Uni- and multivariate probability density models for numeric subgroup discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subgroup Discovery is a supervised, exploratory data mining paradigm that aims to identify subsets of a dataset that show interesting behaviour with respect to some designated target attribute. The way in which such distributional differences are quantified varies with the target attribute type. This work concerns continuous targets, which are important in many practical applications. For such targets, differences are often quantified using z-score and similar measures that compare simple statistics such as the mean and variance of the subset and the data. However, most distributions are not fully determined by their mean and variance alone. As a result, measures of distributional difference solely based on such simple statistics will miss potentially interesting subgroups. This work proposes methods to recognise distributional differences in a much broader sense. To this end, density estimation is performed using histogram and kernel density estimation techniques. In the spirit of Exceptional Model Mining, the proposed methods are extended to deal with multiple continuous target attributes, such that comparisons are not restricted to univariate distributions, but are available for joint distributions of any dimensionality. The methods can be incorporated easily into existing Subgroup Discovery frameworks, so no new frameworks are developed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".