Low-Rank Linear Embedding for Robust Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of k-means clustering is often degenerate when dealing with high-dimensional and noisy scenarios. In this study, an end-to-end robust clustering method with low-rank linear embedding techniques (RCLR) is presented in conjunction with k-means. Sparse coefficients and a space projection matrix can be simultaneously learned. The global structures and local neighborhood properties are well captured in the learning procedures. Both the processes of clustering and dimensionality reduction are realized at the same time. The notions of clustering, dimensionality reduction, low-rank representation, and local property preservation are seamlessly integrated into a unified model. The limitation of error accumulation encountered in the previous two-stage clustering framework involving low-rank representation can be alleviated. This is the first attempt to introduce both the global and local geometrical structures into k-means directly, as well L2,1-norm is used as a basic metric instead of the conventional F-norm to further improve the robustness and interpretation of the model. The superiority of the proposed RCLR method is demonstrated by extensive experiments completed on various well-known benchmark datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".