Estimating the number of clusters using diversity
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
It is an important and challenging problem in unsupervised learning to estimate the number of clusters in a dataset. Knowing the number of clusters is a prerequisite for many commonly used clustering algorithms such as \textit{k}-means. In this paper, we propose a novel diversity based approach to this problem. Specifically, we show that the difference between the global diversity of clusters and the sum of each cluster’s local diversity of their members can be used as an effective indicator of the optimality of the number of clusters, where the diversity is measured by Rao’s quadratic entropy. A notable advantage of our proposed method is that it encourages balanced clustering by taking into account both the sizes of clusters and the distances between clusters. In other words, it is less prone to very small “outlier” clusters than existing methods. Our extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets (with known ground-truth clustering) have demonstrated that our proposed method is robust for clusters of different sizes, variances, and shapes, and it is more accurate than existing methods (including elbow, Caliński-Harabasz, silhouette, and gap-statistic) in terms of finding out the optimal 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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