Automated Cluster Elimination Guided by High-Density Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the optimal number of clusters in cluster analysis without prior knowledge remains a critical and challenging task. Existing methods often depend on calculating clustering validity indices (CVIs), which increases complexity and may reduce efficiency. Furthermore, different CVIs frequently suggest varying optimal cluster numbers, complicating the selection process. To address these challenges, we propose a novel clustering algorithm, self-regulating possibilistic C-means (PCM) with high-density points (SR-PCM-HDP), which simplifies cluster number determination while improving clustering efficiency. First, the density-based knowledge extraction (DBKE) method is introduced to estimate an appropriate initial cluster number and identify high-density points. DBKE enhances the density peak clustering (DPC) algorithm by removing the need for a predefined density radius. Second, SR-PCM-HDP refines the clustering process by incorporating a parameter to balance the interactions between high-density points and cluster centers, reducing sensitivity to initial configurations and accelerating convergence. Third, the parameter adjustment mechanism in classical PCM is redefined to enable adaptive updates during SR-PCM-HDP iterations. This mechanism facilitates the gradual elimination of obsolete clusters and iterative cluster formation. The theoretical foundations of the SR-PCM-HDP cluster elimination mechanism are rigorously established. Experimental results validate the accuracy and effectiveness of SR-PCM-HDP in determining cluster numbers and ensuring clustering validity, particularly for datasets with overlapping or imbalanced distributions. Comparisons are conducted against 13 state-of-the-art algorithms, including fuzzy clustering, possibilistic clustering, and CVI-based cluster determination methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".