Mixture‐based clustering for count data using approximated Fisher Scoring and Minorization–Maximization approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The multinomial distribution has been widely used to model count data. To increase clustering efficiency, we use an approximation to the Fisher scoring algorithm, which is more robust regarding the choice of initial parameter values. Then, we use a novel approach to estimate the optimal number of components, based on minimum message length criterion. Moreover, we consider a generalization of the multinomial model obtained by introducing the Dirichlet as prior, yielding the Dirichlet Compound Multinomial (DCM). Even though DCM can address the burstiness phenomenon of count data, the presence of Gamma function in its density function usually leads to undesired complications. In this article, we use two alternative representations of DCM distribution to perform clustering based on finite mixture models, where the mixture parameters are estimated using the minorization–maximization framework. To evaluate and compare the performance of our proposed models, we have considered three challenging real‐world applications that involve high‐dimensional count vectors, namely, sentiment analysis, facial expression recognition, and human action recognition. The results show that the proposed algorithms increase the clustering efficiency of their respective models remarkably, and the best results are achieved by the second parametrization of DCM, which can accommodate over‐dispersed count data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".