Approximate Clustering Ensemble Method for Big Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering a big distributed dataset of hundred gigabytes or more is a challenging task in distributed computing. A popular method to tackle this problem is to use a random sample of the big dataset to compute an approximate result as an estimation of the true result computed from the entire dataset. In this paper, instead of using a single random sample, we use multiple random samples to compute an ensemble result as the estimation of the true result of the big dataset. We propose a distributed computing framework to compute the ensemble result. In this framework, a big dataset is represented in the RSP data model as random sample data blocks managed in a distributed file system. To compute the ensemble clustering result, a set of RSP data blocks is randomly selected as random samples and clustered independently in parallel on the nodes of a cluster to generate the component clustering results. The component results are transferred to the master node, which computes the ensemble result. Since the random samples are disjoint and traditional consensus functions cannot be used, we propose two new methods to integrate the component clustering results into the final ensemble result. The first method uses component cluster centers to build a graph and the METIS algorithm to cut the graph into subgraphs, from which a set of candidate cluster centers is found. A hierarchical clustering method is then used to generate the final set of$k$cluster centers. The second method uses the clustering-by-passing-messages method to generate the final set of$k$cluster centers. Finally, the$k$-means algorithm was used to allocate the entire dataset into$k$clusters. Experiments were conducted on both synthetic and real-world datasets. The results show that the new ensemble clustering methods performed better than the comparison methods and that the distributed computing framework is efficient and scalable in clustering big 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".