Pith. sign in

REVIEW

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 2208.01261 v1 pith:B5ECW572 submitted 2022-08-02 stat.ML cs.LG

Are Cluster Validity Measures (In)valid?

classification stat.ML cs.LG
keywords clusterindicesvaliditydunnindexmeasuresactivitiesappropriate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Internal cluster validity measures (such as the Calinski-Harabasz, Dunn, or Davies-Bouldin indices) are frequently used for selecting the appropriate number of partitions a dataset should be split into. In this paper we consider what happens if we treat such indices as objective functions in unsupervised learning activities. Is the optimal grouping with regards to, say, the Silhouette index really meaningful? It turns out that many cluster (in)validity indices promote clusterings that match expert knowledge quite poorly. We also introduce a new, well-performing variant of the Dunn index that is built upon OWA operators and the near-neighbour graph so that subspaces of higher density, regardless of their shapes, can be separated from each other better.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.