Approximation Schemes for Clustering with Outliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering problems are well studied in a variety of fields, such as data science, operations research, and computer science. Such problems include variants of center location problems, k -median and k -means to name a few. In some cases, not all data points need to be clustered; some may be discarded for various reasons. For instance, some points may arise from noise in a dataset or one might be willing to discard a certain fraction of the points to avoid incurring unnecessary overhead in the cost of a clustering solution. We study clustering problems with outliers. More specifically, we look at uncapacitated facility location (UFL), k - median , and k - means . In these problems, we are given a set X of data points in a metric space δ(., .), a set C of possible centers (each maybe with an opening cost), maybe an integer parameter k , plus an additional parameter z as the number of outliers. In uncapacitated facility location with outliers, we have to open some centers, discard up to z points of X , and assign every other point to the nearest open center, minimizing the total assignment cost plus center opening costs. In k - median and k - means , we have to open up to k centers, but there are no opening costs. In k - means , the cost of assigning j to i is δ 2 ( j , i ). We present several results. Our main focus is on cases where δ is a doubling metric (this includes fixed dimensional Euclidean metrics as a special case) or is the shortest path metrics of graphs from a minor-closed family of graphs. For uniform-cost UFL with outliers on such metrics, we show that a multiswap simple local search heuristic yields a PTAS. With a bit more work, we extend this to bicriteria approximations for the k - median and k - means problems in the same metrics where, for any constant ϵ > 0, we can find a solution using (1 + ϵ) k centers whose cost is at most a (1 + ϵ)-factor of the optimum and uses at most z outliers. Our algorithms are all based on natural multiswap local search heuristics. We also show that natural local search heuristics that do not violate the number of clusters and outliers for k - median (or k - means ) will have unbounded gap even in Euclidean metrics. Furthermore, we show how our analysis can be extended to general metrics for k - means with outliers to obtain a (25 + ϵ, 1 + ϵ)-approximation: an algorithm that uses at most (1 + ϵ) k clusters and whose cost is at most 25 + ϵ of optimum and uses no more than z outliers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".