Reducing the Search Space for Big Data Mining for Interesting Patterns from Uncertain Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many existing data mining algorithms search interesting patterns from transactional databases of precise data. However, there are situations in which data are uncertain. Items in each transaction of these probabilistic databases of uncertain data are usually associated with existential probabilities, which express the likelihood of these items to be present in the transaction. When compared with mining from precise data, the search space for mining from uncertain data is much larger due to the presence of the existential probabilities. This problem is worsened as we are moving to the era of Big data. Furthermore, in many real-life applications, users may be interested in a tiny portion of this large search space for Big data mining. Without providing opportunities for users to express the interesting patterns to be mined, many existing data mining algorithms return numerous patterns -- out of which only some are interesting. In this paper, we propose an algorithm that (i) allows users to express their interest in terms of constraints and (ii) uses the MapReduce model to mine uncertain Big data for frequent patterns that satisfy the user-specified constraints. By exploiting properties of the constraints, our algorithm greatly reduces the search space for Big data mining of uncertain data, and returns only those patterns that are interesting to the users for Big data analytics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".