MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048442462 · doi:10.1145/2133803.2184450

StreamKM++

2012· article· en· W2048442462 on OpenAlexaff
Marcel R. Ackermann, Marcus Märtens, Christoph Raupach, Kamil Swierkot, Christiane Lammersen, Christian Sohler

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceData streamTree (set theory)Sample (material)Sampling (signal processing)Streaming algorithmCluster analysisMathematicsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a new k -means clustering algorithm for data streams of points from a Euclidean space. We call this algorithm StreamKM++. Our algorithm computes a small weighted sample of the data stream and solves the problem on the sample using the k -means++ algorithm of Arthur and Vassilvitskii (SODA '07). To compute the small sample, we propose two new techniques. First, we use an adaptive, nonuniform sampling approach similar to the k -means++ seeding procedure to obtain small coresets from the data stream. This construction is rather easy to implement and, unlike other coreset constructions, its running time has only a small dependency on the dimensionality of the data. Second, we propose a new data structure, which we call coreset tree. The use of these coreset trees significantly speeds up the time necessary for the adaptive, nonuniform sampling during our coreset construction. We compare our algorithm experimentally with two well-known streaming implementations: BIRCH [Zhang et al. 1997] and StreamLS [Guha et al. 2003]. In terms of quality (sum of squared errors), our algorithm is comparable with StreamLS and significantly better than BIRCH (up to a factor of 2). Besides, BIRCH requires significant effort to tune its parameters. In terms of running time, our algorithm is slower than BIRCH. Comparing the running time with StreamLS, it turns out that our algorithm scalesmuch better with increasing number of centers. We conclude that, if the first priority is the quality of the clustering, then our algorithm provides a good alternative to BIRCH and StreamLS, in particular, if the number of cluster centers is large. We also give a theoretical justification of our approach by proving that our sample set is a small coreset in low-dimensional spaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.037

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations295
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Journal of Experimental AlgorithmicsSame topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207