The Minimum Consistent Subset Cover Problem: A Minimization View of Data Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce and study the minimum consistent subset cover (MCSC) problem. Given a finite ground set X and a constraint t, find the minimum number of consistent subsets that cover X, where a subset of X is consistent if it satisfies t. The MCSC problem generalizes the traditional set covering problem and has minimum clique partition (MCP), a dual problem of graph coloring, as an instance. Many common data mining tasks in rule learning, clustering, and pattern mining can be formulated as MCSC instances. In particular, we discuss the minimum rule set (MRS) problem that minimizes model complexity of decision rules, the converse k-clustering problem that minimizes the number of clusters, and the pattern summarization problem that minimizes the number of patterns. For any of these MCSC instances, our proposed generic algorithm CAG can be directly applicable. CAG starts by constructing a maximal optimal partial solution, then performs an example-driven specific-to-general search on a dynamically maintained bipartite assignment graph to simultaneously learn a set of consistent subsets with small cardinality covering the ground set.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".