Proceedings 2004 VLDB Conference 2004
DOI: 10.1016/b978-012088469-8.50078-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probabilistic Ranking of Database Query Results

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recall Section 1, we mentioned potential purposes/applications of the explicit and implicit queries. One is to sort the qualified objects according to their appearance probabilities, which is (somewhat) similar to the ranking query [3,16,23]; another is to return the number of qualified objects, which is (somewhat) similar to the aggregate query [31,47]. Both of tasks can be easily achieved by the minor modifications of our proposed algorithms.…”
Section: Query Processing For Implicit Csptrqmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Recall Section 1, we mentioned potential purposes/applications of the explicit and implicit queries. One is to sort the qualified objects according to their appearance probabilities, which is (somewhat) similar to the ranking query [3,16,23]; another is to return the number of qualified objects, which is (somewhat) similar to the aggregate query [31,47]. Both of tasks can be easily achieved by the minor modifications of our proposed algorithms.…”
Section: Query Processing For Implicit Csptrqmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…For example, instead of simple tuple scoring functions (such as price), one could also use more complex scoring functions such as assigning a relevance score [6] to each of the tuples. There exists a large volume of literature on such ranking/scoring functions [1,6,14]. Even though any of these functions are possible, in our implementation, we use a simple and intuitive measure, which is based on the normalized inverse document frequency [1].…”
Section: Application-specific Instantiations Of the Probabilistic Framentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach can be very effective when the user is relatively sophisticated and knows what she wants, because the ranking function can be directly provided by the user. In the case of a naive user, who is unable to provide a good ranking function, there have been many efforts to develop suitable system-generated ranking functions, by both IR [6] and database [1,14,15] researchers. At the same time, it has also been recognized [7,25] that the rank-retrieval-based approach has an inherent limitation for naive users: it is not an interactive process, and if the user does not like the returned results, it is not easy to determine how the ranking function should be changed.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Top-k query processing has received much attention in a variety of settings such as similarity search on multimedia data [7,24,29,30,45,46], ranked retrieval on text and semistructured documents in digital libraries and on the Web [3,6,36,40,48,52,55], network and stream monitoring [4,14] collaborative recommendation and preference queries on ecommerce product catalogs [17,31,42,56], and ranking of SQL-style query results on structured data sources in general [1,11,18]. Among the ample work on top-k query processing, the TA family of algorithms for monotonic score aggregation [25,30,46] stands out as an extremely efficient and highly versatile method.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%