Quantifying and Visualizing Attribute Interactions: An Approach Based on Entropy
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
Interactions are patterns between several attributes in data that cannot be inferred from any subset of these attributes. While mutual information is a well-established approach to evaluating the interactions between two attributes, we surveyed its generalizations as to quantify interactions between several attributes. We have chosen McGill’s interaction information, which has been independently rediscovered a number of times under various names in various disciplines, because of its many intuitively appealing properties. We apply interaction information to visually present the most important interactions of the data. Visualization of interactions has provided insight into the structure of data on a number of domains, identifying redundant attributes and opportunities for constructing new features, discovering unexpected regularities in data, and have helped during construction of predictive models; we illustrate the methods on numerous examples. A machine learning method that disregards interactions may get caught in two traps: myopia is caused by learning algorithms assuming independence in spite of interactions, whereas fragmentation arises from assuming an interaction in spite of independence.
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