GEOMETRIC PROXIMITY GRAPHS FOR IMPROVING NEAREST NEIGHBOR METHODS IN INSTANCE-BASED LEARNING AND DATA MINING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the typical nonparametric approach to classification in instance-based learning and data mining, random data (the training set of patterns) are collected and used to design a decision rule (classifier). One of the most well known such rules is the k-nearest-neighbor decision rule (also known as lazy learning) in which an unknown pattern is classified into the majority class among its k nearest neighbors in the training set. Several questions related to this rule have received considerable attention over the years. Such questions include the following. How can the storage of the training set be reduced without degrading the performance of the decision rule? How should the reduced training set be selected to represent the different classes? How large should k be? How should the value of k be chosen? Should all k neighbors be equally weighted when used to decide the class of an unknown pattern? If not, how should the weights be chosen? Should all the features (attributes) we weighted equally and if not how should the feature weights be chosen? What distance metric should be used? How can the rule be made robust to overlapping classes or noise present in the training data? How can the rule be made invariant to scaling of the measurements? How can the nearest neighbors of a new point be computed efficiently? What is the smallest neural network that can implement nearest neighbor decision rules? Geometric proximity graphs such as Voronoi diagrams and their many relatives provide elegant solutions to these problems, as well as other related data mining problems such as outlier detection. After a non-exhaustive review of some of the classical canonical approaches to these problems, the methods that use proximity graphs are discussed, some new observations are made, and open problems are listed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".