A Polymorphic Ant-Based Algorithm for Graph Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, I introduce two new algorithms: Ant Brood Clustering-Intelligent Ants (ABC-INTE) and Ant Brood Clustering-Polymorphic Ants (ABC-POLY) for the graph clustering problem. ABC-INTE uses techniques such as hopping ants, relaxed drop function, ants with memories, stagnation control, and addition of k-means cluster retrieval process, as an improvement of the basic ABC-KLS algorithm. ABC-POLY uses two types of ants, inspired by the division of labour between the major and minor ants in Pheidole genus, as an improvement of ABC-INTE. For comparison purpose, I also implement MMAS, an ACO clustering algorithm. When tested on the benchmark networks, ABC-POLY outperforms or achieves the same modularity values as MMAS and ABC-INTE on 7 out of 10 networks and is robust against different graphs. In practice, the speed of ABC-POLY is at least 10 times faster than MMAS, making it a scalable algorithm compared to MMAS. ABC-POLY also outputs a direct visual representation of the natural clusters on the graph that is appealing to human observation. This thesis opens an interesting research topic to apply polymorphic ants for graph clustering in the ABC-POLY algorithm. The distributive and self-organization nature of ABC-POLY makes it a candidate for analyzing clusters in more complex and dynamic graphs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".