Peer data exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we introduce and study a framework, called peer data exchange , for sharing and exchanging data between peers. This framework is a special case of a full-fledged peer data management system and a generalization of data exchange between a source schema and a target schema. The motivation behind peer data exchange is to model authority relationships between peers, where a source peer may contribute data to a target peer, specified using source-to-target constraints, and a target peer may use target-to-source constraints to restrict the data it is willing to receive, but cannot modify the data of the source peer.A fundamental algorithmic problem in this framework is that of deciding the existence of a solution: given a source instance and a target instance for a fixed peer data exchange setting, can the target instance be augmented in such a way that the source instance and the augmented target instance satisfy all constraints of the setting? We investigate the computational complexity of the problem for peer data exchange settings in which the constraints are given by tuple generating dependencies. We show that this problem is always in NP, and that it can be NP-complete even for “acyclic” peer data exchange settings. We also show that the data complexity of the certain answers of target conjunctive queries is in coNP, and that it can be coNP-complete even for “acyclic” peer data exchange settings.After this, we explore the boundary between tractability and intractability for deciding the existence of a solution and for computing the certain answers of target conjunctive queries. To this effect, we identify broad syntactic conditions on the constraints between the peers under which the existence-of-solutions problem is solvable in polynomial time. We also identify syntactic conditions between peer data exchange settings and target conjunctive queries that yield polynomial-time algorithms for computing the certain answers. For both problems, these syntactic conditions turn out to be tight, in the sense that minimal relaxations of them lead to intractability. Finally, we introduce the concept of a universal basis of solutions in peer data exchange and explore its properties.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.012 |
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".