Fast Identification of High Utility Itemsets from Candidates
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
High utility itemsets (HUIs) are sets of items with high utility, like profit, in a database. Efficient mining of high utility itemsets is an important problem in the data mining area. Many mining algorithms adopt a two-phase framework. They first generate a set of candidate itemsets by roughly overestimating the utilities of all itemsets in a database, and subsequently compute the exact utility of each candidate to identify HUIs. Therefore, the major costs in these algorithms come from candidate generation and utility computation. Previous works mainly focus on how to reduce the number of candidates, without dedicating much attention to utility computation, to the best of our knowledge. However, we find that, for a mining task, the time of utility computation in two-phase algorithms dominates the whole running time of these algorithms. Therefore, it is important to optimize utility computation. In this paper, we first give a basic algorithm for HUI identification, the core of which is a utility computation procedure. Subsequently, a novel candidate tree structure is proposed for storing candidate itemsets, and a candidate tree-based algorithm is developed for fast HUI identification, in which there is an efficient utility computation procedure. Extensive experimental results show that the candidate tree-based algorithm outperforms the basic algorithm and the performance of two-phase algorithms, integrating the candidate tree algorithm as their second step, can be significantly improved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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