Deep Clustering With Self-Supervision Using Pairwise Similarities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep clustering incorporates embedding into clustering to find a lower-dimensional space appropriate for clustering. In this paper, we propose a novel deep clustering framework with self-supervision using pairwise data similarities (DCSS). The proposed method consists of two successive phases. In the first phase, we propose to form hypersphere-like groups of similar data points, i.e. one hypersphere per cluster, employing an autoencoder that is trained using cluster-specific losses. The hyper-spheres are formed in the autoencoder’s latent space. In the second phase, we propose to employ pairwise data similarities to create aK-dimensional space that is capable of accommodating more complex cluster distributions, hence providing more accurate clustering performance.Kis the number of clusters. The autoencoder’s latent space obtained in the first phase is used as the input of the second phase. The effectiveness of both phases is demonstrated on seven benchmark datasets by conducting a rigorous set of experiments. The DCSS code is available: https://github.com/Armanfard-Lab/DCSS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".