MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288102866 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.11832

Adversarial Deep Embedded Clustering: on a better trade-off between\n Feature Randomness and Feature Drift

2019· preprint· en· W4288102866 on OpenAlexaff
Nairouz Mrabah, Mohamed Bouguessa, Riadh Ksantini

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of WindsorUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderCluster analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDiscriminative modelFeature (linguistics)RandomnessBenchmark (surveying)Feature vectorPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningDeep learningData miningMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering using deep autoencoders has been thoroughly investigated in recent\nyears. Current approaches rely on simultaneously learning embedded features and\nclustering the data points in the latent space. Although numerous deep\nclustering approaches outperform the shallow models in achieving favorable\nresults on several high-semantic datasets, a critical weakness of such models\nhas been overlooked. In the absence of concrete supervisory signals, the\nembedded clustering objective function may distort the latent space by learning\nfrom unreliable pseudo-labels. Thus, the network can learn non-representative\nfeatures, which in turn undermines the discriminative ability, yielding worse\npseudo-labels. In order to alleviate the effect of random discriminative\nfeatures, modern autoencoder-based clustering papers propose to use the\nreconstruction loss for pretraining and as a regularizer during the clustering\nphase. Nevertheless, a clustering-reconstruction trade-off can cause the\n\\textit{Feature Drift} phenomena. In this paper, we propose ADEC (Adversarial\nDeep Embedded Clustering) a novel autoencoder-based clustering model, which\naddresses a dual problem, namely, \\textit{Feature Randomness} and\n\\textit{Feature Drift}, using adversarial training. We empirically demonstrate\nthe suitability of our model on handling these problems using benchmark real\ndatasets. Experimental results validate that our model outperforms\nstate-of-the-art autoencoder-based clustering methods.\n

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207