Spectral Clustering, Bayesian Spanning Forest, and Forest Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectral clustering views the similarity matrix as a weighted graph, and partitions the data by minimizing a graph-cut loss. Since it minimizes the across-cluster similarity, there is no need to model the distribution within each cluster. As a result, one reduces the chance of model misspecification, which is often a risk in mixture model-based clustering. Nevertheless, compared to the latter, spectral clustering has no direct ways of quantifying the clustering uncertainty (such as the assignment probability), or allowing easy model extensions for complicated data applications. To fill this gap, we propose the Bayesian forest model as a generative graphical model for spectral clustering. This is motivated by our discovery that the posterior connecting matrix in a forest model has almost the same leading eigenvectors, as the ones used by normalized spectral clustering. To induce a distribution for the forest, we develop a "forest process" as a graph extension to the urn process, while we carefully characterize the differences in the partition probability. We derive a simple Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for posterior estimation, and demonstrate superior performance compared to existing algorithms. We illustrate several model-based extensions useful for data applications, including high-dimensional and multi-view clustering for images.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".