Iceberg-cube algorithms: An empirical evaluation on synthetic and real data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Iceberg-Cube problem is to identify the combinations of values for a set of attributes for which a specified aggregation function yields values over a specified aggregate threshold. We implemented bottom-up and top-down methods for this problem and performed extensive experiments featuring a va riety of synthetic and real databases. The bottom-up method included pruning. Results show that in most cases the top-down method, with or without pruning, was slower than the bottom-up method, because of less effective pruning. However, below a crossover point, the top-down method is faster. This crossover point occurs at a relatively low minimum support threshold, such as 0.01% or 1.5%. The bottom-up method is recommended for cases when a minimum support threshold higher than the crossover point will be selected. The top-down method is recommended when a minimum support threshold lower than the crossover point will be used or when a large number of results is expected.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it