Comparisons of Various ELM Based Multi-View Clustering Methods for WDSNs
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
Unsupervised or semi-supervised learning algorithms are essential for solving practical clustering problems due to the real world data are mostly unlabeled or partially labeled. Some common challenges such as poor clustering accuracy and slow learning speed are still need to be solved. Recently, various extreme learning machine (ELM) based methods have been found in clustering due to its extremely fast learning speed and excellent approximation ability. In this paper, some brief introductions of general single-viewed (SV) and multi-viewed (MV) clustering algorithms are firstly included and then the investigation on combining ELM and MV algorithms are emphasized. Furthermore, combination of ELM and SV methods to solve MV clustering problems is attempted and satisfactory simulation results are obtained. Experiments are performed to compare the clustering performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency among various of algorithms on a set of real world wireless distributed sensor networks (WDSNs) data. It is shown that the ELM based clustering algorithms achieve better clustering accuracy with less time consumption than conventional methods. Our attempts of the combining ELM and SV algorithms achieve comparable accuracy to ELM based MV algorithms but with even better time efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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