Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Interpretable label-free self-guided subspace clustering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Subspace clustering can be tuned with no labeled data, the paper claims, by comparing pseudo-labels across neighboring hyperparameter values.

desk verdict A practical pseudo-label smoothness heuristic for tuning subspace clustering without labels; the ACC definition in Eq. (14) is broken without label alignment, but the NMI-based results likely survive. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17291 v1 pith:YPESFVM3 submitted 2024-11-26 cs.LG cs.CV

Ivica Kopriva This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV MSC 62H3068T0568T10
keywords subspaceclusteringhyperparameteroptimizationlabel-freelearningpseudo-labelsself-guidedtuningnormalizedmutualinformationgraphfilteringinterpretability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Hyperparameter tuning of subspace clustering normally requires labeled validation data. This paper claims that tuning can be done label-free: run the clustering algorithm over a grid of hyperparameter values, and measure how similar the resulting pseudo-labelings are at neighboring values, using accuracy (ACC) or normalized mutual information (NMI). If those agreement curves are smooth, the interval where the agreement is highest should contain the hyperparameter that would maximize true clustering accuracy. The paper tests this on six datasets with linear, kernel, graph-filtered, and multi-view subspace clustering algorithms, and reports performance typically 5% to 7% below the oracle (label-tuned) versions. The same surrounding machinery also gives an out-of-sample extension and a way to visualize learned subspace bases for interpretability.

What carries the argument

The engine is the neighbor-pair agreement function h(y_i, y_{i+1}), e.g. ACC (Eq. 14) or NMI (Eq. 15), computed between pseudo-labelings generated by the same subspace clustering algorithm at consecutive grid values lambda_i and lambda_{i+1}. Eq. (18) locates the subinterval where this agreement is maximal; Eqs. (16)-(17) assert that it is locally monotone; Eq. (20) refines the interval by thirds; Eq. (21) stops when the relative error falls below epsilon. For two hyperparameters the search alternates: fix tau, find lambda*, then fix lambda*, find tau*.

What would settle it

Run the interval-refinement on COIL20 with the dense grid from Figure 2 (spacing from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-6}$): pseudo-label ACC maximizes on [$10^{-6}$, $10^{-5}$], while oracle accuracy peaks at $\lambda$ = 0.1, so if the method returns a subinterval with near-chance true accuracy, the smoothness-to-optimality premise is refuted; a coarser grid that lands on the true optimum would only confirm the premise conditionally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that external labels are unnecessary for hyperparameter selection in subspace clustering: the ACC or NMI between clusterings produced at adjacent hyperparameter values acts as a proxy for true clustering quality. Under a smoothness and monotonicity assumption on this proxy, the globally best hyperparameter lies inside the subinterval where neighbor-agreement is maximal, and repeated splitting of that interval into thirds converges to it. With relative-error stopping at epsilon = 0.001, the method selects a hyperparameter whose resulting clustering is typically 5% to 7% worse (in ACC, NMI, or F1) than the oracle's, sometimes statistically indistinguishable, and on out-of-sample data often within 1%. The paper further extends the same self-guided selection to two-parameter algorithms by alternating one-parameter searches, and to out-of-sample points by fitting subspace bases to the in-sample partitions and assigning test points to the nearest subspace.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ACC or NMI between pseudo-labelings at neighboring hyperparameters varies smoothly and monotonically, so the subinterval with the highest neighbor agreement always contains the hyperparameter that would maximize true clustering accuracy; the paper does not prove this, and its own Figure 2 shows a case where a too-dense grid violates it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing subspace clustering algorithm with tunable hyperparameters can be reused in label-poor domains like medicine without a pretext task or an internal cluster-quality index.
  • The performance gap to oracle tuning is typically 5% to 7%, and often statistically insignificant on out-of-sample data, so the practical cost of removing labels is bounded.
  • The graph-filtering and kernel out-of-sample formulations (Algorithm 1 and Section 3.4) widen the set of subspace clustering algorithms that can benefit, including nonlinear data.
  • The subspace-basis visualization gives domain experts a way to judge clustering quality and refine the initial search space before re-running the optimizer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the pseudo-label agreement only needs the clustering algorithm's outputs, the same interval-refinement machinery could be dropped into any clustering method with a continuous hyperparameter, not just subspace clustering.
  • A testable extension is to align cluster indices (for example, by Hungarian matching) before computing ACC between neighboring pseudo-labelings; spectral clustering's label-permutation invariance would otherwise make the equality in Eq. (14) sensitive to the k-means initialization.
  • The dense-grid failure in Figure 2 suggests a diagnostic rule: run the method on a coarse grid first and check that the chosen interval's pseudo-label agreement is not near 100%, which would signal that adjacent labelings are trivially identical; the paper's own visualization step could be used for that check.
  • An even simpler variant that compares pseudo-labels at only three points per iteration instead of four is noted in the paper and would reduce runtime, with the paper reporting that it affects clustering performance minimally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a label-free self-guided hyperparameter optimization (LFSG-HPO) method for subspace clustering. For a chosen SC algorithm and an initial hyperparameter grid, the method computes ACC or NMI between pseudo-labelings produced by the algorithm at neighboring hyperparameter values, assumes these agreement metrics to be smooth and locally monotone in the hyperparameter, selects the interval where the agreement is maximal, and iteratively refines that interval by splitting it into halves or thirds until a relative-error criterion is met. The same idea is extended to two-hyperparameter algorithms by fixing one parameter while optimizing the other. The paper also contributes an out-of-sample extension for kernel LSR SC and a visualization method for interpreting clusters via estimated subspace bases. Experiments compare oracle-tuned and LFSG-tuned versions of LSR, kernel LSR, graph-filtering LSR, SSC, S0L0 LRSSC, LMVSC, and MLME on six single-view and three multi-view datasets, claiming a typical performance loss of 5% to 7% relative to the oracle.

Significance. If the central assumptions hold, this is a practically useful contribution: it offers a label-free, general-purpose tuning strategy for existing subspace clustering algorithms, with released code and a relatively simple algorithmic core. The paper contains a broad experimental study with statistical testing across multiple algorithms and datasets, and the interpretability component via subspace-base visualization is a nice addition. However, the contribution rests on an unproven smoothness/monotonicity premise that is shown to fail in Figure 2, and the ACC metric in Eq. (14) is not valid as written because it does not account for the arbitrary permutation of cluster IDs. These issues affect the validity of a large part of the reported ACC-based experiments, so the paper is not acceptable in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (14)] The accuracy between two pseudo-labelings y_i and y_{i+1} is defined as the fraction of samples for which the labels are exactly equal, with no label-alignment step. Since the SC pipeline (spectral embedding followed by k-means) returns cluster IDs only up to an arbitrary permutation, this quantity is not a valid clustering accuracy: two identical partitions can have near-zero ACC under Eq. (14), while two very different partitions can agree by chance. All ACC-based LFSG selections in Tables 2-6, 8, and 9 therefore rest on an undefined metric unless the implementation silently aligns cluster IDs (e.g., via Hungarian matching or by reusing the same k-means initialization). The authors must either correct Eq. (14) to include a proper alignment step, or explicitly document and justify the alignment used in the provided code.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (16)-(18), Figure 2, Section 4.3] The method's load-bearing premise is that h(y_i,y_{i+1}), i.e., ACC or NMI between pseudo-labels at neighboring hyperparameters, is a smooth and locally monotone function whose maximizing subinterval contains the hyperparameter that maximizes true clustering performance. No proof or theoretical characterization is given, and Figure 2 documents a concrete failure when the initial grid is too dense: the maximal pseudo-label agreement occurs on an interval far from the true optimal lambda. Section 4.3 admits that the method 'critically depends' on the smoothness assumption and on the quality of the initial hyperparameter search space. The paper needs either a formal condition under which the selection rule is correct, or an empirical demonstration that the Figure 2 failure mode is rare and detectable without oracle labels. As written, the claimed 'typically 5% to 7% lower than oracle' is not guaranteed by the experiments.
  3. [Abstract, Section 4.1.5, Table 6] The abstract's claim that the proposed method 'typically achieves clustering performance that is 5% to 7% lower than that of the oracle versions' is not supported by all of the reported results. For example, in Table 6 on ORL, the LFSG-ACC in-sample accuracy is 57.76% versus the oracle-ACC value of 71.03%, a gap of about 13 percentage points, and the F1-score gap is about 19 percentage points. Smaller but still larger-than-claimed gaps appear elsewhere, e.g., Table 5 EYaleB F1-score. If 'typically' means 'in most but not all cases' or refers to a median, that should be stated explicitly with a summary of the full distribution of performance gaps; otherwise the abstract overstates the method's consistency.
  4. [Section 4.2.3, Table 10] Table 10, which should report the clustering performance of the parameter-free FPMVS-CAG algorithm, is missing from the manuscript: only its caption appears before Section 4.3. The text in Section 4.2.1 asserts that LFSG LMVSC outperforms FPMVS-CAG on two of three datasets, but without the actual numbers in Table 10 this comparison is unverifiable. The authors should complete Table 10 with the same metrics and experimental conditions used for Tables 8 and 9, or remove the comparative claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2, step 7] Step 7 refers to 'the relative error criterion (13)', but the stopping criterion is defined in Eq. (21), not Eq. (13). Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Figure 2 caption and Section 3.1 text] There is an inconsistency between the text and the Figure 2 caption: the text says the grid values lambda_1=10^-7 and lambda_2=10^-6 are 'set too close', while the caption states that the maximal pseudo-label agreement occurs between lambda_2=10^-6 and lambda_3=10^-5 and that the new iteration starts at those borders. Please clarify which neighboring pair is responsible for the failure.
  3. [Section 4.1.5, Table 6, ORL row] For the ORL dataset, the LFSG-NMI row reports exactly the same values as the ORACLE-NMI row, including identical hyperparameters and identical performance metrics. This looks like a copy-paste error and should be corrected, since it contradicts the surrounding text reporting a large performance drop on ORL.
  4. [Section 4.1.4, Eq. (33)] Equation (33) is used twice: once in Section 3.5 for the SVD of each cluster partition, and again in Section 4.1.4 for the robust SSC formulation. Please renumber one of these equations.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical and wording issues, including 'obatined' for 'obtained', 'prehistoric evaluations' for what should presumably be 'prior historical evaluations', and inconsistent spacing around mathematical expressions. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the pseudo-label agreement proxy is an explicit assumption, not a quantity equivalent to the oracle objective, and no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the circularity sense. The HPO criterion h(y_i,y_{i+1}) (ACC or NMI between pseudo-labelings at neighboring hyperparameters, Eqs. 14-15) is not equivalent by construction to the oracle objective h(y*, y_i) based on true labels; the whole experimental section compares the two and reports a 5-7% gap, so the selection is not a renamed true-label fit. No parameter is fitted to a subset of labels and then reported as a prediction: the only 'fit' is the choice of lambda in Eq. (22) from the pseudo-label criterion, and the evaluation against oracle versions uses independent true labels. The smoothness/monotonicity assumption (Eqs. 16-18) is explicitly stated as an assumption, and the paper concedes in Section 4.3 that it may fail; Figure 2 documents such a failure, which shows the result is not forced. Self-citations ([16], [19]) are algorithm baselines, not load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz-justifying citations. Eq. (14)'s lack of a label-alignment step is a correctness/reproducibility concern for the pseudo-label ACC, not a circular reduction: it does not make the predicted hyperparameter equal to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is a heuristic: it assumes smoothness of pseudo-label agreement, relies on hand-chosen search grids, and does not provide theoretical convergence or optimality guarantees.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (relative error threshold) = 0.001
    Hand-chosen stopping criterion in Eq. (21); balances HPO precision vs cost.
  • initial hyperparameter grid = dataset-specific; see code
    The search space [λ1,...,λM] is manually defined per algorithm and dataset; if it misses the true optimum or places values too close, the method fails (Figure 2).
  • kernel rank R for out-of-sample extension = N-1
    Set in Section 3.4 to simplify the kernel LSR out-of-sample extension; affects the estimated subspace bases.
  • LMVSC search space = M in {10,15,25,50}, alpha in {10^-4,...,10}
    Hand-modified relative to [24] in Section 4.2.1 and reported to improve oracle performance; this choice influences the measured gap.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper ACC/NMI between pseudo-labels from adjacent hyperparameters is smooth and locally monotone (Eqs. 16-17).
    Stated in Section 3.1 as the basis for interval selection; no theoretical proof, and Figure 2 provides a counterexample when grid values are close.
  • ad hoc to paper The interval where pseudo-label agreement is maximal contains the hyperparameter that would maximize true clustering accuracy.
    Core selection rule Eq. (18); paper's Section 4.3 acknowledges dependence on initial search space but does not establish a formal link to true labels.
  • ad hoc to paper Cluster label vectors produced at different hyperparameter values use consistent cluster IDs, so ACC Eq. (14) is meaningful.
    No label-alignment step is described; NMI is invariant to permutations but ACC is not, so this is an implicit assumption.
  • domain assumption Data are drawn from a union of linear subspaces with known number of clusters and subspace dimensions.
    Standard subspace clustering assumption used for out-of-sample basis estimation (Section 3.3) and visualization (Section 3.5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretable label-free self-guided subspace clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPESFVM3

@misc{pith2026241117291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretable label-free self-guided subspace clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPESFVM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17291}
}
read the original abstract

Majority subspace clustering (SC) algorithms depend on one or more hyperparameters that need to be carefully tuned for the SC algorithms to achieve high clustering performance. Hyperparameter optimization (HPO) is often performed using grid-search, assuming that some labeled data is available. In some domains, such as medicine, this assumption does not hold true in many cases. One avenue of research focuses on developing SC algorithms that are inherently free of hyperparameters. For hyperparameters-dependent SC algorithms, one approach to label-independent HPO tuning is based on internal clustering quality metrics (if available), whose performance should ideally match that of external (label-dependent) clustering quality metrics. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to label-independent HPO that uses clustering quality metrics, such as accuracy (ACC) or normalized mutual information (NMI), that are computed based on pseudo-labels obtained from the SC algorithm across a predefined grid of hyperparameters. Assuming that ACC (or NMI) is a smooth function of hyperparameter values it is possible to select subintervals of hyperparameters. These subintervals are then iteratively further split into halves or thirds until a relative error criterion is satisfied. In principle, the hyperparameters of any SC algorithm can be tuned using the proposed method. We demonstrate this approach on several single- and multi-view SC algorithms, comparing the achieved performance with their oracle versions across six datasets representing digits, faces and objects. The proposed method typically achieves clustering performance that is 5% to 7% lower than that of the oracle versions. We also make our proposed method interpretable by visualizing subspace bases, which are estimated from the computed clustering partitions. This aids in the initial selection of the hyperparameter search space.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. E. Ezugwu, A. M. Ikotun, O. A. Oyelade, et al., A comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms: State-of-the-art machine learning applications, taxonomy, challenges, and future research prospects, Eng. Appl. Art. Intell. 110 (2022) 104473

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    C.-N. Jiao, J. Shang, F. Li, et al., Diagnosis-Guided Deep Subspace Clustering Association Study for Pathogenetic Markers Identification of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Comparative Atlases, IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 28 (5) (2024) 3029-3041

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Kumar, P

    N. Kumar, P. Uppala, K. Duddu, et al., Hyperspectral Tissue Image Segmentation Using Semi-Supervised NMF and Hierarchical Clustering, IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 38 (5) (2019) 1304-1313. [4]. A. F. Møller, J. G. S. Madsen, JOINTLY: interpretable joint clustering of single-cell transcriptomes, Nature Comm. 14 (2023) 8473

    work page 2019

  4. [5]

    J. Tang, L. Jin, Z. Li, S. Gao, RGB-D object recognition via incorporating latent data structure and prior knowledge, IEEE Trans. Multimed. 17 (11) (2015) 1899–1908

    work page 2015

  5. [6]

    S. V. Ault, R. J. Perez, C. A. Kimble, J. Wang, On speech recognition algorithms, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Comput. 8 (6) (2018) 518-523

    work page 2018

  6. [7]

    J. Shen, X. Hao, Z. Liang, et al., Real-time superpixel segmentation by dbscan clustering algorithm, IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 25 (12) (2016) 5933-5942

    work page 2016

  7. [8]

    W. Wu, M. Peng, A data mining approach combining k-means clustering with bagging neural network for short-term wind power forecasting, IEEE Int. Things J. 4 (4) (2017) 979- 986

    work page 2017

  8. [9]

    J. A. Hartigan, M. A.Wong, Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 28 (1) (1979) 100–108

    work page 1979

Show all 80 references
  1. [10]

    A. Y. Ng, M. I. Jordan, Y. Weiss, On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm, in: Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2001, pp. 849–856

    2001

  2. [11]

    von Luxburg, A tutorial on spectral clustering, Stat

    U. von Luxburg, A tutorial on spectral clustering, Stat. Comput. 17 (4) (2007) 395–416

    2007

  3. [12]

    L. Ding, C. Li, D. Jin, S. Ding, Survey of spectral clustering based on graph theory, Pattern Recognit. (151) (2024) 110366

    2024

  4. [13]

    Vidal, Subspace clustering, IEEE Sig

    R. Vidal, Subspace clustering, IEEE Sig. Process. Mag. 28 (2) (2011) 52-68, 2011

    2011

  5. [14]

    G. Liu, Z. Lin, S. Yan, et al., Robust recovery of subspace structures by low-rank representation, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35 (1) (2013) 171–184

    2013

  6. [15]

    Elhamifar, R

    E. Elhamifar, R. Vidal, Sparse Subspace Clustering: Algorithm, Theory, and Applications, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35 (1) (2013) 2765-2781

    2013

  7. [16]

    Brbić, I

    M. Brbić, I. Kopriva, 0 Motivated Low-Rank Sparse Subspace Clustering, IEEE Trans. Cyber. 50 (4) (2020) 1711-1725

    2020

  8. [17]

    C.-Y. Lu, H. Min, Z.-Q. Zhao, et al., Robust and efficient subspace segmentation via least squares regression, in: Computer Vision-ECCV 2012, 2012, pp. 347–360

    2012

  9. [18]

    Y. Du, G. F. Lu, G. Ji, Robust Least Squares Regression for Subspace Clustering: A Multi-View Clustering Perspective, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 33 (2024) 216-227

    2024

  10. [19]

    Brbić, I

    M. Brbić, I. Kopriva, Multi-view Low-rank Sparse Subspace Clustering, Pattern Recognit. 73 (2018) 247-268

    2018

  11. [20]

    S. Wang, X. Liu, X. Zhu, et al., Fast Parameter-free Multi-view Subspace Clustering with Consensus Anchor Guidance, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 31 (2022) 556-568

    2022

  12. [21]

    X. Li, H. Zhang, R. Wang, F. Nie, Multiview Clustering: A Scalable and Parameter-Free Bipartite Graph Fusion Method, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 44 (1) (2022) 330- 344

    2022

  13. [22]

    Z. Chen, X. J.Wu, T. Xu, J. Kittler, Fast Self-Guided Multi-View Subspace Clustering, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 32 (2023) 6514-6525

    2023

  14. [23]

    C. Tang, M. Wang, K. Sun, One-Step Multiview Clustering via Adaptive Graph Learning and Spectral Rotation, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. DOI: 10.1109/TNNLS.2024.3381223

    2024

  15. [24]

    Z. Kang, W. Zhu, Z. Zhao, et al., Large-Scale Multi-View Subspace Clustering in Linear Time, in: Proc. of The Thirty Four AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2020), 2020, pp. 4412-4419

    2020

  16. [25]

    V. M. Patel, R. Vidal, Kernel sparse subspace clustering, in: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2014, pp. 2849–2853

    2014

  17. [26]

    S. Xiao, M. Tan, D. Xu, Z.Y. Dong, Robust kernel low-rank representation, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 27 (11) (2015) 2268–2281

    2015

  18. [27]

    Y. Xie, J. Liu, Y. Qu, et al., Robust Kernelized Multiview Self-Representation for Subspace Clustering, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 32 (3) (2021) 868-881

    2021

  19. [28]

    Z. Ma, Z. Kang, G. Luo, et al., Towards Clustering-friendly Representations: Subspace Clustering via Graph Filtering, in: Proceedings of the Media Interpretation & Mobile Multimedia (MM'20), 2020, pp. 3081-3089

    2020

  20. [29]

    Z. Lin, Z. Kang, Graph Filter-based Multi-view Attributed Graph Clustering, in: Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI- 21), 2021, pp. 2723-2729

    2021

  21. [30]

    Z. Lin, Z. Kang, L. Zhang, L. Tian, Multi-view Attributed Graph Clustering, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35 (2) (2023) 1872-1880

    2023

  22. [31]

    P. Ji, T. Zhang, H. Li, et al, Deep subspace clustering networks,” in: Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2017, pp. 24–33

    2017

  23. [32]

    Z. Peng, Y. Jia, H. Liu, et al., Maximum Entropy Subspace Clustering, IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Video Tech. 32 (4) (2022) 2199-2210

    2022

  24. [33]

    Z. Peng, H. Liu, Y. Jia, J. Hou, Adaptive Attribute and Structure Subspace Clustering Network, IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 31 (2022) 3430-3439

    2022

  25. [34]

    J. Lv, Z. Kang, X. Lu, Z. Xu, Pseudo-supervised deep subspace clustering, IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 30 (2021) 5252-5263

    2021

  26. [35]

    Y. Xu, S. Chen, J. Li, et al., Autoencoder-Based Latent Block-Diagonal Representation for Subspace Clustering, IEEE Trans. Cyber. 52 (6) (2022) 5408-5418

    2022

  27. [36]

    K. Li, H. Liu, Y. Zhang, et al., Self-Guided Deep Multi-view Subspace Clustering via Consensus Affinity Regularization, IEEE Trans. Cyber. 52 (12) (2022) 12734-12744

    2022

  28. [37]

    P. A. Traganitis, G. B. Giannakis, Sketched Subspace Clustering, IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc. 66 (7) (2018) 1663-1675

    2018

  29. [38]

    J. Xu , Y. Ren , H. Tang, et al., Self-Supervised Discriminative Feature Learning for Deep Multi-View Clustering, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35 (7) (2023) 7470-7482

    2023

  30. [39]

    J. Gui, T. Chen, Q. Cao, et al., A Survey of Self -Supervised Learning from Multiple Perspectives: Algorithms, Theory, Applications and Future Trends, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3415112

    2024

  31. [40]

    C. Reed, S. Metzger, A. Srinivas, et al., Evaluating Self -Supervised Pretraining Without Using Labels, (2020) arXiv:2009.07724v1

    2020 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Huang, L

    N. Huang, L. Xiao, Q. Liu, J. Chanussot, S 2DMSC: A Self-supervised Deep Multi-level Subspace Clustering Approach for Large Hyperspectral Images, IEEE Trans. Geosc. Remote Sens. 61 (2023) 5512817

    2023

  33. [42]

    Gidaris, P

    S. Gidaris, P. Singh, N. Komodakis, Unsupervised representation learning by predictive image rotations, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018, pp. 1-14

    2018

  34. [43]

    Lipor, L

    J. Lipor, L. Balzano, Clustering quality metrics for subspace clustering, Pattern Recognit. 104 (2020) 107328

    2020

  35. [44]

    Arbelaitz, I

    O. Arbelaitz, I. Gurrutxaga, J. Muguerza, et al., An extensive comparative study of cluster validity indices, Pattern Recognit. 46 (2013) 243-256

    2013

  36. [45]

    Chakraborty, A

    T. Chakraborty, A. Dalmia, A. Mukherjee, N. Ganguly, Metrics for community analysis: a survey, ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR). 50 (4) (2017) 54

    2017

  37. [46]

    Desgraupes, Clustering indices, Univ

    B. Desgraupes, Clustering indices, Univ. Paris Quest Lab Modal X. (2103) 1-34

  38. [47]

    T. A. Bailey Jr., R. Dubes, Cluster validity profiles, Pattern Recognit. 15 (2) (1982) 61-83

    1982

  39. [48]

    k-plane clustering,

    P. S. Bradley, O. L. Mangasarian, "k-plane clustering," J. Global Optim. 16 (2000) 23- 32

    2000

  40. [49]

    nearest q-flta to m points,

    P. Tseng, "nearest q-flta to m points," J. Optim. Theory Appl. 105 (1) (2000) 249-252

    2000

  41. [50]

    K-means projective clustering,

    P.K. Agarwal, N. H. Mustafa, "K-means projective clustering," in: Proceedings of the twenty-third ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database systems, 2004, pp. 155-165

    2004

  42. [51]

    Caliński, J

    T. Caliński, J. Harabasz, A dendrite method for cluster analysis, Commun. Stat. Theory Meth. 3 (1) (1974) 1-27

    1974

  43. [52]

    L. Deng, M. Xiao, A New Automatic Hyperparameter Recommendation Approach Under Low-Rank Tensor Completion Framework, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 45 (4) (2023) 4038-4050

    2023

  44. [53]

    Bergstra, Y

    J. Bergstra, Y. Bengio, Random search for hyper-parameter optimization, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13 (1) (2012) 281–305

    2012

  45. [54]

    Snoek, H

    J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, R. P. Adams, Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms, in: Proc. Adv. Neural Inf.. Process. Syst., 2012, pp. 2951–2959

    2012

  46. [55]

    L. Li, K. Jamieson, G. DeSalvo, et al., Hyperband: A novel bandit-based approach to hyperparameter optimization, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18 (1) (2017) 6765–6816

    2017

  47. [56]

    Mühlenbein, G

    H. Mühlenbein, G. Paass, From recombination of genes to the estimation of distributions I. Binary parameters, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Parallel Problem Solving Nat., 1996, pp. 178–187

    1996

  48. [57]

    X. Guo, J. Yang, C. Wu, et al., A novel LS-SVMs hyper-parameter selection based on particle swarm optimization, Neurocomput. 71 (16-18) (2008) 3211–3215

    2008

  49. [58]

    Vanschoren, Meta-learning, in: Proc

    J. Vanschoren, Meta-learning, in: Proc. Automa. Mach. Learn., 2019, pp. 35–61

    2019

  50. [59]

    Gandy, B

    S. Gandy, B. Recht, I. Yamada, Tensor completion and low-rank tensor recovery via convex optimization, Inverse Probl. 27 (2) (2011) 025010

    2011

  51. [60]

    J. Liu, P. Musialski, P. Wonka, J. Ye, Tensor completion for estimating missing values in visual data, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35 (1) (2012) 208–220

    2012

  52. [61]

    P. Zhou, C. Lu, Z. Lin, C. Zhang, Tensor factorization for low-rank tensor completion, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 27 (3) (2017) 1152–1163

    2017

  53. [62]

    Ghasedi Dizaji, A

    K. Ghasedi Dizaji, A. Herandi, C. Deng, et al., Deep clustering via joint convolutional autoencoder embedding and relative entropy minimization, in: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 5736–5745

    2017

  54. [63]

    J. Xie, R. Girshick, A. Farhadi, Unsupervised deep embedding for clustering analysis, in: Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), 2016, pp. 478–487

    2016

  55. [64]

    Z. Hao, Z. Lu, G. Li, et al., Ensemble Clustering with Attentional Representation, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 36 (2) (2024) 581-592

    2024

  56. [65]

    Rudin, Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead, Nature Mach

    C. Rudin, Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead, Nature Mach. Intell. 1 (2019) 206-215. [66]. E. Toja, C. Guan, A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Toward Medical XAI, IEEE Trans. Neu...

    2019

  57. [67]

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, et al., Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers, Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 3 (1) (2011) 1–122

    2011

  58. [68]

    Z. Ma, Z. Kang, G. Luo, et al, Towards Clustering-friendly Representations: Subspace Clustering via Graph Filtering, in: Proceedings of the Media Interpretation & Mobile Multimedia (MM'20), 2020, pp. 3081-3089

    2020

  59. [69]

    Ju, D Xiang, B

    W. Ju, D Xiang, B. Zhang, et al., Random Walk and Graph Cut for Co-Segmentation of Lung Tumor on PET-CT Images with 3D Derivative Features, IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 29 (12) (2015) 5854-5867

    2015

  60. [70]

    Amini, N

    M. Amini, N. Usunier, C. Goutte, Learning from multiple partially observed views - an application to multilingual text categorization, in: Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2009, pp. 28–36

    2009

  61. [71]

    W. Hao, S. Pang, B. Yang, J. Xue, Tensor-based multi-view clustering with consistency exploration and diversity regularization, Knowl. Based Syst. 252 (2022), 109342

    2022

  62. [72]

    Zhong, C

    G. Zhong, C. M. Pun, Improved Normalized Cut for Multi-View Clustering, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 44 (12) (2022) 10244-10251

    2022

  63. [73]

    Z. Wang, Z. Li, R. Wang, et al., Large graph clustering with simultaneous spectral embedding and discretization, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 43 (12) (2020) 4426- 4440

    2020

  64. [74]

    Kwak, Nonlinear Projection Trick in Kernel Methods: An Alternative to the Kernel Trick, IEEE Trans

    N. Kwak, Nonlinear Projection Trick in Kernel Methods: An Alternative to the Kernel Trick, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 24 (12) (2013) 2113-2119

    2013

  65. [75]

    K.-C. Lee, J. Ho, D. Kriegman, Acquiring linear subspaces for face recognition under variable lighting, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27 (5) (2005) 684–698

    2005

  66. [76]

    Hastie, P

    T. Hastie, P. Y. Simard, Metrics and models for handwritten character recognition, Statist. Sci. 13 (1) (1998) 54–65

    1998

  67. [77]

    LeCun, L

    Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, P. Haffner, Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition, Proc. of The IEEE 86 (11) (1998) 2278–2324

    1998

  68. [78]

    J. J. Hull, A database for handwritten text recognition research, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 16 (5) (1994) 550–554

    1994

  69. [79]

    A. S. Georghiades, P. N. Belhumeur, D. J. Kriegman, From few to many: Illumination cone models for face recognition under variable lighting and pose, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 23 (6) (2001) 643–660

    2001

  70. [80]

    F. S. Samaria, A. C. Harter, Parameterisation of a stochastic model for human face identification, in: Proc. 1994 IEEE Workshop on Applic. Comp. Vis. (WACV IEEE), 1994, pp. 138–142

    1994

  71. [81]

    S. A. Nene, S. K. Nayar, H. Murase, Columbia object image library (coil-100), Tech. Report, CUCS-006-96, Dept. of Computer Science, Columbia Univ, 1996, https://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/software/softlib/coil-100.php

    1996

  72. [82]

    Greene, P

    D. Greene, P. Cunningham, Practical solutions to the problem of diagonal dominance in kernel document clustering, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2006, pp. 377–384

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.