Characterization of Linkage-based Clustering
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
Clustering is a central unsupervised learning task with a wide variety of applications. Not surprisingly, there exist many clustering algorithms. However, unlike classification tasks, in clustering, different algorithms may yield dramatically different outputs for the same input sets. A major challenge is to develop tools that may help select the more suitable algorithm for a given clustering task. We propose to address this problem by distilling abstract properties of clustering functions that distinguish between the types of input-output behaviors of different clustering paradigms. In this paper we make a significant step in this direction by providing such property based characterization for the class of linkage based clustering algorithms. Linkage-based clustering is one the most commonly used and widely studied clustering paradigms. It includes popular algorithms like Single Linkage and enjoys simple efficient algorithms. On top of their potential merits for helping users decide when are such algorithms appropriate for their data, our results can be viewed as a convincing proof of concept for the research on taxonomizing clustering paradigms by their abstract properties. 1
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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