Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Deep Clustering Evaluation: How to Validate Internal Clustering Validation Measures

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.14830 v1 pith:Y6R7PF3O submitted 2024-03-21 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords clusteringdeepmeasuresdatavalidationapplyingchallengesdifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep clustering, a method for partitioning complex, high-dimensional data using deep neural networks, presents unique evaluation challenges. Traditional clustering validation measures, designed for low-dimensional spaces, are problematic for deep clustering, which involves projecting data into lower-dimensional embeddings before partitioning. Two key issues are identified: 1) the curse of dimensionality when applying these measures to raw data, and 2) the unreliable comparison of clustering results across different embedding spaces stemming from variations in training procedures and parameter settings in different clustering models. This paper addresses these challenges in evaluating clustering quality in deep learning. We present a theoretical framework to highlight ineffectiveness arising from using internal validation measures on raw and embedded data and propose a systematic approach to applying clustering validity indices in deep clustering contexts. Experiments show that this framework aligns better with external validation measures, effectively reducing the misguidance from the improper use of clustering validity indices in deep learning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evaluating Loss Functions for Graph Neural Networks: Towards Pretraining and Generalization

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A benchmark of 7 GNNs and 30 losses on 3 graphs claims hybrid losses and GIN rank best on average, but a central summary table contradicts the paper's full results.

Pith tools