MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406261939 · doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.10267

Quantum Fidelity Based Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Algorithm

2024· article· en· W4406261939 on OpenAlexaff
Oumayma Ouedrhiri, Usef Faghihi, Fadel Touré, Oumayma Banouar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Decision-Making Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFidelityCluster analysisFuzzy logicAlgorithmFuzzy clusteringQuantumQuantum computerArtificial intelligenceData miningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among clustering algorithms, fuzzy clustering stands out for its ability to offer a nuanced representation of the data by assigning degrees of membership to clusters, providing a more flexible and adaptive approach than the rigid partitioning of hard clustering algorithms. This has proved highly advantageous, particularly for image segmentation problems. Numerous approaches have been proposed to improve the Fuzzy C-means (FCM) algorithm using quantum computing, some are quantum-inspired and others can be run on quantum simulators. In this paper, a study was conducted on Quantum Fuzzy Means (QFCM) approaches. Then, a novel QFCM algorithm is introduced to address the challenges associated with these current algorithms, particularly in handling large datasets and incorporating genuine fuzzy system principles. Using concepts from quantum computing, our approach aims to improve distance calculations between data points by using a quantum distance measure. This method enables significant acceleration of the clustering process especially when dealing with extensive datasets. Moreover, our proposed algorithm integrates a structured fuzzy system framework into the membership matrix calculation, enhancing the precision and interpretability of the clustering results. Furthermore, unlike other FCM algorithms, which often lack explicit representation of fuzzy logic principles, our approach incorporates a well-defined fuzzy system to capture the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity in real-world data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Decision-Making TechniquesFrench-language works237,207