DBSCAN Revisited, Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At SIGMOD 2015, an article was presented with the title “DBSCAN Revisited: Mis-Claim, Un-Fixability, and Approximation” that won the conference’s best paper award. In this technical correspondence, we want to point out some inaccuracies in the way DBSCAN was represented, and why the criticism should have been directed at the assumption about the performance of spatial index structures such as R-trees and not at an algorithm that can use such indexes. We will also discuss the relationship of DBSCAN performance and the indexability of the dataset, and discuss some heuristics for choosing appropriate DBSCAN parameters. Some indicators of bad parameters will be proposed to help guide future users of this algorithm in choosing parameters such as to obtain both meaningful results and good performance. In new experiments, we show that the new SIGMOD 2015 methods do not appear to offer practical benefits if the DBSCAN parameters are well chosen and thus they are primarily of theoretical interest. In conclusion, the original DBSCAN algorithm with effective indexes and reasonably chosen parameter values performs competitively compared to the method proposed by Gan and Tao.
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 | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".