MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012187238 · doi:10.1109/isspa.2012.6310493

Improving X-means clustering with MNDL

2012· article· en· W2012187238 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisBayesian information criterionDetermining the number of clusters in a data setComputer scienceCorrelation clusteringSingle-linkage clusteringSet (abstract data type)Cluster (spacecraft)Data miningCURE data clustering algorithmMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating the true number of clusters for an unlabeled data set is one of the most important limitations in clustering. To solve this issue, many approaches with different assumptions have been proposed in the literature. X-means clustering is one of the proposed methods, which employs Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to approximate the correct number of clusters. In this paper, we propose the use of Minimum Noiseless Description Length (MNDL) as a cluster splitting criterion for X-means clustering. MNDL is able to find the optimum splitting criterion for X-means clustering. Simulation results demonstrate that MNDL splitting criterion has the same computational complexity as BIC but, predicts the true number of clusters more often.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207