COFI approach for mining frequent itemsets revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COFI approach for mining frequent itemsets, introduced recently, is an efficient algorithm that was demonstrated to outperform state-of-the-art algorithms on synthetic data. For instance, COFI is not only one order of magnitude faster and requires significantly less memory than the popular FP-Growth, it is also very effective with extremely large datasets, better than any reported algorithm. However, COFI has a significant drawback when mining dense transactional databases which is the case with some real datasets. The algorithm performs poorly in these cases because it ends up generating too many local candidates that are doomed to be infrequent. In this paper, we present a new algorithm COFI* for mining frequent itemsets. This novel algorithm uses the same data structure COFI-tree as its predecessor, but partitions the patterns in such a way to avoid the drawbacks of COFI. Moreover, its approach uses a pseudo-Oracle to pinpoint the maximal itemsets, from which all frequent itemsets are derived and counted, avoiding the generation of candidates fated infrequent. Our implementation tested on real and synthetic data shows that COFI* algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms, among them COFI itself.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".