MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401835829 · doi:10.18280/ria.380416

Optimizing the Evaluation of K-means Clustering Using the Weight Product

2024· article· en· W4401835829 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisProduct (mathematics)k-means clusteringComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the process of the K-means clustering algorithm, one of the issues that arises is the high number of iterations.This study aims to optimize the cluster evaluation results in K-means by reducing iterations through the application of the Weight Product Model (WPM).The evaluation method used in this research is the Davies-Bouldin Index (DBI).Three datasets were analyzed: the QSAR Dataset consisting of 908 data points, 7 attributes; the Whoscale Customer dataset consisting of 440 data points, 8 attributes from the UCI Machine Learning Repository, as well as direct observational data from captured fisheries obtained from the North Aceh District Office of Marine and Fisheries, Indonesia consisting of 75 data points, 8 attributes.The results of 10 testing iterations on three different datasets show that for the QSAR Dataset, the average cluster evaluation using DBI with K-means is 0.852.However, when applying WPM+K-means, the average DBI value increases to 0.727, with the average number of K-means iterations reduced from 23 to 8 iterations.For the Whoscale Customer dataset, the average cluster evaluation using DBI with K-means is 0.921.In contrast, when employing WPM+K-means, the average DBI value slightly improves to 0.910, accompanied by a reduction in the average number of K-means iterations from 23 to 10 iterations.In the case of the captured fisheries dataset, the average cluster evaluation using DBI with K-means yields a value of 1.222.However, implementing WPM+K-means results in an improved average DBI of 1.052.Furthermore, the average number of K-means iterations is reduced to 9 iterations, whereas for WPM+K-means, this number is reduced to 4 iterations.The results of this study demonstrate an improvement in DBI values, where lower DBI values indicate better performance of the K-means algorithm.These also findings demonstrate that WPM is effective in optimizing cluster evaluation values in Kmeans clustering.With the reduction in the number of K-means iterations, computational time is expected to be faster.

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.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.241 · 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