Genetic Algorithm for Document Clustering with Simultaneous and Ranked Mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering is a division of data into groups of similar objects. Each group, called cluster, consists of objects that are similar between themselves and dissimilar to objects of other groups. The clustering algorithm attempts to find natural groups of components, based on some similarity. Traditional clustering algorithms will search only a small sub-set of all possible clustering and consequently, there is no guarantee that the solution found will be optimal. This paper presents the document clustering based on Genetic algorithm with Simultaneous mutation operator and Ranked mutation rate. The mutation operation is significant to the success of genetic algorithms since it expands the search directions and avoids convergence to local optima. In each stage of the genetic process in a problem, may involve aptly different mutation operators for best results. In simultaneous mutation the genetic algorithm concurrently uses several mutation operators in producing the next generation. The mutation ratio of each operator changes according to assessment from the respective offspring it produces. In ranked scheme, it adapts the mutation rate on the chromosome based on the fitness rank of the earlier population. Experiments results are examined with document corpus. It demonstrates that the proposed algorithm statistically outperforms the Simple GA and K-Means.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".