MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mining Binary Data with Matrix Algebra

2015· article· en· W2196676009 on OpenAlexafffund
Ritu Chaturvedi, C. I. Ezeife

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceBinary numberAssociation rule learningData miningLogical matrixBinary dataAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many applications such as intelligent tutoring system (ITS) use data that are better represented as binary data. This paper presents a novel algorithm called MBER (Mining Binary Data Efficiently by Reduced AND operations) for finding frequent itemsets in a binary dataset using matrix algebra operations. Frequent itemsets are sets of items in a transactional database that occur together frequently (defined by a user-given threshold value called minimum support). Existing algorithms that operate on binary data, such as ABBM, generate frequent itemsets by performing exhaustive AND operations using brute force method. MBER, on the other hand, generates frequent itemsets using a novel technique in which it first uses matrix algebra operations to find those transactions that have m common items in them (called as potential transactions) and then performs AND operations on only such potential transactions. This reduces the total number of AND operations required considerably (by less than a quarter) and thereby improves the efficiency of the algorithm. MBER also shows a significant improvement over traditional algorithms that generate frequent itemsets, such as Apriori, by eliminating the need to (i) scan the database more than once and (ii) to generate large number of candidate itemsets. This paper concludes by a proof of correctness of MBER and a discussion on evaluating it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207