Dramatically Reducing Search for High Utility Sequential Patterns by Maintaining Candidate Lists
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
A ubiquitous challenge throughout all areas of data mining, particularly in the mining of frequent patterns in large databases, is centered on the necessity to reduce the time and space required to perform the search. The extent of this reduction proportionally facilitates the ability to identify patterns of interest. High utility sequential pattern mining (HUSPM) seeks to identify frequent patterns that are (1) sequential in nature and (2) hold a significant magnitude of utility in a sequence database, by considering the aspect of item value or importance. While traditional sequential pattern mining relies on the downward closure property to significantly reduce the required search space, with HUSPM, this property does not hold. To address this drawback, an approach is proposed that establishes a tight upper bound on the utility of future candidate sequential patterns by maintaining a list of items that are deemed potential candidates for concatenation. Such candidates are provably the only items that are ever needed for any extension of a given sequential pattern or its descendants in the search tree. This list is then exploited to significantly further tighten the upper bound on the utilities of descendent patterns. An extension of this work is then proposed that significantly reduces the computational cost of updating database utilities each time a candidate item is removed from the list, resulting in a massive reduction in the number of candidate sequential patterns that need to be generated in the search. Sequential pattern mining methods implementing these new techniques for bound reduction and further candidate list reduction are demonstrated via the introduction of the CRUSP and CRUSPPivot algorithms, respectively. Validation of the techniques was conducted on six public datasets. Tests show that use of the CRUSP algorithm results in a significant reduction in the overall number of candidate sequential patterns that need to be considered, and subsequently a significant reduction in run time, when compared to the current state of the art in bounding techniques. When employing the CRUSPPivot algorithm, the further reduction in the size of the search space was found to be dramatic, with the reduction in run time found to be dramatic to moderate, depending on the dataset. Demonstrating the practical significance of the work, experiments showed that time required for one particularly complex dataset was reduced from many hours to less than one minute.
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