Hyperplane Division in Fuzzy C-Means: Clustering Big Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Big data with a large number of observations (samples) have posed genuine challenges for fuzzy clustering algorithms and fuzzy C-means (FCM), in particular. In this article, we propose an original algorithm referred to as a hyperplane division method to split the entire data set into disjoint subsets. By disjoint subsets, we mean that the data subspaces (parts of the entire data space), each of which is supported or spanned by the data points in the corresponding subset, do not overlap each other. The disjoint subsets turned out to be beneficial to the improvement of the quality of the clusters formed by the clustering algorithms. Moreover, considering that either a large number (say, thousands) or a small number (say, a few) of clusters may be pursued in the clustering task, we propose corresponding strategies (based on the hyperplane division method) to make clustering processes feasible, efficient, and effective. By validating the proposed strategies on both synthetic and publicly available data, we show their superiority (in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness) manifested in a visible way over the method of clustering the entire data and over some representative big data clustering methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".