MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7080011846 · doi:10.14778/3749646.3749664

Diva: Dynamic Range Filter for Var-Length Keys and Queries

2025· article· en· W7080011846 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange query (database)Range (aeronautics)TrieProbabilistic logicFilter (signal processing)Data structureQuery optimizationState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Range filters are compact probabilistic data structures that answer approximate range emptiness queries. They are used in many domains, e.g., in key-value stores, to quickly rule out the existence of keys in a given query range and avoid having to search for them in storage. However, all existing range filters exhibit at least one of the following shortcomings: (1) they do not provide robust false positive rate and performance guarantees, (2) they do not support variable-length keys and query ranges, and (3) they do not allow dynamic operations such as insertions, deletions, or expansions. We introduce Diva, the first range filter to address all the above challenges simultaneously. Diva learns the dataset's distribution by sampling keys and storing them in a cache-efficient trie. It compresses the keys in-between samples by removing their longest common prefix and truncating their suffixes while leaving enough bits in the middle (i.e., an infix) to allow differentiating between the keys in the sorted order. It stores infixes in constant time dynamic data blocks, which it splits to handle insertions and expansions. It processes a range query by traversing the trie and checking for the inclusion of infixes in the target query range. We show, theoretically and empirically, that Diva achieves a false positive rate on par with the state of the art on real-world datasets while supporting dynamicity and variable-length queries and keys.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207