Pattern discovery and disentanglement on relational datasets
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
Machine Learning has made impressive advances in many applications akin to human cognition for discernment. However, success has been limited in the areas of relational datasets, particularly for data with low volume, imbalanced groups, and mislabeled cases, with outputs that typically lack transparency and interpretability. The difficulties arise from the subtle overlapping and entanglement of functional and statistical relations at the source level. Hence, we have developed Pattern Discovery and Disentanglement System (PDD), which is able to discover explicit patterns from the data with various sizes, imbalanced groups, and screen out anomalies. We present herein four case studies on biomedical datasets to substantiate the efficacy of PDD. It improves prediction accuracy and facilitates transparent interpretation of discovered knowledge in an explicit representation framework PDD Knowledge Base that links the sources, the patterns, and individual patients. Hence, PDD promises broad and ground-breaking applications in genomic and biomedical machine learning.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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