SPINEX-clustering: similarity-based predictions with explainable neighbors exploration for clustering problems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a novel clustering algorithm from the SPINEX (Similarity-based Predictions with explaInable Neighbors EXploration) algorithmic family. The newly proposed clustering variant leverages the concept of similarity and higher-order interactions across multiple subspaces to group data into clusters. To showcase the merit of SPINEX, a thorough set of benchmarking experiments was carried out against 13 algorithms, namely, Affinity Propagation, Agglomerative, Birch, DBSCAN, Gaussian Mixture, HDBSCAN, K-Means, KMedoids, Mean Shift, MiniBatch K-Means, OPTICS, Spectral Clustering, and Ward Hierarchical. Then, the performance of all algorithms was examined across 51 synthetic and real datasets from various domains, dimensions, and complexities. Furthermore, we present a companion complexity analysis to compare the complexity of SPINEX to that of the aforementioned algorithms. Our results demonstrate that SPINEX can outperform commonly adopted clustering algorithms by ranking within the top-5 best performing algorithms and has moderate complexity. Finally, a demonstration of the explainability capabilities of SPINEX, along with future research needs, is presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it