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

StreamKM++

2012· article· en· W2048442462 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

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 <it>k</it>-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 <it>k</it>-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 <it>k</it>-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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.028
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