Abstract Purpose The ability to identify the scholarship of individual authors is essential for performance evaluation. A number of factors hinder this endeavor. Common and similarly spelled surnames make it difficult to isolate the scholarship of individual authors indexed on large databases. Variations in name spelling of individual scholars further complicates matters. Common family names in scientific powerhouses like China make it problematic to distinguish between authors possessing ubiquitous and/or anglicized surnames (as well as the same or similar first names). The assignment of unique author identifiers provides a major step toward resolving these difficulties. We maintain, however, that in and of themselves, author identifiers are not sufficient to fully address the author uncertainty problem. In this study we build on the author identifier approach by considering commonalities in fielded data between authors containing the same surname and first initial of their first name. We illustrate our approach using three case studies. Design/methodology/approach The approach we advance in this study is based on commonalities among fielded data in search results. We cast a broad initial net—i.e., a Web of Science (WOS) search for a given author’s last name, followed by a comma, followed by the first initial of his or her first name (e.g., a search for ‘John Doe’ would assume the form: ‘Doe, J’). Results for this search typically contain all of the scholarship legitimately belonging to this author in the given database (i.e., all of his or her true positives), along with a large amount of noise, or scholarship not belonging to this author (i.e., a large number of false positives). From this corpus we proceed to iteratively weed out false positives and retain true positives. Author identifiers provide a good starting point—e.g., if ‘Doe, J’ and ‘Doe, John’ share the same author identifier, this would be sufficient for us to conclude these are one and the same individual. We find email addresses similarly adequate—e.g., if two author names which share the same surname and same first initial have an email address in common, we conclude these authors are the same person. Author identifier and email address data is not always available, however. When this occurs, other fields are used to address the author uncertainty problem. Commonalities among author data other than unique identifiers and email addresses is less conclusive for name consolidation purposes. For example, if ‘Doe, John’ and ‘Doe, J’ have an affiliation in common, do we conclude that these names belong the same person? They may or may not; affiliations have employed two or more faculty members sharing the same last and first initial. Similarly, it’s conceivable that two individuals with the same last name and first initial publish in the same journal, publish with the same co-authors, and/or cite the same references. Should we then ignore commonalities among these fields and conclude they’re too imprecise for name consolidation purposes? It is our position that such commonalities are indeed valuable for addressing the author uncertainty problem, but more so when used in combination. Our approach makes use of automation as well as manual inspection, relying initially on author identifiers, then commonalities among fielded data other than author identifiers, and finally manual verification. To achieve name consolidation independent of author identifier matches, we have developed a procedure that is used with bibliometric software called VantagePoint (see www.thevantagepoint.com) While the application of our technique does not exclusively depend on VantagePoint, it is the software we find most efficient in this study. The script we developed to implement this procedure is designed to implement our name disambiguation procedure in a way that significantly reduces manual effort on the user’s part. Those who seek to replicate our procedure independent of VantagePoint can do so by manually following the method we outline, but we note that the manual application of our procedure takes a significant amount of time and effort, especially when working with larger datasets. Our script begins by prompting the user for a surname and a first initial (for any author of interest). It then prompts the user to select a WOS field on which to consolidate author names. After this the user is prompted to point to the name of the authors field, and finally asked to identify a specific author name (referred to by the script as the primary author) within this field whom the user knows to be a true positive (a suggested approach is to point to an author name associated with one of the records that has the author’s ORCID iD or email address attached to it). The script proceeds to identify and combine all author names sharing the primary author’s surname and first initial of his or her first name who share commonalities in the WOS field on which the user was prompted to consolidate author names. This typically results in significant reduction in the initial dataset size. After the procedure completes the user is usually left with a much smaller (and more manageable) dataset to manually inspect (and/or apply additional name disambiguation techniques to). Research limitations Match field coverage can be an issue. When field coverage is paltry dataset reduction is not as significant, which results in more manual inspection on the user’s part. Our procedure doesn’t lend itself to scholars who have had a legal family name change (after marriage, for example). Moreover, the technique we advance is (sometimes, but not always) likely to have a difficult time dealing with scholars who have changed careers or fields dramatically, as well as scholars whose work is highly interdisciplinary. Practical implications The procedure we advance has the ability to save a significant amount of time and effort for individuals engaged in name disambiguation research, especially when the name under consideration is a more common family name. It is more effective when match field coverage is high and a number of match fields exist. Originality/value Once again, the procedure we advance has the ability to save a significant amount of time and effort for individuals engaged in name disambiguation research. It combines preexisting with more recent approaches, harnessing the benefits of both. Findings Our study applies the name disambiguation procedure we advance to three case studies. Ideal match fields are not the same for each of our case studies. We find that match field effectiveness is in large part a function of field coverage. Comparing original dataset size, the timeframe analyzed for each case study is not the same, nor are the subject areas in which they publish. Our procedure is more effective when applied to our third case study, both in terms of list reduction and 100% retention of true positives. We attribute this to excellent match field coverage, and especially in more specific match fields, as well as having a more modest/manageable number of publications. While machine learning is considered authoritative by many, we do not see it as practical or replicable. The procedure advanced herein is both practical, replicable and relatively user friendly. It might be categorized into a space between ORCID and machine learning. Machine learning approaches typically look for commonalities among citation data, which is not always available, structured or easy to work with. The procedure we advance is intended to be applied across numerous fields in a dataset of interest (e.g. emails, coauthors, affiliations, etc.), resulting in multiple rounds of reduction. Results indicate that effective match fields include author identifiers, emails, source titles, co-authors and ISSNs. While the script we present is not likely to result in a dataset consisting solely of true positives (at least for more common surnames), it does significantly reduce manual effort on the user’s part. Dataset reduction (after our procedure is applied) is in large part a function of (a) field availability and (b) field coverage.
more »
« less
CHEX: Multiversion Replay with Ordered Checkpoints.
In scientific computing and data science disciplines, it is often necessary to share application workflows and repeat results. Current tools containerize application workflows, and share the resulting container for repeating results. These tools, due to containerization, do improve sharing of results. However, they do not improve the efficiency of replay. In this paper, we present the multiversion replay problem, which arises when multiple versions of an application are containerized, and each version must be replayed to repeat results. To avoid executing each version separately, we develop CHEX, which checkpoints program state and determines when it is permissible to reuse program state across versions. It does so using system call-based execution lineage. Our capability to identify common computations across versions enables us to consider optimizing replay using an in-memory cache, based on a checkpoint-restore-switch system. We show the multiversion replay problem is NP-hard, and propose efficient heuristics for it. CHEX reduces overall replay time by sharing common computations but avoids storing a large number of checkpoints. We demonstrate that CHEX maintains lightweight package sharing, and improves the total time of multiversion replay by 50% on average.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10325811
- Editor(s):
- J. Freire and Xuemin Lin
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Very Large Databases
- Volume:
- 15
- Issue:
- 6
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1297-1310
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Using GUI-based workflows for data analysis is an iterative process. During each iteration, an analyst makes changes to the workflow to improve it, generating a new version each time. The results produced by executing these versions are materialized to help users refer to them in the future. In many cases, a new version of the workflow, when submitted for execution, produces a result equivalent to that of a previous one. Identifying such equivalence can save computational resources and time by reusing the materialized result. One way to optimize the performance of executing a new version is to compare the current version with a previous one and test if they produce the same results using a workflow version equivalence verifier. As the number of versions grows, this testing can become a computational bottleneck. In this paper, we present Raven, an optimization framework to accelerate the execution of a new version request by detecting and reusing the results of previous equivalent versions with the help of a version equivalence verifier. Raven ranks and prunes the set of prior versions to quickly identify those that may produce an equivalent result to the version execution request. Additionally, when the verifier performs computation to verify the equivalence of a version pair, there may be a significant overlap with previously tested version pairs. Raven identifies and avoids such repeated computations by extending the verifier to reuse previous knowledge of equivalence tests. We evaluated the effectiveness of Raven compared to baselines on real workflows and datasets.more » « less
-
When a security vulnerability or other critical bug is not detected by the developers’ test suite, and is discovered post-deployment, developers must quickly devise a new test that reproduces the buggy behavior. Then the developers need to test whether their candidate patch indeed fixes the bug, without breaking other functionality, while racing to deploy before cyberattackers pounce on exposed user installations. This can be challenging when the bug discovery was due to factors that arose, perhaps transiently, in a specific user environment. If recording execution traces when the bad behavior occurred, record-replay technology faithfully replays the execution, in the developer environment, as if the program were executing in that user environment under the same conditions as the bug manifested. This includes intermediate program states dependent on system calls, memory layout, etc. as well as any externally-visible behavior. So the bug is reproduced, and many modern record-replay tools also integrate bug reproduction with interactive debuggers to help locate the root cause, but how do developers check whether their patch indeed eliminates the bug under those same conditions? State-of-the-art record-replay does not support replaying candidate patches that modify the program in ways that diverge program state from the original recording, but successful repairs necessarily diverge so the bug no longer manifests. This work builds on recordreplay, and binary rewriting, to automatically generate and run tests for candidate patches. These tests reflect the arbitrary (ad hoc) user and system circumstances that uncovered the vulnerability, to check whether a patch indeed closes the vulnerability but does not modify the corresponding segment of the program’s core semantics. Unlike conventional ad hoc testing, each test is reproducible and can be applied to as many prospective patches as needed until developers are satisfied. The proposed approach also enables users to make new recordings of her own workloads with the original version of the program, and automatically generate and run the corresponding ad hoc tests on the patched version, to validate that the patch does not introduce new problems before adopting.more » « less
-
We consider information design in spatial resource competition, motivated by ride sharing platforms sharing information with drivers about rider demand. Each of N co-located agents (drivers) decides whether to move to another location with an uncertain and possibly higher resource level (rider demand), where the utility for moving increases in the resource level and decreases in the number of other agents that move. A principal who can observe the resource level wishes to share this information in a way that ensures a welfare-maximizing number of agents move. Analyzing the principal’s information design problem using the Bayesian persuasion framework, we study both private signaling mechanisms, where the principal sends personalized signals to each agent, and public signaling mechanisms, where the principal sends the same information to all agents. We show: 1) For private signaling, computing the optimal mechanism using the standard approach leads to a linear program with 2 N variables, rendering the computation challenging. We instead describe a computationally efficient two-step approach to finding the optimal private signaling mechanism. First, we perform a change of variables to solve a linear program with O(N^2) variables that provides the marginal probabilities of recommending each agent move. Second, we describe an efficient sampling procedure over sets of agents consistent with these optimal marginal probabilities; the optimal private mechanism then asks the sampled set of agents to move and the rest to stay. 2) For public signaling, we first show the welfare-maximizing equilibrium given any common belief has a threshold structure. Using this, we show that the optimal public mechanism with respect to the sender-preferred equilibrium can be computed in polynomial time. 3) We support our analytical results with numerical computations that show the optimal private and public signaling mechanisms achieve substantially higher social welfare when compared with no-information and full-information benchmarks.more » « less
-
Intermittent systems operate embedded devices without a source of constant reliable power, relying instead on an unreliable source such as an energy harvester. They overcome the limitation of intermittent power by retaining and restoring system state as checkpoints across periods of power loss. Previous works have addressed a multitude of problems created by the intermittent paradigm, but do not consider securing intermittent systems. In this paper, we address the security concerns created through the introduction of checkpoints to an embedded device. When the non-volatile memory that holds checkpoints can be tampered, the checkpoints can be replayed or duplicated. We propose secure application continuity as a defense against these attacks. Secure application continuity provides assurance that an application continues where it left off upon power loss. In our secure continuity solution, we define a protocol that adds integrity, authenticity, and freshness to checkpoints. We develop two solutions for our secure checkpointing design. The first solution uses a hardware accelerated implementation of AES, while the second one is based on a software implementation of a lightweight cryptographic algorithm, Chaskey. We analyze the feasibility and overhead of these designs in terms of energy consumption, execution time, and code size across several application configurations. Then, we compare this overhead to a non-secure checkpointing system. We conclude that securing application continuity does not come cheap and that it increases the overhead of checkpoint restoration from 3.79 μJ to 42.96 μJ with the hardware accelerated solution and 57.02 μJ with the software based solution. To our knowledge, no one has yet considered the cost to provide security guarantees for intermittent operations. Our work provides future developers with an empirical evaluation of this cost, and with a problem statement for future research in this area.more » « less