Boosting association rule mining in large datasets via Gibbs sampling
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
Current algorithms for association rule mining from transaction data are mostly deterministic and enumerative. They can be computationally intractable even for mining a dataset containing just a few hundred transaction items, if no action is taken to constrain the search space. In this paper, we develop a Gibbs-sampling-induced stochastic search procedure to randomly sample association rules from the itemset space, and perform rule mining from the reduced transaction dataset generated by the sample. Also a general rule importance measure is proposed to direct the stochastic search so that, as a result of the randomly generated association rules constituting an ergodic Markov chain, the overall most important rules in the itemset space can be uncovered from the reduced dataset with probability 1 in the limit. In the simulation study and a real genomic data example, we show how to boost association rule mining by an integrated use of the stochastic search and the Apriori algorithm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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