MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399174293 · doi:10.1145/3654921

Reservoir Sampling over Joins

2024· article· en· W4399174293 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoinsTupleComputer scienceJoin (topology)GraphTheoretical computer scienceSampling (signal processing)Operator (biology)Data miningMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sampling over joins is a fundamental task in large-scale data analytics. Instead of computing the full join results, which could be massive, a uniform sample of the join results would suffice for many purposes, such as answering analytical queries or training machine learning models. In this paper, we study the problem of how to maintain a random sample over joins while the tuples are streaming in. Without the join, this problem can be solved by some simple and classical reservoir sampling algorithms. However, the join operator makes the problem significantly harder, as the join size can be polynomially larger than the input. We present a new algorithm for this problem that achieves a near-linear complexity. The key technical components are a generalized reservoir sampling algorithm that supports a predicate, and a dynamic index for sampling over joins. We also conduct extensive experiments on both graph and relational data over various join queries, and the experimental results demonstrate significant performance improvement over the state of the art.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0180.026
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.230 · 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