Parallel leap: large-scale maximal pattern mining in a distributed environment
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
When computationally feasible, mining extremely large databases produces tremendously large numbers of frequent patterns. In many cases, it is impractical to mine those datasets due to their sheer size; not only the extent of the existing patterns, but mainly the magnitude of the search space. Many approaches have been suggested such as sequential mining for maximal patterns or searching for all frequent patterns in parallel. So far, those approaches are still not genuinely effective to mine extremely large datasets. In this work we propose a method that combines both strategies efficiently, i.e. mining in parallel for the set of maximal patterns which, to the best of our knowledge, has never been proposed efficiently before. Using this approach we could mine significantly large datasets; with sizes never reported in the literature before. We are able to effectively discover frequent patterns in a database made of billion transactions using a 32 processors cluster in less than 2 hours
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