MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963188969

Scalable Laplacian K-modes

2018· article· en· W2963188969 on OpenAlexaff
Imtiaz Masud Ziko, Éric Granger, Ismail Ben Ayed

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisMathematical optimizationRelaxation (psychology)Subgradient methodLinear programmingMathematicsLaplacian matrixComputer scienceEigenvalues and eigenvectorsConvergence (economics)AlgorithmLaplace operator
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We advocate Laplacian K-modes for joint clustering and density mode finding, and propose a concave-convex relaxation of the problem, which yields a parallel algorithm that scales up to large datasets and high dimensions.We optimize a tight bound (auxiliary function) of our relaxation, which, at each iteration, amounts to computing an independent update for each cluster-assignment variable, with guaranteed convergence.Therefore, our bound optimizer can be trivially distributed for large-scale data sets.Furthermore, we show that the density modes can be obtained as byproducts of the assignment variables via simple maximum-value operations whose additional computational cost is linear in the number of data points.Our formulation does not need storing a full affinity matrix and computing its eigenvalue decomposition, neither does it perform expensive projection steps and Lagrangian-dual inner iterates for the simplex constraints of each point.Furthermore, unlike mean-shift, our density-mode estimation does not require inner-loop gradient-ascent iterates.It has a complexity independent of featurespace dimension, yields modes that are valid data points in the input set and is applicable to discrete domains as well as arbitrary kernels.We report comprehensive experiments over various data sets, which show that our algorithm yields very competitive performances in term of optimization quality (i.e., the value of the discrete-variable objective at convergence) and clustering accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)Same topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207