantic or syntactic compression tools (e.g., gzip) while utilizing only small data samples for model inference.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.063

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMOD RecordSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207