Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Interpretable Clustering Ensemble

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Clustering ensembles get a decision tree you can read, without losing accuracy.

desk verdict A genuinely new idea for an interpretable clustering ensemble, undermined by an invalid p-value calculation and overclaimed experimental support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05877 v1 pith:ANW2QGZS submitted 2025-06-06 cs.LG

Hang Lv , Lianyu Hu , Mudi Jiang , Xinying Liu , Zengyou He This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords clusteringensembleinterpretabledecisiontreechi-squaredtestconsensuspartitionunsupervisedlearningp-valuek-means
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

Clustering ensembles combine many clusterings into one consensus partition, but the result is usually a black-box label assignment. This paper proposes ICE, the first clustering ensemble method that outputs a decision tree in the original feature space, so every cluster assignment can be traced along splits like "feature ≤ threshold". At each growth step, ICE picks the split whose association with the base partitions—measured by summed chi-squared statistics converted to a p-value—is strongest, and keeps growing until it reaches the requested number of clusters. The authors claim this yields clustering quality comparable to state-of-the-art ensemble methods while adding interpretability, and outperforms existing interpretable clustering methods in accuracy. If true, high-stakes applications like medical diagnosis and financial risk assessment could use ensemble stability without giving up explanations.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the split-scoring statistic: for a candidate split $S_j$ defined as $f_j \le v_j$, the algorithm computes the chi-squared statistic $\chi^2(S_j, \pi_t)$ between the split and each base partition $\pi_t$, then sums them as $\chi^2(S_j) = \sum_{t=1}^c \chi^2(S_j, \pi_t)$. Treating this sum as a chi-squared random variable under the independence assumption, it converts the score to a p-value, which allows splits from different nodes with different sample sizes and different numbers of base-partition categories to be compared directly. The greedy growth rule—always split the candidate node with the smallest p-value—is what ties the statistical test to the tree-construction process and makes each split an explainable, ensemble-driven decision.

What would settle it

On a dataset with known ground-truth clusters, compute the average absolute correlation between the c base partitions at the root node; if it is high (say above 0.5), the independence assumption is violated at the very first split. A more direct test is to run ICE twice, once with the paper's p-value and once with a permutation-based p-value that breaks dependence, and compare the order in which nodes are split and the final purity: if the two orders diverge materially on a majority of datasets, the independence-based p-value is not a reliable guide for tree growth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ICE treats each base partition as a categorical variable and builds a binary decision tree whose splits are predicates of the form feature ≤ threshold. For every candidate split at a node, it builds a contingency table of the split against each base partition, computes the chi-squared statistic per table, sums these statistics, and converts the sum to a p-value under the assumption that the c chi-squared components are independent. The split with the smallest p-value becomes the node's best split, and the algorithm grows the tree by splitting, at each round, the candidate node whose best split has the smallest p-value, until k leaves exist. The returned tree is itself the consensus partition: each leaf is a cluster, and each internal node explains in original features why the data was separated. The paper reports experiments on 33 benchmark datasets showing average Purity, F1-score, and NMI comparable to state-of-the-art clustering ensemble methods and better than the interpretable baselines IMM and SHA, with tree depths comparable to or smaller than IMM's.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the c chi-squared statistics for a candidate split are independent, so their sum follows a chi-squared distribution and the resulting p-values rank the splits correctly; the base partitions are k-means runs on the same data, so they are strongly dependent, and if the p-value ranking is not meaningful the greedy choice of which node to split loses its statistical justification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clustering ensemble results become inspectable: each final cluster corresponds to a leaf, and its defining conditions are simple threshold rules on original features, so a domain expert can verify whether a consensus cluster is meaningful.
  • Because the split choice is driven by association with the ensemble rather than by class labels, the method applies to fully unlabeled data and can serve as a drop-in replacement for consensus functions in existing ensemble pipelines.
  • The fixed leaf count $k$ lets a user control the granularity of the explanation: smaller $k$ gives shallower, more readable trees, at some cost in accuracy.
  • With ensemble size $c$, clustering quality generally improves, and ICE's accuracy tracks that improvement, so the interpretability does not appear to cap the ensemble's ability to gain from more base clusterings.
  • The reported average tree depth (avgDepth 1.98, maxDepth 2.62) suggests ICE is competitive in compactness with dedicated interpretable clustering baselines, not just in accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The statistical test is being used as a model-selection score rather than a hypothesis test; because the base partitions are dependent, the p-values are likely miscalibrated, and a more honest reading is that the chi-squared sum is a useful heuristic score. A permutation-based or corrected significance test could preserve the interpretability while making the ranking valid.
  • The same split-scoring idea could be lifted to other black-box clusterings (e.g., spectral or DBSCAN) as long as each base partition can be expressed as a categorical label, turning ICE into a general interpreter for any ensemble.
  • For high-dimensional data, the exhaustive threshold search will dominate runtime; one testable extension is to restrict candidate thresholds to quantiles or to use a surrogate score to prune features before the chi-squared computation.
  • If the goal is explanation fidelity rather than consensus quality, ICE's tree could be compared against a decision-tree approximation of the consensus labels from any ensemble method; the split-by-association criterion directly optimizes agreement with base partitions, which may make it a stronger explanation of the ensemble than a post-hoc fit.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ICE, a decision-tree-based clustering ensemble. Base partitions are obtained by k-means; each candidate split is scored by summing the chi-squared statistic between the binary split and each base partition, and the sum is converted to a p-value under a chi-squared assumption. ICE grows the tree by repeatedly expanding the candidate node with the smallest p-value until k leaves are produced, yielding an interpretable tree in the original feature space. Experiments on 33 UCI/KEEL datasets compare ICE with k-means, two interpretable tree-based clustering methods, and several clustering ensemble baselines using Purity, F1-score, NMI, tree depth, and runtime. The paper claims that this is the first interpretable clustering ensemble algorithm and that it achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art ensemble methods.

Significance. The idea of combining clustering ensembles with decision-tree interpretability is timely and, if the statistical criterion were valid, ICE would be a useful contribution. The algorithm is concrete, avoids fitting parameters to ground-truth labels, and the incremental contingency-table update is a practical implementation detail with a plausible time-complexity analysis. The experimental study is broad, covering 33 datasets. However, the validity of the p-value criterion is load-bearing: it determines both the split chosen inside a node and the order in which nodes are expanded, so the entire statistical justification of the tree-building process rests on an assumption that is not satisfied. The empirical comparison also lacks significance testing. These issues require substantive rework before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C1 (Eq. 5) and Algorithm 1 (line 10)] The sum in Eq. (5) is treated as chi-squared with summed degrees of freedom, citing [39], but this is valid only if the c chi-squared statistics are independent. Section IV-B generates every base partition by applying k-means to the same standardized data, so the base partitions, and hence the statistics chi^2(S_j, pi_t), are strongly dependent. The p-values used in Algorithm 1 line 10 are therefore miscalibrated, and comparing p-values across nodes with different sample sizes and different numbers of base-partition categories compounds the problem. Since this p-value determines which node is expanded next, the global shape of the tree rests on an unjustified distributional assumption. The limitation noted in Section V, that p-value selection 'may not always yield the most optimal partition', does not address this validity problem. Please replace the asymptotic p-value with a permutation-based or other calibration that preserves the dependence structure, or explicitly reframe ICE as a heuristic and remove the statistical-test claim.
  2. [Section III-C1 and Algorithm 1 (lines 19-23)] Even setting aside the dependence issue, the chi-squared approximation requires expected cell counts of at least about 5 in the contingency table. Algorithm 1 only checks that each child node has at least 5 samples, not that each cell's expected count is adequate. With c=30 and base-partition cluster counts up to 3k, many cells are sparse after splits, especially in smaller nodes. This additional miscalibration should be addressed in any revision that retains the statistical-test framing.
  3. [Section IV-C (Tables III-V)] The claim of 'comparable performance' to state-of-the-art ensemble methods is not supported by any significance test, such as a Wilcoxon signed-rank test across the 33 datasets. Reading the averages, ICE has lower mean NMI than every ensemble baseline (0.2852 versus 0.3074-0.3119) and lower mean Purity than most ensemble baselines. The paper should either provide a proper paired comparison with per-dataset wins/losses and a significance test, or soften the claim to 'competitive on some datasets'.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-A and IV-B] Section IV-A says the comparison uses 34 datasets, while Section IV-B and Table II list 33 datasets; please reconcile this discrepancy.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and manuscript header] There are several typographical errors, including 'statisitc' in Algorithm 1 and 'recieved' in the manuscript header; these should be corrected.
  3. [Section III-C1] The statement that the sum in Eq. (5) follows a chi-squared distribution should explicitly state the independence condition and cite the precise theorem, rather than a general categorical-data-analysis reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ICE builds its tree from external base partitions and an external chi-square reference, with only non-load-bearing self-citations in related work.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any output to an input by construction. The base partitions are produced by k-means on the standardized data (Section IV-B), candidate splits are scored by chi-squared association with each base partition (Eq. 4), the scores are summed (Eq. 5), and a p-value is derived using the chi-squared distribution from the external reference [39]. The decision tree is grown by selecting splits and nodes with minimal p-value. No parameter is fitted to ground-truth labels, no predicted cluster is defined as a direct relabeling of a base partition, and no claimed result is equivalent to an input by definition. The main statistical concern—that the summed chi-squared statistics are not independent because all base partitions come from k-means on the same data—is a correctness/validity issue, not a circularity issue; the paper even concedes in Section V that the p-value-based selection 'may not always yield the most optimal partition' and has 'inherent limitations.' The self-citations [36], [37], and [38] appear only in the related-work discussion of significance-based interpretable clustering and are not used to justify Algorithm 1 or any derived result. Therefore, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the chi-squared sum as a split criterion and on the experimental comparison. The key assumptions are the unvalidated independence of base partitions for the p-value computation and the heuristic use of smallest p-value for node selection. Hyperparameters (minimum child size 5, ensemble size 30, base cluster range [k,3k]) are design choices, not fitted to the ground truth.

free parameters (3)
  • minimum child size = 5
    Algorithm 1, Line 21 skips candidate splits that produce a child with fewer than 5 samples; this threshold is chosen by hand and affects tree shape and final clustering.
  • ensemble size c = 30
    The number of base k-means partitions is fixed to 30 in the main experiments; Section IV.E sweeps 10 to 40, so the default is a design choice, not fitted.
  • base partition cluster number range = [k, 3k]
    The number of clusters in each base partition is drawn uniformly from k to 3k (Section IV.B); this controls the diversity of the ensemble and is a chosen hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The sum of c chi-squared statistics follows a chi-squared distribution when the statistics are independent (Section III-C1, after Eq. 5).
    The paper cites Agresti for the sum-of-chi-squared result but gives no justification that the c base-partition statistics are independent; in fact they are produced by k-means on the same dataset and are strongly dependent.
  • ad hoc to paper A split's quality is monotonically related to the sum of chi-squared statistics with the base partitions, and the smallest p-value across nodes identifies the best growth node.
    The greedy rule in Algorithm 1 lines 10-11 compares p-values from nodes with different sample sizes and different numbers of base-partition categories, which is not a standard statistical comparison.
  • standard math Chi-squared test of independence is an appropriate measure of association between a binary split and a categorical base partition.
    This is a standard statistical tool, acceptable as background.
  • domain assumption The k-means base partitions, with k drawn from [k,3k], provide useful signal about the true cluster structure.
    The entire clustering ensemble paradigm rests on this; the paper does not evaluate the quality of base partitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretable Clustering Ensemble." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANW2QGZS

@misc{pith2026250605877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretable Clustering Ensemble},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANW2QGZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05877}
}
read the original abstract

Clustering ensemble has emerged as an important research topic in the field of machine learning. Although numerous methods have been proposed to improve clustering quality, most existing approaches overlook the need for interpretability in high-stakes applications. In domains such as medical diagnosis and financial risk assessment, algorithms must not only be accurate but also interpretable to ensure transparent and trustworthy decision-making. Therefore, to fill the gap of lack of interpretable algorithms in the field of clustering ensemble, we propose the first interpretable clustering ensemble algorithm in the literature. By treating base partitions as categorical variables, our method constructs a decision tree in the original feature space and use the statistical association test to guide the tree building process. Experimental results demonstrate that our algorithm achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art (SOTA) clustering ensemble methods while maintaining an additional feature of interpretability. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first interpretable algorithm specifically designed for clustering ensemble, offering a new perspective for future research in interpretable clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the proposed ICE method: (a) Initially, the algorithm processes nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decision trees generated by ICE, IMM and SHA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of clustering performance metrics across different ensemble sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of running times (in seconds) of all algorithms on 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    Agresti,Categorical data analysis

    A. Agresti,Categorical data analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2013. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XX 2025 11

    work page 2013

  2. [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, 2023

    2023

  3. [2]

    A comprehensive survey of image segmentation: clustering methods, performance parameters, and benchmark datasets,

    H. Mittal, A. C. Pandey, M. Saraswat, S. Kumar, R. Pal, and G. Modwel, “A comprehensive survey of image segmentation: clustering methods, performance parameters, and benchmark datasets,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 81, no. 24, pp. 35 001–35 026, Oct 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Co-citation and cluster analyses of extant literature on social networks,

    W.-L. Shiau, Y . K. Dwivedi, and H. S. Yang, “Co-citation and cluster analyses of extant literature on social networks,”International Journal of Information Management, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 390–399, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Cluster analysis for gene expression data: a survey,

    D. Jiang, C. Tang, and A. Zhang, “Cluster analysis for gene expression data: a survey,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1370–1386, 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    From clustering to clustering ensemble selection: A review,

    K. Golalipour, E. Akbari, S. S. Hamidi, M. Lee, and R. Enayatifar, “From clustering to clustering ensemble selection: A review,”Engineer- ing Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 104, p. 104388, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Interpretable Clustering: A Survey

    L. Hu, M. Jiang, J. Dong, X. Liu, and Z. He, “Interpretable clustering: A survey,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2409.00743, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Shallow decision trees for ex- plainable k-means clustering,

    E. Laber, L. Murtinho, and F. Oliveira, “Shallow decision trees for ex- plainable k-means clustering,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 137, p. 109239, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Interpretable clustering: an optimization approach,

    D. Bertsimas, A. Orfanoudaki, and H. Wiberg, “Interpretable clustering: an optimization approach,”Machine Learning, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 89– 138, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    A survey of clustering ensemble algorithms,

    S. Vega-Pons and J. Ruiz-Shulcloper, “A survey of clustering ensemble algorithms,”International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 25, no. 03, pp. 337–372, 2011

    2011

  3. [10]

    Cluster ensembles: A survey of ap- proaches with recent extensions and applications,

    T. Boongoen and N. Iam-On, “Cluster ensembles: A survey of ap- proaches with recent extensions and applications,”Computer Science Review, vol. 28, pp. 1–25, 2018

    2018

  4. [11]

    Cluster ensembles — A knowledge reuse framework for combining multiple partitions,

    A. Strehl and J. Ghosh, “Cluster ensembles — A knowledge reuse framework for combining multiple partitions,”J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 3, pp. 583–617, 2002

    2002

  5. [12]

    Solving cluster ensemble problems by bipartite graph partitioning,

    X. Z. Fern and C. E. Brodley, “Solving cluster ensemble problems by bipartite graph partitioning,” inProceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning, 2004, p. 36

    2004

  6. [13]

    Combining multiple clusterings using evidence accumulation,

    A. L. Fred and A. K. Jain, “Combining multiple clusterings using evidence accumulation,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 835–850, 2005

    2005

  7. [14]

    Ensemble clustering via ran- dom walker consensus strategy,

    D. D. Abdala, P. Wattuya, and X. Jiang, “Ensemble clustering via ran- dom walker consensus strategy,” in2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1433–1436

    2010

  8. [15]

    Clustering aggregation by probability accumulation,

    X. Wang, C. Yang, and J. Zhou, “Clustering aggregation by probability accumulation,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 668–675, 2009

    2009

  9. [16]

    Active clustering ensemble with self-paced learning,

    P. Zhou, B. Sun, X. Liu, L. Du, and X. Li, “Active clustering ensemble with self-paced learning,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Adaptive weighted ensemble clustering via kernel learning and local information preserva- tion,

    T. Li, X. Shu, J. Wu, Q. Zheng, X. Lv, and J. Xu, “Adaptive weighted ensemble clustering via kernel learning and local information preserva- tion,”Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 294, p. 111793, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    A multiple clustering combination approach based on iterative voting process,

    S. Khedairia and M. T. Khadir, “A multiple clustering combination approach based on iterative voting process,”Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1370– 1380, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    On voting-based consensus of cluster ensembles,

    H. G. Ayad and M. S. Kamel, “On voting-based consensus of cluster ensembles,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1943–1953, 2010

    1943

  13. [20]

    V oting-based consensus clustering for combining multiple clusterings of chemical structures,

    F. Saeed, N. Salim, and A. Abdo, “V oting-based consensus clustering for combining multiple clusterings of chemical structures,”Journal of cheminformatics, vol. 4, pp. 1–8, 2012

    2012

  14. [21]

    On clustering and interpreting with rules by means of mathematical op- timization,

    E. Carrizosa, K. Kurishchenko, A. Mar ´ın, and D. R. Morales, “On clustering and interpreting with rules by means of mathematical op- timization,”Computers & Operations Research, vol. 154, p. 106180, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Interpretable clustering using unsupervised binary trees,

    R. Fraiman, B. Ghattas, and M. Svarc, “Interpretable clustering using unsupervised binary trees,”Advances in Data Analysis and Classifica- tion, vol. 7, pp. 125–145, 2013

    2013

  16. [23]

    Xclusters: explainability-first clustering,

    H. Hwang and S. E. Whang, “Xclusters: explainability-first clustering,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 7, 2023, pp. 7962–7970

    2023

  17. [24]

    Interpret- ing clusters via prototype optimization,

    E. Carrizosa, K. Kurishchenko, A. Mar ´ın, and D. R. Morales, “Interpret- ing clusters via prototype optimization,”Omega, vol. 107, p. 102543, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Cluster explanation via polyhedral descrip- tions,

    C. Lawless and O. Gunluk, “Cluster explanation via polyhedral descrip- tions,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 18 652–18 666

    2023

  19. [26]

    The cluster description problem- complexity results, formulations and approximations,

    I. Davidson, A. Gourru, and S. Ravi, “The cluster description problem- complexity results, formulations and approximations,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    Time2feat: Learn- ing interpretable representations for multivariate time series clustering,

    A. Bonifati, F. Del Buono, F. Guerra, and D. Tiano, “Time2feat: Learn- ing interpretable representations for multivariate time series clustering,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB), vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 193– 201, 2022

    2022

  21. [28]

    Interpretable deep clustering for tabular data,

    J. Svirsky and O. Lindenbaum, “Interpretable deep clustering for tabular data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04785, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Interpretable clustering of students’ solutions in introductory programming,

    T. Effenberger and R. Pel ´anek, “Interpretable clustering of students’ solutions in introductory programming,” inInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 2021, pp. 101–112

    2021

  23. [30]

    Balancing the tradeoff between clustering value and interpretability,

    S. Saisubramanian, S. Galhotra, and S. Zilberstein, “Balancing the tradeoff between clustering value and interpretability,” inProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2020, pp. 351– 357

    2020

  24. [31]

    Explainable k-means and k-medians clustering,

    M. Moshkovitz, S. Dasgupta, C. Rashtchian, and N. Frost, “Explainable k-means and k-medians clustering,” inProceedings of the 37th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, H. D. III and A. Singh, Eds., vol. 119. PMLR, 13–18...

    2020

  25. [32]

    To cluster, or not to cluster: An analysis of clusterability methods,

    A. Adolfsson, M. Ackerman, and N. C. Brownstein, “To cluster, or not to cluster: An analysis of clusterability methods,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 88, pp. 13–26, 2019

    2019

  26. [33]

    Bootstrapping for signifi- cance of compact clusters in multidimensional datasets,

    R. Maitra, V . Melnykov, and S. N. Lahiri, “Bootstrapping for signifi- cance of compact clusters in multidimensional datasets,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 107, no. 497, pp. 378–392, 2012

    2012

  27. [34]

    Nonparametric cluster significance testing with reference to a unimodal null distribution,

    E. S. Helgeson, D. M. V ock, and E. Bair, “Nonparametric cluster significance testing with reference to a unimodal null distribution,” Biometrics, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 1215–1226, 2021

    2021

  28. [35]

    Significant dbscan+: Statistically robust density-based clustering,

    Y . Xie, X. Jia, S. Shekhar, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “Significant dbscan+: Statistically robust density-based clustering,”ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1–26, 2021

    2021

  29. [36]

    Interpretable categorical data clustering via hypothesis testing,

    L. Hu, M. Jiang, J. Dong, X. Liu, and Z. He, “Interpretable categorical data clustering via hypothesis testing,”Pattern Recognition, p. 111364, 2025

    2025

  30. [37]

    Significance-based decision tree for interpretable categorical data clustering,

    L. Hu, M. Jiang, X. Liu, and Z. He, “Significance-based decision tree for interpretable categorical data clustering,”Information Sciences, vol. 690, p. 121588, 2025

    2025

  31. [38]

    Significance-based interpretable sequence clustering,

    Z. He, L. Hu, J. He, J. Dong, M. Jiang, and X. Liu, “Significance-based interpretable sequence clustering,”Information Sciences, p. 121972, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Locally weighted ensemble clustering,

    D. Huang, C.-D. Wang, and J.-H. Lai, “Locally weighted ensemble clustering,”IEEE transactions on cybernetics, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1460– 1473, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Ensemble clustering via co- association matrix self-enhancement,

    Y . Jia, S. Tao, R. Wang, and Y . Wang, “Ensemble clustering via co- association matrix self-enhancement,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Enhanced ensemble clustering via fast propagation of cluster-wise similarities,

    D. Huang, C.-D. Wang, H. Peng, J. Lai, and C.-K. Kwoh, “Enhanced ensemble clustering via fast propagation of cluster-wise similarities,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 508–520, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Uci machine learning repository,

    D. Dua, C. Graffet al., “Uci machine learning repository,” 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Keel data-mining software tool: Data set repository, integration of algorithms and experi- mental analysis framework,

    J. Derrac, S. Garcia, L. Sanchez, and F. Herrera, “Keel data-mining software tool: Data set repository, integration of algorithms and experi- mental analysis framework,”J. Mult. Valued Logic Soft Comput, vol. 17, pp. 255–287, 2015. Hang Lvreceived the BS degree in computer sci...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.