AN INVESTIGATION OF COMPETITIVE LEARNING FOR AUTONOMOUS CLUSTER IDENTIFICATION IN EMBEDDED SYSTEMS
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
Robust signal processing for embedded systems requires the effective identification and representation of features within raw sensory data. This task is inherently difficult due to unavoidable long-term changes in the sensory systems and/or the sensed environment. In this paper we explore four variations of competitive learning and examine their suitability as an unsupervised technique for the automated identification of data clusters within a given input space. The relative performance of the four techniques is evaluated through their ability to effectively represent the structure underlying artificial and real-world data distributions. As a result of this study it was found that frequency sensitive competitive learning provides both reliable and efficient solutions to complex data distributions. As well, frequency sensitive and soft competitive learning are shown to exhibit properties which may permit the evolution of an appropriate network structure through the use of growing or pruning procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it