We investigate the data management of temporal property graphs on atemporal Labeled Property Graph (LPG) engines. While existing frameworks define temporal semantics, practitioners lack systematic empirical guidance on mapping these models to concrete representations in the absence of native engine support. We formalize two fundamental representation strategies implemented on top of standard LPG systems: a Versioning strategy that materializes temporal states via topological expansion, and a Property Lists strategy that encapsulates evolution through property-level compression. For each strategy, we define query translations for temporal evolution operators and analytical aggregations, and evaluate them across two heterogeneous real-world datasets. Our evaluation reveals a fundamental trade-off between topological selectivity and historical compactness: Versioning excels at high-throughput ingestion and short-window workloads but suffers from traversal amplification in dense graphs over long horizons, while Property Lists amortizes scan costs for read-heavy, multi-window analytics but incurs higher ingestion overhead and cannot support time-varying labels. We identify workload-dependent crossover points, showing how dataset density and structural volatility determine the superior strategy.
Fotios Kamanis, Georgia Koloniari, E. Pitoura· International Conference on...· 0 citations
Algorithmic fairness and explainability are foundational pillars of responsible AI. Although often studied independently, their interplay is increasingly recognized as crucial for diagnosing and mitigating bias in machine learning systems. We first introduce two systematic taxonomies: one for algorithmic fairness and one for explainable AI, to organize the landscape of existing work across diverse tasks (classification, ranking, and recommendation) and data modalities (tabular, graph). Next, we categorize the use of explanations in fairness efforts into three main functions: (a) detecting and understanding the causes of unfairness, (b) defining enhanced fairness metrics, and (c) designing mitigation strategies. In addition, we examine how explanation methods themselves can be biased, underscoring the need to evaluate fairness for explanations. Finally, we identify open research challenges and outline promising directions for future research at the intersection of fairness and explainability.
Christos Fragkathoulas, Vasiliki Papanikou, Danae Pla Karidi et al.· IEEE Transactions on Knowled...· 0 citations