Combined Mapping of Multiple clUsteriNg ALgorithms (COMMUNAL): A Robust Method for Selection of Cluster Number, K
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to discover new subsets (clusters) of a data set, researchers often use algorithms that perform unsupervised clustering, namely, the algorithmic separation of a dataset into some number of distinct clusters. Deciding whether a particular separation (or number of clusters, K) is correct is a sort of 'dark art', with multiple techniques available for assessing the validity of unsupervised clustering algorithms. Here, we present a new technique for unsupervised clustering that uses multiple clustering algorithms, multiple validity metrics, and progressively bigger subsets of the data to produce an intuitive 3D map of cluster stability that can help determine the optimal number of clusters in a data set, a technique we call COmbined Mapping of Multiple clUsteriNg ALgorithms (COMMUNAL). COMMUNAL locally optimizes algorithms and validity measures for the data being used. We show its application to simulated data with a known K, and then apply this technique to several well-known cancer gene expression datasets, showing that COMMUNAL provides new insights into clustering behavior and stability in all tested cases. COMMUNAL is shown to be a useful tool for determining K in complex biological datasets, and is freely available as a package for R.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".