Clustering spatial data in the presence of obstacles: a density-based approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering spatial data is a well-known problem that has been extensively studied. Grouping similar data in large 2-dimensional spaces to find hidden patterns or meaningful sub-groups has many applications such as satellite imagery, geographic information systems, medical image analysis, marketing, computer visions, etc. Although many methods have been proposed in the literature, very few have considered physical obstacles that may have significant consequences on the effectiveness of the clustering. Taking into account these constraints during the clustering process is costly and the modeling of the constraints is paramount for good performance. In this paper, we investigate the problem of clustering in the presence of constraints such as physical obstacles and introduce a new approach to model these constraints using polygons. We also propose a strategy to prune the search space and reduce the number of polygons to test during clustering. We devise a density-based clustering algorithm, DBCluC, which takes advantage of our constraint modeling to efficiently cluster data objects while considering all physical constraints. The algorithm can detect clusters of arbitrary shape and is insensitive to noise, the input order and the difficulty of constraints. Its average running complexity is O(NlogN) where N is the number of data points.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".