Mining Projected Clusters in High-Dimensional Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering high-dimensional data has been a major challenge due to the inherent sparsity of the points. Most existing clustering algorithms become substantially inefficient if the required similarity measure is computed between data points in the full-dimensional space. To address this problem, a number of projected clustering algorithms have been proposed. However, most of them encounter difficulties when clusters hide in subspaces with very low dimensionality. These challenges motivate our effort to propose a robust partitional distance-based projected clustering algorithm. The algorithm consists of three phases. The first phase performs attribute relevance analysis by detecting dense and sparse regions and their location in each attribute. Starting from the results of the first phase, the goal of the second phase is to eliminate outliers, while the third phase aims to discover clusters in different subspaces. The clustering process is based on the k-means algorithm, with the computation of distance restricted to subsets of attributes where object values are dense. Our algorithm is capable of detecting projected clusters of low dimensionality embedded in a high-dimensional space and avoids the computation of the distance in the full-dimensional space. The suitability of our proposal has been demonstrated through an empirical study using synthetic and real datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".