Doubly Aligned Incomplete Multi-view Clustering
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
Nowadays, multi-view clustering has attracted more and more attention. To date, almost all the previous studies assume that views are complete. However, in reality, it is often the case that each view may contain some missing instances. Such incompleteness makes it impossible to directly use traditional multi-view clustering methods. In this paper, we propose a Doubly Aligned Incomplete Multi-view Clustering algorithm (DAIMC) based on weighted semi-nonnegative matrix factorization (semi-NMF). Specifically, on the one hand, DAIMC utilizes the given instance alignment information to learn a common latent feature matrix for all the views. On the other hand, DAIMC establishes a consensus basis matrix with the help of L2,1-Norm regularized regression for reducing the influence of missing instances. Consequently, compared with existing methods, besides inheriting the strength of semi-NMF with ability to handle negative entries, DAIMC has two unique advantages: 1) solving the incomplete view problem by introducing a respective weight matrix for each view, making it able to easily adapt to the case with more than two views; 2) reducing the influence of view incompleteness on clustering by enforcing the basis matrices of individual views being aligned with the help of regression. Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate its advantages.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it