Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sum-of-norms clustering is a clustering formulation based on convex optimization that automatically induces hierarchy. Multiple algorithms have been proposed to solve the optimization problem: subgradient descent by Hocking et al., ADMM and ADA by Chi and Lange, stochastic incremental algorithm by Panahi et al. and semismooth Newton-CG augmented Lagrangian method by Sun et al. All algorithms yield approximate solutions, even though an exact solution is demanded to determine the correct cluster assignment. The purpose of this paper is to close the gap between the output from existing algorithms and the exact solution to the optimization problem. We present a clustering test that identifies and certifies the correct cluster assignment from an approximate solution yielded by any primal-dual algorithm. Our certification validates clustering for both unit and multiplicative weights. The test may not succeed if the approximation is inaccurate. However, we show the correct cluster assignment is guaranteed to be certified by a primal-dual path following algorithm after sufficiently many iterations, provided that the model parameter $λ$ avoids a finite number of bad values. Numerical experiments are conducted on Gaussian mixture and half-moon data, which indicate that carefully chosen multiplicative weights increase the recovery power of sum-of-norms clustering.
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".