MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154185929 · doi:10.1109/cimca.2005.1631337

A New Evolutionary Algorithm for Determining the Optimal Number of Clusters

2005· article· en· W2154185929 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvolutionary algorithmCluster analysisComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Determining the number of clusters in a data setEvolutionary computationEntropy (arrow of time)Fitness functionSet (abstract data type)Selection (genetic algorithm)Cluster (spacecraft)Genetic algorithmData miningAlgorithmMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMachine learningCorrelation clusteringCanopy clustering algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating the optimal number of clusters for a dataset is one of the most essential issues in cluster analysis. An improper pre-selection for the number of clusters might easily lead to bad clustering outcome. In this paper, we propose a new evolutionary algorithm to address this issue. Specifically, the proposed evolutionary algorithm defines a new entropy-based fitness function, and three new genetic operators for splitting, merging, and removing clusters. Empirical evaluations using the synthetic dataset and an existing benchmark show that the proposed evolutionary algorithm can exactly estimate the optimal number of clusters for a set of data

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207