Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Influence of various text embeddings on clustering performance in NLP

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 2305.03144 v1 pith:7RQFJ37Q submitted 2023-05-04 cs.LG cs.CLcs.IR

classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.IR
keywords clusteringtextperformancealgorithmsdifferentembeddingsstarembedding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

With the advent of e-commerce platforms, reviews are crucial for customers to assess the credibility of a product. The star ratings do not always match the review text written by the customer. For example, a three star rating (out of five) may be incongruous with the review text, which may be more suitable for a five star review. A clustering approach can be used to relabel the correct star ratings by grouping the text reviews into individual groups. In this work, we explore the task of choosing different text embeddings to represent these reviews and also explore the impact the embedding choice has on the performance of various classes of clustering algorithms. We use contextual (BERT) and non-contextual (Word2Vec) text embeddings to represent the text and measure their impact of three classes on clustering algorithms - partitioning based (KMeans), single linkage agglomerative hierarchical, and density based (DBSCAN and HDBSCAN), each with various experimental settings. We use the silhouette score, adjusted rand index score, and cluster purity score metrics to evaluate the performance of the algorithms and discuss the impact of different embeddings on the clustering performance. Our results indicate that the type of embedding chosen drastically affects the performance of the algorithm, the performance varies greatly across different types of clustering algorithms, no embedding type is better than the other, and DBSCAN outperforms KMeans and single linkage agglomerative clustering but also labels more data points as outliers. We provide a thorough comparison of the performances of different algorithms and provide numerous ideas to foster further research in the domain of text clustering.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Cequel: Cost-Effective Querying of Large Language Models for Text Clustering

    cs.CL 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cequel reduces the LLM query cost of text clustering by selecting a few informative text pairs or triples, turning LLM answers into must-link and cannot-link constraints, and clustering with a PMI-weighted constrained...

  2. A Cascaded Unsupervised-Supervised NLP Pipeline for Detecting Accusatory Language in Public Procurement

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Word2Vec-GMM-Random Forest pipeline detects accusatory procurement comments in Ecuador's SOCE data with 0.84 precision and 0.91 recall, but those metrics are conditional on a label-selected cluster filter.

Pith tools