Data Cube Approximation and Mining using Probabilistic Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-line Analytical Processing (OLAP) techniques commonly used in data warehouses allow the exploration of data cubes according to different analysis axes (dimensions) and under different abstraction levels in a dimension hierarchy. However, such techniques are not aimed at mining multidimensional data.\n\nSince data cubes are nothing but multi-way tables, we propose to analyze the potential of two probabilistic modeling techniques, namely non-negative multi-way array factorization and log-linear modeling, with the ultimate objective of compressing and mining aggregate and multidimensional values. With the first technique, we compute the set of components that best fit the initial data set and whose superposition coincides with the original data; with the second technique we identify a parsimonious model (i.e., one with a reduced set of parameters), highlight strong associations among dimensions and discover possible outliers in data cells. A real life example will be\nused to (i) discuss the potential benefits of the modeling output on cube exploration and mining, (ii) show how OLAP queries can be answered in an approximate way, and (iii) illustrate the strengths and limitations of these modeling approaches.\n
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".