MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999178485

Classification Algorithms for Big Data over distributed processing frameworks

2016· article· en· W6999178485 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsInterpretabilityBig dataFuzzy logicContext (archaeology)Fuzzy setAssociative propertySet (abstract data type)Decision treeNeuro-fuzzy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification problems have been widely studied in the context of data mining and different approaches to address these problems have been developed in the last decades. Among them, associative classification and decision trees have proved to be very effective and have been successfully employed in several application domains. Furthermore, some of these approaches have integrated the fuzzy set theory with the objective of dealing with uncertain and noise data. Unfortunately, most of the approaches proposed up to now have been designed for maximizing accuracy, often neglecting the complexity both in terms of memory that execution times. Thus, these approaches are generally not able to handle adequately the so-called ``big data''. In this Ph.D. thesis, we propose different solutions in a distributed environment for generating accurate and interpretable classification models for big data. In particular, we focus on associative classification and decision trees, integrating our solutions with fuzzy set theory. Since the generation of such models requires that continuous features are discretized, we also propose a novel distributed discretization approach based on information entropy. This approach has been therefore extended with fuzzy logic for generating fuzzy partitions. Finally, considering the complexity of the models generated by previous solutions, we propose a distributed evolutionary approach for optimizing both accuracy and interpretability of the classifiers. The proposed algorithms are shaped according to the MapReduce programming model and have been deployed on well-known data processing frameworks, widely employed in research as well as industrial contexts. The performance evaluation has been carried out by using different big data benchmarks and the results obtained by the proposed approaches and by some state-of-the-art distributed classification algorithms have been extensively discussed in terms of accuracy, model complexity, and computation time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa)Same topicFuzzy Logic and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207