Bottom-up evolutionary subspace clustering
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
The ultimate goal of subspace clustering algorithms is to identify both the subset of attributes supporting a cluster and the location of the cluster in the subspace. In this work a generic evolutionary approach to bottom-up subspace clustering is proposed consisting of three steps. The first applies a non-evolutionary clustering algorithm attribute-wise to establish the lattice from which subspace clusters will be designed. In the second step a multi-objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) is used to evolve good candidate subspace clusters (CSC) through a combinatorial search w.r.t. the attribute-wise lattice from step 1. The third step then searches in the space of CSC from the population of the the first MOGA to find the best combination of subspace clusters, again under a MOGA formulation. Important properties of the approach are that a standard clustering algorithm is deployed in step one to build the initial lattice of attribute-wise clusters. This helps to decouple the computational expense of clustering using Evolutionary Computation, with the MOGA applied in steps 2 and 3 building clusters through a combinatorial search relative to the original lattice parameters. Benchmarking on data sets with tens to hundreds of attributes illustrates the feasibility of the approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it