Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Pairwise Adjusted Mutual Information

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 2103.12641 v1 pith:7IDOVI5L submitted 2021-03-23 cs.LG

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

A well-known metric for quantifying the similarity between two clusterings is the adjusted mutual information. Compared to mutual information, a corrective term based on random permutations of the labels is introduced, preventing two clusterings being similar by chance. Unfortunately, this adjustment makes the metric computationally expensive. In this paper, we propose a novel adjustment based on {pairwise} label permutations instead of full label permutations. Specifically, we consider permutations where only two samples, selected uniformly at random, exchange their labels. We show that the corresponding adjusted metric, which can be expressed explicitly, behaves similarly to the standard adjusted mutual information for assessing the quality of a clustering, while having a much lower time complexity. Both metrics are compared in terms of quality and performance on experiments based on synthetic and real data.

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. Do Large Language Models Understand Morality Across Cultures?

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Small language models compress cross-cultural moral differences, producing more uniformly permissive and less varied judgments than international survey data.

Pith tools