A Model Selection Approach to Hierarchical Shape Clustering with an Application to Cell Shapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shape is an important phenotype of living species that contain different environmental and genetic information. Clustering living cells using their shape information can provide a preliminary guide to their functionality and evolution. Hierarchical clustering and dendrograms, as a visualization tool for hierarchical clustering, are commonly used by practitioners for classification and clustering. The existing hierarchical shape clustering methods are distance based. Such methods often lack a proper statistical foundation to allow for making inference on important parameters such as the number of clusters, often of prime interest to practitioners. We take a model selection perspective to clustering and propose a shape clustering method through linear models defined on Spherical Harmonics expansions of shapes. We introduce a BIC-type criterion, called CLUSBIC, and study consistency of the criterion. Special attention is paid to the notions of over- and under-specified models, important in studying model selection criteria and naturally defined in model selection literature. These notions do not automatically extend to shape clustering when a model selection perspective is adopted for clustering. To this end we take a novel approach using hypothesis testing. We apply our proposed criterion to cluster a set of real 3D images from HeLa cell line.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".