Large-Scale Mining of Co-occurrences: Challenges and Solutions
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 ability to extract frequent pairs from a set of baskets (or frequent word co-occurrences from a set of documents) is one of the fundamental building blocks of data mining. When the number of items in a given basket is relatively small the problem is trivial. Even when dealing with millions of baskets it is still trivial providing that the number of unique items in the basket set is small. The problem becomes much more challenging when we deal with millions of baskets, each containing hundreds of items that are part of a set of millions of potential items. Especially when we are looking for highly correlated results at extremely low support levels. A particularly difficult case is when "items" are words and "baskets" are long documents in a very large text corpus. For 17 years the Direct Hashing and Pruning Park Chen Yu (PCY) Algorithm has been the principal technique used when there are billions of potential pairs that need to be counted. In this paper we show new approaches that allow us to take full advantage of both multi-core and multi-CPU setups for cases where PCY fails and Map-Reduce struggles, offering excellent performance scaling when the number of processors, unique items and items per transaction are at their highest. We believe that our approaches have much broader applicability in the field of co-occurrence counting, and can be used to generate much more interesting results when mining very large data sets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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