Machine Learning With Big Data: Challenges and Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Big Data revolution promises to transform how we live, work, and think by enabling process optimization, empowering insight discovery and improving decision making. The realization of this grand potential relies on the ability to extract value from such massive data through data analytics; machine learning is at its core because of its ability to learn from data and provide data driven insights, decisions, and predictions. However, traditional machine learning approaches were developed in a different era, and thus are based upon multiple assumptions, such as the data set fitting entirely into memory, what unfortunately no longer holds true in this new context. These broken assumptions, together with the Big Data characteristics, are creating obstacles for the traditional techniques. Consequently, this paper compiles, summarizes, and organizes machine learning challenges with Big Data. In contrast to other research that discusses challenges, this work highlights the cause–effect relationship by organizing challenges according to Big Data Vs or dimensions that instigated the issue: volume, velocity, variety, or veracity. Moreover, emerging machine learning approaches and techniques are discussed in terms of how they are capable of handling the various challenges with the ultimate objective of helping practitioners select appropriate solutions for their use cases. Finally, a matrix relating the challenges and approaches is presented. Through this process, this paper provides a perspective on the domain, identifies research gaps and opportunities, and provides a strong foundation and encouragement for further research in the field of machine learning with Big Data.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".