MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395463077 · doi:10.18280/isi.290204

Enhancing K-Means Clustering with Post-Redistribution

2024· article· en· W4395463077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aymen Takie Eddine Selmi, Mohamed Faouzi Zerarka, Abdelhakim Cheriet

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisRedistribution (election)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional K-means clustering may converge to suboptimal solutions due to local optima, impacting cluster balance and compactness.To fix this, we suggest an enhanced K-means algorithm that includes a new step for redistribution post-clustering that is based on the sum of squares errors (SSE) and diameter.Our approach introduces a redistribution step focusing on achieving balanced population distribution within clusters.Evaluation metrics include Davies-Bouldin Index (DBI) and Gini coefficient, quantifying improvements in cluster compactness and balance.We compare our method against traditional K-means on diverse datasets, such that a lower value indicates better clustering results.The post-clustering redistribution significantly reduces DBI and Gini coefficient, indicating enhanced cluster quality and balance.This improvement is consistent across various datasets, showcasing the method's reliability and generalizability.Our improved K-means algorithm achieves better cluster balance and compactness by redistributing post-clustering, which also reduces problems with local optima.The method's applicability extends to diverse domains, providing more reliable clustering outcomes with practical implications in areas such as customer segmentation, anomaly detection, pattern recognition, and resource optimization.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

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 communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207