The effectiveness of lloyd-type methods for the k-means problem
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
We investigate variants of Lloyd's heuristic for clustering high-dimensional data in an attempt to explain its popularity (a half century after its introduction) among practitioners, and in order to suggest improvements in its application. We propose and justify a clusterability criterion for data sets. We present variants of Lloyd's heuristic that quickly lead to provably near-optimal clustering solutions when applied to well-clusterable instances. This is the first performance guarantee for a variant of Lloyd's heuristic. The provision of a guarantee on output quality does not come at the expense of speed: some of our algorithms are candidates for being faster in practice than currently used variants of Lloyd's method. In addition, our other algorithms are faster on well-clusterable instances than recently proposed approximation algorithms, while maintaining similar guarantees on clustering quality. Our main algorithmic contribution is a novel probabilistic seeding process for the starting configuration of a Lloyd-type iteration.
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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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