Papers › Automated calibration of consensus weighted distance-based clustering approaches using sharp
Automated calibration of consensus weighted distance-based clustering approaches using sharp
Barbara Bodinier, Dragana Vuckovic, Sabrina Rodrigues, Sarah Filippi, Julien Chiquet, Marc Chadeau-Hyam
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
In consensus clustering, a clustering algorithm is used in combination with a subsampling procedure to detect stable clusters. Previous studies on both simulated and real data suggest that consensus clustering outperforms native algorithms. We extend here consensus clustering to allow for attribute weighting in the calculation of pairwise distances using existing regularised approaches. We propose a procedure for the calibration of the number of clusters (and regularisation parameter) by maximising a novel consensus score calculated directly from consensus clustering outputs, making it extremely computationally competitive. Our simulation study shows better clustering performances of (i) models calibrated by maximising our consensus score compared to existing calibration scores, and (ii) weighted compared to unweighted approaches in the presence of features that do not contribute to cluster definition. Application on real gene expression data measured in lung tissue reveals clear clusters corresponding to different lung cancer subtypes. The R package sharp (version 1.4.0) is available on CRAN.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections