Efficient computation of Iceberg cubes with complex measures
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
It is often too expensive to compute and materialize a complete high-dimensional data cube. Computing an iceberg cube, which contains only aggregates above certain thresholds, is an effective way to derive nontrivial multi-dimensional aggregations for OLAP and data mining. In this paper, we study efficient methods for computing iceberg cubes with some popularly used complex measures, such as average , and develop a methodology that adopts a weaker but anti-monotonic condition for testing and pruning search space. In particular, for efficient computation of iceberg cubes with the average measure, we propose a top-k average pruning method and extend two previously studied methods, Apriori and BUC, to Top- k Apriori and Top- k BUC. To further improve the performance, an interesting hypertree structure, called H-tree, is designed and a new iceberg cubing method, called Top- k H-Cubing, is developed. Our performance study shows that Top- k BUC and Top- k H-Cubing are two promising candidates for scalable computation, and Top- k H-Cubing has better performance in most cases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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