NHOP: Detecting descriptive patterns using association pattern mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To facilitate interpretation and consider the relationships of internal interdependency between data values, a new form of high-order (multiple-valued) pattern known as Nested High-Order Pattern (NHOP) is presented. This pattern satisfies a consistent statistical criterion when the pattern is iteratively extracted. The general form of High-Order Pattern (HOP), that NHOP is a subtype, is a set of multiple associated values (identified as variable outcomes) extracted from a random N-tuple. The pattern is detected by statistical testing if the occurrence is significantly deviated from the expected according to a prior model or null hypothesis. Here we extend our work of NHOP to classification and clustering tasks to identify a clearer description of the patterns. The rationale is that, complex association patterns reinforce the underlying meaningfulness in interpreting the regularity, thus can provide a better understanding of the classification and data domain. We develop a search strategy, called NHOP-Covering algorithm, to detect a set of NHOP. Experiments on benchmark machine learning data and real-world biomolecular data are evaluated with promising results.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".