MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947460150 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2919524

Incremental Mining of High Utility Patterns in One Phase by Absence and Legacy-Based Pruning

2019· article· en· W2947460150 on OpenAlexaff
Junqiang Liu, Xinyi Ju, Xingxing Zhang, Benjamin C. M. Fung, Xiangcai Yang, Changhong Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaZhejiang Gongshang University
KeywordsPruningComputer scienceScalabilityRelevance (law)Data miningAlgorithmState (computer science)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining high utility patterns in dynamic databases is an important data mining task. While a naive approach is to mine a newly updated database in its entirety, the state-of-the-art mining algorithms all take an incremental approach. However, the existing incremental algorithms either take a two-phase paradigm that generates a large number of candidates that causes scalability issues or employ a vertical data structure that incurs a large number of join operations that leads to efficiency issues. To address the challenges with the existing incremental algorithms, this paper proposes a new algorithm incremental direct discovery of high utility patterns (Id2HUP+). Id2HUP+ adapts a one-phase paradigm by improving the relevance-based pruning and upper-bound-based pruning proposes a novel data structure for a quick update of dynamic databases and proposes the absence-based pruning and legacy-based pruning dedicated to incremental mining. The extensive experiments show that our algorithm is up to 1-3 orders of magnitude more efficient than the state-of-the-art algorithms, and is the most scalable 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207