The Convergence Behavior of Naive Bayes on Large Sparse Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large and sparse datasets with a lot of missing values are common in the big data era, such as user behaviors over a large number of items. Classification in such datasets is an important topic for machine learning and data mining. Practically, naive Bayes is still a popular classification algorithm for large sparse datasets, as its time and space complexity scales linearly with the size of non-missing values. However, several important questions about the behavior of naive Bayes are yet to be answered. For example, how different mechanisms of data missing, data sparsity, and the number of attributes systematically affect the learning curves and convergence? In this paper, we address several common data missing mechanisms and propose novel data generation methods based on these mechanisms. We generate large and sparse data systematically, and study the entire AUC (Area Under ROC Curve) learning curve and convergence behavior of naive Bayes. We not only have several important experiment observations, but also provide detailed theoretic studies. Finally, we summarize our empirical and theoretic results as an intuitive decision flowchart and a useful guideline for classifying large sparse datasets in practice.
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 | 0.037 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".