Classification by Frequent Association Rules
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
Over the last two decades, Associative Classifiers have shown competitive performance in the task of predicting class labels. Along with the performance in accuracy, associative classifiers produce human-readable predictive rules which is very helpful to understand the decision process of the classifiers. Associative classifiers from early days suffer from the limitation requiring proper threshold value setting which is dataset-specific. Recently some studies eliminated that limitation by producing statistically significant rules. Though recent models showed very competitive performance with state-of-the-art classifiers, their performance is still impacted if the feature vector of the training data is very large. An ensemble model can solve this issue by training each base learner with a subset of the feature vector. In this study, we propose an ensemble model Classification by Frequent Association Rules (CFAR) using associative classifiers as base learners. In our approach, instead of using a classical ensemble and a voting method, we rank the generated rules based on predominance among base learners and select a subset of the rules for predicting class labels. We use 10 datasets from the UCI repository to evaluate the performance of the proposed model. Our ensemble approach CFAR eliminates the limitation of high memory requirement and runtime of recent associative classifiers if training datasets have large feature vectors. Among the datasets we used, along with increasing accuracy in most cases, CFAR removes the noisy rules which enhances the interpretability of the model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it