The Impact of the Pattern-Growth Ordering on the Performances of Pattern Growth-Based Sequential Pattern Mining Algorithms
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
Sequential Pattern Mining is an efficient technique for discovering recurring structures or patterns from very large datasetwidely addressed by the data mining community, with a very large field of applications, such as cross-marketing, DNA analysis, web log analysis,user behavior, sensor data, etc. The sequence pattern mining aims at extractinga set of attributes, shared across time among a large number of objects in a given database. Previous studies have developed two major classes of sequential pattern mining methods, namely, the candidate generation-and-test approach based on either vertical or horizontal data formats represented respectively by GSP and SPADE, and the pattern-growth approach represented by FreeSpan and PrefixSpan.In this paper, we are interested in the study of the impact of the pattern-growthordering on the performances of pattern growth-based sequential pattern mining algorithms.To this end, we introduce a class of pattern-growth orderings, called linear orderings, for which patterns are grown by making grow either the currentpattern prefix or the current pattern suffix from the same position at eachgrowth-step.We study the problem of pruning and partitioning the search space followinglinear orderings. Experimentations show that the order in which patternsgrow has a significant influence on the performances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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