MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037488610 · doi:10.4230/lipics.swat.2020.22

Clustering Moving Entities in Euclidean Space

2020· article· en· W3037488610 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Durocher, Md Yeakub Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisk-medians clusteringCorrelation clusteringDisjoint setsCURE data clustering algorithmCombinatoricsCanopy clustering algorithmMathematicsSingle-linkage clusteringCenter (category theory)AlgorithmSequence (biology)Data stream clusteringEuclidean spaceComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering is a fundamental problem of spatio-temporal data analysis. Given a set 𝒳 of n moving entities, each of which corresponds to a sequence of τ time-stamped points in ℝ^d, a k-clustering of 𝒳 is a partition of 𝒳 into k disjoint subsets that optimizes a given objective function. In this paper, we consider two clustering problems, k-Center and k-MM, where the goal is to minimize the maximum value of the objective function over the duration of motion for the worst-case input 𝒳. We show that both problems are NP-hard when k is an arbitrary input parameter, even when the motion is restricted to ℝ. We provide an exact algorithm for the 2-MM clustering problem in ℝ^d that runs in O(τ d n²) time. The running time can be improved to O(τ n log{n}) when the motion is restricted to ℝ. We show that the 2-Center clustering problem is NP-hard in ℝ². Our 2-MM clustering algorithm provides a 1.15-approximate solution to the 2-Center clustering problem in ℝ². Moreover, finding a (1.15-ε)-approximate solution remains NP-hard for any ε >0. For both the k-MM and k-Center clustering problems in ℝ^d, we provide a 2-approximation algorithm that runs in O(τ d n k) time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207