The Multi-Tree Cubing algorithm for computing iceberg cubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computation of data cubes is one of the most expensive operations in on-line analytical processing (OLAP). To improve efficiency, an iceberg cube represents only the cells whose aggregate values are above a given threshold (minimum support). Top-down and bottom-up approaches are used to compute the iceberg cube for a data set, but both have performance limitations. In this paper, a new algorithm, called Multi-Tree Cubing (MTC), is proposed for computing an iceberg cube. The Multi-Tree Cubing algorithm is an integrated top-down and bottom-up approach. Overall control is handled in a top-down manner, so MTC features shared computation. By processing the orderings in the opposite order from the Top-Down Computation algorithm, the MTC algorithm is able to prune attributes. The Bottom Up Computation (BUC) algorithm and its variations also perform pruning by relying on the processing of intermediate partitions. The MTC algorithm, however, prunes without processing such partitions. The MTC algorithm is based on a specialized type of prefix tree data structure, called an Attribute–Partition tree (AP-tree), consisting of attribute and partition nodes. The AP-tree facilitates fast, in-memory sorting and APRIORI-like pruning. We report on five series of experiments, which confirm that MTC is consistently as fast or faster than BUC, while finding the same iceberg cubes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".