MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403471969 · doi:10.1016/j.is.2024.102475

Explaining results of path queries on graphs: Single-path results for context-free path queries

2024· article· en· W4403471969 on OpenAlexaff
Jelle Hellings

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Path expressionLongest path problemTheoretical computer scienceGraphData miningShortest path problemQuery languageComputer networkGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many graph query languages use, at their core, path queries that yield node pairs ( m , n ) that are connected by a path of interest. For the end-user, such node pairs only give limited insight as to why this result is obtained, as the pair does not directly identify the underlying path of interest. In this paper, we propose the single-path semantics to address this limitation of path queries. Under single-path semantics, path queries evaluate to a single path connecting nodes m and n and that satisfies the conditions of the query. To put our proposal in practice, we provide an efficient algorithm for evaluating context-free path queries using the single-path semantics. Additionally, we perform a short evaluation of our techniques that shows that the single-path semantics is practically feasible, even when query results grow large. In addition, we explore the formal relationship between the single-path semantics we propose the problem of finding the shortest string in the intersection of a regular language (representing a graph) and a context-free language (representing a path query). As our formal results show, there is a distinction between the complexity of the single-path semantics for queries that use a single edge label and queries that use multiple edge labels: for queries that use a single edge label, the length of the shortest path is linearly upper bounded by the number of nodes in the graph; whereas for queries that use multiple edge labels, the length of the shortest path has a worst-case quadratic lower bound .

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.033
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation SystemsSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207