Bio-inspired multiobjective clustering optimization: A survey and a proposal
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
Multiobjective clustering techniques have been used to simultaneously consider several complementary aspects of clustering quality. They optimize two or more cluster validity indices simultaneously, they lead to high-quality results, and have emerged as attractive and robust alternatives for solving clustering problems. This paper provides a brief review of bio-Inspired multiobjective clustering, and proposes a bee-inspired multiobjective optimization (MOO) algorithm, named cOptBees-MO, to solve multiobjective data clustering problems. In its survey part, a brief tutorial on MOO and multiobjective clustering optimization (MOCO) is presented, followed by a review of the main works in the area. Particular attention is given to the many objective functions used in MOCO. To evaluate the performance of the algorithm it was executed for various datasets and the results presented high quality clusters, diverse solutions an the automatic determination of a suitable number of clusters.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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