Clustering of Incomplete Data via a Bipartite Graph Structure

Amirhossein Javaheri; Daniel P. Palomar

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Clustering of Incomplete Data via a Bipartite Graph Structure

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A bipartite graph model can cluster incomplete data without center-node measurements, reaching 73% accuracy on S&P 500 log-returns.

desk verdict New joint A/B estimation for bipartite clustering with missing centers, but the load-bearing convex-combination assumption is untested and the single-dataset evaluation is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08594 v1 pith:QVTESJF5 submitted 2025-05-13 cs.LG

Amirhossein Javaheri , Daniel P. Palomar This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords graphlearningdataclusteringbipartiteheavy-taileddistributionsincompleteStudent-tdistributionfinanciallog-returnsADMM

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

This paper tries to establish that a k-component bipartite graph can be learned for clustering even when the center-node rows are missing, by representing each center as a weighted average of the observed member rows and estimating the averaging weights together with the graph edges. That would remove a practical obstacle: several bipartite graph clustering models require data from both member and center nodes, but in applications like financial markets only the member time series are available. The method is built on a multivariate Student-t model rather than a Gaussian one, so it is designed for the heavy-tailed behavior typical of financial log-returns. On a 100-stock S&P 500 subset it reports accuracy 0.73 and adjusted Rand index 0.63, attributing the gain to jointly inferring the graph connections and the center nodes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the augmented data matrix $X = [\tilde X; \tilde X A]$, where $\tilde X$ contains only the member rows and $A$ represents each center as a weighted average of members. The load-bearing identity is $x_i^\top L x_i = h_i + \mathrm{tr}(B G_i(A))$, with $h_i = \tilde x_i^\top \tilde x_i$ and $G_i(A) = -2A^\top \tilde S_i + \mathrm{diag}(A^\top \tilde S_i A) \mathbf{1}_r^\top$; it converts the full-data Student-t log-likelihood into a function of the observed member rows and the two unknown nonnegative weight matrices $B$ and $A$. The algorithm preserves the bipartite Laplacian structure with an ADMM loop: closed-form spectral updates for $L$, majorization-minimization plus projected-gradient updates for $B$ and $A$, and a support constraint that forces $A$ to select the same members as $B$.

What would settle it

Simulate a dataset from the same bipartite Student-t model but give each center row an independent residual term on top of the weighted average; if accuracy and adjusted Rand index drop sharply and the members assigned to each cluster by the learned $B$ diverge from the planted clusters as the residual variance grows, the central assumption is falsified. A complementary check on real data: use a market where sector-center measures do exist, compare clusters learned from member-only rows with clusters learned from full data, and see whether the member-only version recovers the full-data clusters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Student-t likelihood for a k-component bipartite graph can be maximized from member-only data, provided each unobserved center row is a weighted average of the observed member rows. The paper rewrites the quadratic form as $x_i^\top L x_i = h_i + \mathrm{tr}(B G_i(A))$ with $h_i = \tilde x_i^\top \tilde x_i$ and $G_i(A) = -2A^\top \tilde S_i + \mathrm{diag}(A^\top \tilde S_i A) \mathbf{1}_r^\top$, which removes the center rows from the objective. It then alternates ADMM updates for the Laplacian block $L$, the membership matrix $B$, and the center-weight matrix $A$, using majorization-minimization and simplex projections. On S&P 500 log-returns the resulting graph reaches accuracy 0.73 and adjusted Rand index 0.63, which the paper attributes to jointly inferring the connections and the center nodes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each unobserved center signal is exactly a weighted average of the observed member signals, with the same members forming each cluster in the averaging weights and in the cluster-membership weights; if real centers contain idiosyncratic variation, the learned graph may reflect an artificial structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bipartite graph clustering becomes usable in settings where only one side of the graph is observed, such as grouping financial assets without sector-level anchor data.
The Student-t formulation should keep graph learners accurate on heavy-tailed data where Gaussian-based methods lose cluster structure.
Because $A$ is estimated, the method also outputs each cluster center's implied composition as a weighted combination of members, not just a label assignment.
On the reported experiment, the proposed method with normal initialization has the highest accuracy (0.73) and adjusted Rand index (0.63) among the compared methods.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not run a stress test for its key assumption, but a natural one is to add independent noise to the center rows in a synthetic bipartite model and watch how accuracy and the recovered cluster assignments from $B$ degrade.
The identity at the core of the method transfers to any setting where one side of a bipartite graph is latent, as long as the missing side is a convex combination of observed rows; co-clustering is an obvious candidate.
The reported sensitivity to how $A$ is initialized (0.67 versus 0.73 accuracy for uniform versus normal draws) suggests a data-driven initialization for $A$, rather than random draws, is a testable improvement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is joint estimation of the member-to-center weights A and the graph connections B, which removes the center-data requirement in bipartite graph clustering. That fills a real operational gap, and the Student-t generalization is a sensible extension. The derivations in Section III are careful; the MM majorizations look correct, and I did not find a red flag in the algebra.

What the paper does well: it clearly identifies a limitation in existing bipartite graph methods (they need center-node data) and proposes a concrete fix. The weighted-average center imputation with A ≥ 0, A^T 1 = 1, and shared support with B is a new device. The appendices contain detailed proofs, and the algorithm is specified well enough to reimplement.

The soft spots are real, though. The central assumption — each center row is exactly a convex combination of member rows, X = [tilde X; tilde X A] — is load-bearing. Everything downstream, from the quadratic reduction in eq. (2) to the likelihood and the B/A updates, builds on this identity. The paper offers no evidence that real cluster centers in financial data are exactly spanned by member rows. If centers contain idiosyncratic variation (e.g., loadings plus noise), the model is misspecified and the learned B can reflect artificial linear structure rather than true clusters. The paper does not test this, gives no identifiability argument, and does not even check whether the learned A is consistent with the convex-combination requirement. The shared-support constraint is also asserted without justification.

The experiments do not relieve this. One dataset (100 S&P 500 stocks, 8 sectors), no error bars, no comparison to the closest bipartite baseline (Cardoso et al. 2022), and no code or hyperparameters. The two random initializations give different ACC (0.67 vs 0.73) and ARI (0.53 vs 0.63), which signals nonconvex instability. Nu is fitted from the same data via fitHeavyTail, which is practically fine but is another degree of freedom outside the model's own likelihood.

Still, the core idea is plausible and the derivations are serious. The right next step is a simulation study with known ground-truth centers: generate data with and without idiosyncratic center noise, test recovery of B when the assumption holds, and see how much misspecification the method tolerates. An oracle comparison using true centers would also calibrate how much is lost by the imputation.

This is a solid workshop or short-conference paper that needs strengthening before becoming a full journal result. I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject, but I would ask referees to push for the sensitivity analysis and the baseline comparison.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a clustering method for incomplete data based on a bipartite graph with k centers and r members. The key idea is to treat the unobserved center rows as exact convex combinations of observed member rows, parameterized by a weight matrix A, and to jointly learn the graph weights B and the composition A under a heavy-tailed Student-t model. The authors derive an ADMM/MM algorithm with closed-form or projected-gradient updates, and evaluate the method on S&P 500 log-returns, reporting accuracy 0.73 and adjusted Rand index 0.63, which they claim outperforms prior graph-based clustering methods.

Significance. If the method's central assumption is valid, it offers a principled way to perform graph-based clustering when center-node measurements are missing, which is a common practical scenario. The paper contributes a detailed derivation of the objective and updates, and the use of a Student-t likelihood is appropriate for heavy-tailed financial data. The numerical results on one real dataset are suggestive but not conclusive. The paper does not provide code, synthetic experiments, or convergence guarantees, which limits the confidence in the claimed advantages.

major comments (3)

[Section II, eq. (3)] The assumption that each center row equals an exact convex combination of member rows, X_centers = A^T \tilde X with A≥0 and A^T 1_r = 1_k, is load-bearing and untested. This identity is used in the derivation of eq. (2), the likelihood in (3), and all subsequent updates. If real center nodes contain idiosyncratic variation not in the span of the members, the learned B is not identifiable and may reflect an artificial linear structure. The manuscript provides no empirical check using data with observed centers, no ablation relaxing or testing the assumption, and no identifiability discussion. This should be addressed with synthetic experiments where the true generative model is known, and ideally with a real dataset that includes center-node observations.
[Section IV, Table I] The evaluation is limited to a single real dataset with no error bars or repeat runs. The two initializations of A0 yield different ACC (0.67 vs 0.73) and ARI (0.53 vs 0.63), showing sensitivity to initialization. Without multiple trials or statistical significance testing, the claim that the proposed method has superior performance over the baselines is not established. The conclusion in Section V overstates the strength of the empirical evidence.
[Section III] The optimization problem in (3) is nonconvex due to the rank constraint, the bilinear terms in A and B, and the support constraint, and the ADMM/MM algorithm has no convergence guarantee. The paper does not analyze convergence to a stationary point or the effect of the relaxed constraint used in the augmented Lagrangian. Given that different initializations produce different clustering outcomes, the algorithm's reliability is a concern. A convergence analysis or a robustness study across many random initializations is needed.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV] The definition of accuracy and purity as "ratio of true-positive labels to p" is imprecise; purity is conventionally the fraction of members assigned to the majority class within each cluster, not a ratio to p. Please clarify.
[Lemma 2] The notation b_j^{l+1} is used both for the j-th column of B and for its row sum, b_j^{l+1} = \langle b_j^{l+1}, 1\rangle. Define the row sum explicitly, e.g., \bar b_j = 1^T b_j, to avoid confusion.
[Section IV] The hyperparameters ρ, μ, η, the number of inner PGD iterations, and the stopping criterion for Algorithm 1 are not reported. These details are necessary for reproducibility.
[References] The references [19] and [27] appear to point to the same work (Cardoso et al., NeurIPS 2021) under different names; unify them to avoid duplicate citation.
[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase "In this paper, we propose" appears in both the abstract and the introduction; rephrase to avoid redundancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is algebraic and the empirical validation uses external ground-truth labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not contain a fitted quantity masquerading as a prediction. Equation (2), x_i^T L x_i = h_i + tr(B G_i(A)), is an exact algebraic expansion of the bipartite Laplacian (1) under the explicit definition x_i^T = [x̃_i^T, x̃_i^T A]; it is not a construction that builds the cluster output from the input labels. The assumption that missing center rows are convex combinations of member rows (X = [X̃; X̃ A], A ≥ 0, A^T 1_r = 1_k, same support as B) is a stated latent-variable modeling choice, not a result derived from the cluster assignments, and the reported accuracy/ARI are scored against external GICS labels that are never used in the optimization. The MM-based updates (Lemmas 1–2) are proper majorizers of the stated likelihood, not renamed fits. Self-citations ([20], [23]) provide the heavy-tailed bipartite-graph model and baseline algorithms but are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem to exclude alternatives, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The sensitivity to the random initialization of A0 and the untested convex-combination assumption are legitimate identifiability and robustness concerns, but they do not make any output equal to an input by construction. No circular step is therefore exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Student-t likelihood, the bipartite Laplacian form, and especially the untested assumption that unobserved centers are convex combinations of observed members. The only fitted numerical parameter reported is k, while nu, rho, mu, and eta are selected by the authors without stated values.

free parameters (5)

nu (Student-t degrees of freedom) = not reported
Fitted to the same experimental data via the fitHeavyTail R package; used in the likelihood in eq. (3) and in every update step.
rho (ADMM penalty parameter) = not reported
Controls the augmented Lagrangian in eq. (4) and the L/B updates; no value or tuning procedure given.
mu (PGD step size for B) = not reported
Step size in eq. (10); no value or schedule provided.
eta (PGD step size for A) = not reported
Step size in eq. (17); no value or schedule provided.
k (number of clusters) = 8
Set to the number of GICS sectors in the experiment; the method assumes k is known.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Observations follow a zero-mean multivariate Student-t distribution with nu > 2 and precision matrix L.
Stated in Section II; motivates the optimization problem in eq. (3).
ad hoc to paper Unobserved center rows are exact convex combinations of observed member rows: X_centers = A^T \tilde X with A >= 0 and A^T 1_r = 1_k.
Introduced in Section II before eq. (3); this is the load-bearing assumption that makes the problem identifiable and is not validated.
ad hoc to paper A and B share the same support, i.e., A * 1(B = 0) = 0.
Constraint in eq. (3) and A-update eq. (12); enforces that mix weights vanish where graph edges do not exist.
domain assumption The Laplacian has the bipartite form L = [Diag(B 1_k), -B; -B^T, Diag(B^T 1_r)] with B 1_k = 1_r.
From Cardoso et al. [23]; defines the graph structure and is used in the ADMM updates.
standard math A k-component graph has rank(L) = p - k.
Standard graph Laplacian rank property, used in the L update eq. (5).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustering of Incomplete Data via a Bipartite Graph Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVTESJF5

@misc{pith2026250508594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustering of Incomplete Data via a Bipartite Graph Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVTESJF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08594}
}

read the original abstract

There are various approaches to graph learning for data clustering, incorporating different spectral and structural constraints through diverse graph structures. Some methods rely on bipartite graph models, where nodes are divided into two classes: centers and members. These models typically require access to data for the center nodes in addition to observations from the member nodes. However, such additional data may not always be available in many practical scenarios. Moreover, popular Gaussian models for graph learning have demonstrated limited effectiveness in modeling data with heavy-tailed distributions, which are common in financial markets. In this paper, we propose a clustering method based on a bipartite graph model that addresses these challenges. First, it can infer clusters from incomplete data without requiring information about the center nodes. Second, it is designed to effectively handle heavy-tailed data. Numerical experiments using real financial data validate the efficiency of the proposed method for data clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08594 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Data clustering: application and trends,

G. J. Oyewole and G. A. Thopil, “Data clustering: application and trends,” Artificial Intelligence Review , vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 6439–6475, July 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns,

M. B. Eisen, P. T. Spellman, P. O. Brown, and D. Botstein, “Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 95, no. 25, pp. 14863–14868, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

Normalized cuts and image segmentation,

J. Shi and J. Malik, “Normalized cuts and image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 888–905, 2000

2000
[4]

Clustering of people in social network based on textual similarity,

K. Singh, H. K. Shakya, and B. Biswas, “Clustering of people in social network based on textual similarity,” Perspectives in Science, vol. 8, pp. 570–573, Sept. 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Marti, F

G. Marti, F. Nielsen, M. Bi ´nkowski, and P. Donnat, A review of two decades of correlations, hierarchies, networks and clustering in financial markets, 2021, arXiv:1703.00485

arXiv 2021
[6]

Hierarchical clustering schemes,

S. C. Johnson, “Hierarchical clustering schemes,” Psychometrika, vol. 32, pp. 241–254, 1967

work page 1967
[7]

A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

M. Ester, H. P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu, “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1996, p. 226–231, AAAI Press

work page 1996
[8]

G. J. McLachlan and D. Peel, Finite Mixture Models , John Wiley & Sons, Mar. 2004

work page 2004

Show all 31 references

[9]

Graph-based Methods for Visualization and Clustering,

J. Paratte, “Graph-based Methods for Visualization and Clustering,” 2017, Publisher: Lausanne, EPFL

2017
[10]

On Spectral Clustering: Analysis and an algorithm,

A. Ng, M. Jordan, and Y . Weiss, “On Spectral Clustering: Analysis and an algorithm,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2001, vol. 14

2001
[11]

Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso,

J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, “Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso,” Biostatistics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 432–441, July 2008

2008
[12]

Discovering structure by learning sparse graphs,

B. Lake and J. Tenenbaum, “Discovering structure by learning sparse graphs,” in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, Oregon, United States, Aug. 2010, pp. 778– 784

2010
[13]

Graph Learning From Data Under Laplacian and Structural Constraints,

H. E. Egilmez, E. Pavez, and A. Ortega, “Graph Learning From Data Under Laplacian and Structural Constraints,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 825–841, Sept. 2017

2017
[14]

Optimization Algorithms for Graph Laplacian Estimation via ADMM and MM,

L. Zhao, Y . Wang, S. Kumar, and D. P. Palomar, “Optimization Algorithms for Graph Laplacian Estimation via ADMM and MM,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 16, pp. 4231–4244, Aug. 2019

2019
[15]

Nonconvex Sparse Graph Learning under Laplacian Constrained Graphical Model,

J. Ying, J. V . de M. Cardoso, and D. P. Palomar, “Nonconvex Sparse Graph Learning under Laplacian Constrained Graphical Model,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2020, vol. 33, pp. 7101–7113

2020
[16]

Learning Spatiotemporal Graphical Models From Incomplete Observations,

A. Javaheri, A. Amini, F. Marvasti, and D. P. Palomar, “Learning Spatiotemporal Graphical Models From Incomplete Observations,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 72, pp. 1361–1374, 2024

2024
[17]

The Constrained Laplacian Rank algorithm for graph-based clustering,

F. Nie, X. Wang, M. I. Jordan, and H. Huang, “The Constrained Laplacian Rank algorithm for graph-based clustering,” in Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Phoenix, Arizona, Feb. 2016, AAAI’16, pp. 1969–1976. 5

2016
[18]

A Unified Framework for Structured Graph Learning via Spectral Constraints,

S. Kumar, J. Ying, J. V . de M. Cardoso, and D. P. Palomar, “A Unified Framework for Structured Graph Learning via Spectral Constraints,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 21, no. 22, pp. 1–60, 2020

2020
[19]

Graphical models in heavy-tailed markets,

J. V . M. Cardoso, J. Ying, and D. P. Palomar, “Graphical models in heavy-tailed markets,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021, vol. 34, pp. 19989–20001

2021
[20]

Graph Learning for Balanced Clustering of Heavy-Tailed Data,

A. Javaheri, J. V . de M. Cardoso, and D. P. Palomar, “Graph Learning for Balanced Clustering of Heavy-Tailed Data,” in 2023 IEEE 9th International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), Herradura, Costa Rica, Dec. 2023, pp. 481–485

2023
[21]

Learning time-varying graphs for heavy-tailed data clustering,

A. Javaheri and D. P. Palomar, “Learning time-varying graphs for heavy-tailed data clustering,” in 2024 32nd European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 2024, pp. 2472–2476

2024
[22]

Learning a structured optimal bipartite graph for co-clustering,

F. Nie, X. Wang, C. Deng, and H. Huang, “Learning a structured optimal bipartite graph for co-clustering,” in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

2017
[23]

Learning Bipartite Graphs: Heavy Tails and Multiple Components,

J. V . de M. Cardoso, J. Ying, and D. P. Palomar, “Learning Bipartite Graphs: Heavy Tails and Multiple Components,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 14044–14057, Dec. 2022

2022
[24]

Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,

S. Boyd, “Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,” Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, 2010

2010
[25]

Majorization-Minimization Algo- rithms in Signal Processing, Communications, and Machine Learning,

Y . Sun, P. Babu, and D. P. Palomar, “Majorization-Minimization Algo- rithms in Signal Processing, Communications, and Machine Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 794–816, Feb. 2017

2017
[26]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization , Cambridge University Press, 1 edition, Mar. 2004

2004
[27]

Graphical Models in Heavy-Tailed Markets,

J. V . de M. Cardoso, J. Ying, and D. P. Palomar, “Graphical Models in Heavy-Tailed Markets,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021, vol. 34, pp. 19989–20001

2021
[28]

Everitt, Ed., Cluster analysis , Wiley series in probability and statistics

B. Everitt, Ed., Cluster analysis , Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K, 5th ed edition, 2011

2011
[29]

Modularity and community structure in networks,

M. E. J. Newman, “Modularity and community structure in networks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 103, no. 23, pp. 8577–8582, June 2006

2006
[30]

Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods,

W. M. Rand, “Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 66, no. 336, pp. 846–850, Dec. 1971

1971
[31]

A dendrite method for cluster analysis,

T. Cali ´nski and J Harabasz, “A dendrite method for cluster analysis,” Communications in Statistics , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 1974. 6

1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Data clustering: application and trends,

G. J. Oyewole and G. A. Thopil, “Data clustering: application and trends,” Artificial Intelligence Review , vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 6439–6475, July 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns,

M. B. Eisen, P. T. Spellman, P. O. Brown, and D. Botstein, “Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 95, no. 25, pp. 14863–14868, 1998

work page 1998

[3] [3]

Normalized cuts and image segmentation,

J. Shi and J. Malik, “Normalized cuts and image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 888–905, 2000

2000

[4] [4]

Clustering of people in social network based on textual similarity,

K. Singh, H. K. Shakya, and B. Biswas, “Clustering of people in social network based on textual similarity,” Perspectives in Science, vol. 8, pp. 570–573, Sept. 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Marti, F

G. Marti, F. Nielsen, M. Bi ´nkowski, and P. Donnat, A review of two decades of correlations, hierarchies, networks and clustering in financial markets, 2021, arXiv:1703.00485

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Hierarchical clustering schemes,

S. C. Johnson, “Hierarchical clustering schemes,” Psychometrika, vol. 32, pp. 241–254, 1967

work page 1967

[7] [7]

A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

M. Ester, H. P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu, “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1996, p. 226–231, AAAI Press

work page 1996

[8] [8]

G. J. McLachlan and D. Peel, Finite Mixture Models , John Wiley & Sons, Mar. 2004

work page 2004