Human-supervised clustering of multidimensional data using crowdsourcing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering is a central task in many data analysis applications. However, there is no universally accepted metric to decide the occurrence of clusters. Ultimately, we have to resort to a consensus between experts. The problem is amplified with high-dimensional datasets where classical distances become uninformative and the ability of humans to fully apprehend the distribution of the data is challenged. In this paper, we design a mobile human-computing game as a tool to query human perception for the multidimensional data clustering problem. We propose two clustering algorithms that partially or entirely rely on aggregated human answers and report the results of two experiments conducted on synthetic and real-world datasets. We show that our methods perform on par or better than the most popular automated clustering algorithms. Our results suggest that hybrid systems leveraging annotations of partial datasets collected through crowdsourcing platforms can be an efficient strategy to capture the collective wisdom for solving abstract computational problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".