Multi-Exemplar Affinity Propagation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The affinity propagation (AP) clustering algorithm has received much attention in the past few years. AP is appealing because it is efficient, insensitive to initialization, and it produces clusters at a lower error rate than other exemplar-based methods. However, its single-exemplar model becomes inadequate when applied to model multisubclasses in some situations such as scene analysis and character recognition. To remedy this deficiency, we have extended the single-exemplar model to a multi-exemplar one to create a new multi-exemplar affinity propagation (MEAP) algorithm. This new model automatically determines the number of exemplars in each cluster associated with a super exemplar to approximate the subclasses in the category. Solving the model is NP-hard and we tackle it with the max-sum belief propagation to produce neighborhood maximum clusters, with no need to specify beforehand the number of clusters, multi-exemplars, and superexemplars. Also, utilizing the sparsity in the data, we are able to reduce substantially the computational time and storage. Experimental studies have shown MEAP's significant improvements over other algorithms on unsupervised image categorization and the clustering of handwritten digits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".