A unified view of density-based methods for semi-supervised clustering and classification
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 Semi-supervised learning is drawing increasing attention in the era of big data, as the gap between the abundance of cheap, automatically collected unlabeled data and the scarcity of labeled data that are laborious and expensive to obtain is dramatically increasing. In this paper, we first introduce a unified view of density-based clustering algorithms. We then build upon this view and bridge the areas of semi-supervised clustering and classification under a common umbrella of density-based techniques. We show that there are close relations between density-based clustering algorithms and the graph-based approach for transductive classification. These relations are then used as a basis for a new framework for semi-supervised classification based on building-blocks from density-based clustering. This framework is not only efficient and effective, but it is also statistically sound. In addition, we generalize the core algorithm in our framework, HDBSCAN*, so that it can also perform semi-supervised clustering by directly taking advantage of any fraction of labeled data that may be available. Experimental results on a large collection of datasets show the advantages of the proposed approach both for semi-supervised classification as well as for semi-supervised clustering.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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