Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Density-aware Hierarchical Clustering Based on Element-Categorized Connection Subgraphs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A density-aware hierarchical clustering method computes inter-cluster similarity from element-categorized KNN connection subgraphs, and reports NMI above 0.95 on all ten synthetic benchmarks and a roughly constant stopping threshold near…

desk verdict A genuinely new Chameleon-style similarity metric, but the 'intrinsic threshold' is an in-sample average of per-dataset tuned values, and Table 1 has internal inconsistencies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06990 v1 pith:LTTK57QR submitted 2026-08-07 cs.LG cs.AI

Yuning Yu , José Rodríguez-Piñeiro , Xuefeng Yin , Bin Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords hierarchicalclusteringdensity-basedgraphK-nearestneighborselement-categorizedconnectionsubgraphinter-clustersimilarityintrinsicthresholdlow-dimensionaldata
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 hierarchical clustering can make merge decisions from the narrow graph region where two sub-clusters touch, rather than from raw point-to-point distances. The proposed DHC-ECS method builds, for every neighboring pair of sub-clusters, a KNN connection subgraph, labels its vertices and edges as linkage or internal, and scores the pair with a similarity that combines how compact, how similar, and how density-matched the linkage is. On ten synthetic low-dimensional datasets with convex and non-convex shapes and uniform and non-uniform densities, the paper reports NMI above 0.95 in every case and overall better or comparable agreement with the given labels than the baselines it compares against. It also reports that the single stopping threshold $T_s$ clusters near 0.38 across the datasets, and treats this as empirical evidence for an intrinsic, dataset-independent threshold. If these claims hold, clustering heterogeneous low-dimensional data would need substantially less manual parameter tuning.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the element-categorized KNN connection subgraph (ECS). For two sub-clusters, it is built from the boundary points whose KNN sets reach the other cluster, their crossing edges, and the neighboring non-crossing vertices and edges; these are labeled linkage points/edges and internal points/edges. Four summary statistics—LC, LS, DS, CV—are read off the labeling and combined in Eq. (15), so the similarity between clusters inherits density and structural information that pure distances miss.

What would settle it

Run the published algorithm on the same ten datasets with the stopping threshold fixed at 0.38 and the paper's other reported settings, then compare the resulting NMI with the tuned results; if several datasets fall clearly below the reported values, the near-constant threshold is a fitting artifact rather than an intrinsic property. A complementary check holds out the labels: choose the threshold on one subset of datasets and evaluate on the rest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the right unit for measuring inter-cluster similarity in hierarchical clustering is not the distance between point sets but the labeled boundary graph between them. Concretely, the paper defines, for each pair of neighboring sub-clusters $C_i,C_j$, a KNN connection subgraph whose vertices and edges are split into linkage elements (those that cross the boundary) and internal elements (those that only touch it). From those four sets it builds the score $$S_{i,j}=\frac{2\,\mathrm{LC}}{(|\mathrm{LS}-1|+1)^{\$\alpha$}(|\mathrm{DS}-1|+1)^{\$\alpha$}},$$ where LC is the ratio of total linkage-edge weight to total internal-edge weight, LS compares average linkage-edge weight with average internal-edge weight, DS compares the average kernel density at linkage points with that at internal points, and $\alpha=e^{-r\,\mathrm{CV}}$ softens both penalties when edge-weight variation is high. The paper claims that, on ten synthetic low-dimensional benchmarks, this single score keeps every dataset above 0.95 NMI and that the merging threshold $T_s$ stays near 0.38, which it reads as evidence for an intrinsic stopping threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported stopping thresholds are samples of one intrinsic constant near 0.38, rather than values tuned separately for each dataset to maximize the evaluation scores; if the thresholds are merely fitted stopping parameters, the intrinsic-threshold claim collapses even if the clustering accuracy itself is real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the paper's evidence, the same core settings (neighborhood size 10, preliminary cluster count around sqrt(N), and stopping threshold near 0.38) transfer across datasets with different shapes and densities, so users would not need a per-dataset search over the stopping threshold.
  • The method would let hierarchical clustering handle clusters with non-convex shapes, non-uniform density, and unbalanced sizes in one framework, instead of switching to a separate density or graph algorithm.
  • Because the second stage evaluates only cluster pairs connected through the element-categorized subgraph, the dominant cost remains the initial agglomerative merge; speeding up that stage with a priority queue would directly speed up the whole algorithm.
  • If the near-constant threshold is confirmed, the debate over parameter-free clustering shifts from zero parameters to one structural parameter with a natural value, letting the hierarchy be cut at a meaningful place rather than at an arbitrary cluster count.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the intrinsic-threshold claim would be to freeze the threshold at 0.38 and apply the method to new low-dimensional datasets with known labels, reporting the scores without any per-dataset tuning; the paper stops short of this out-of-sample validation.
  • The formula's symmetric dependence on LS and DS treats deviations above and below 1 identically, so a natural extension would test asymmetric penalties when one sub-cluster is systematically denser than the other.
  • Because the first stage uses geodesic distances while the second stage uses KNN graph edges, varying the neighborhood size K and watching whether the near-constant threshold shifts would show whether the threshold is a property of the similarity metric or of the benchmark datasets.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DHC-ECS, a two-stage agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm for low-dimensional data. In the first stage, points are greedily merged by average distance until T_n sub-clusters remain; in the second stage, KNN connection subgraphs around inter-cluster link points are constructed and their vertices and edges are categorized into linkage/internal types. A new inter-cluster similarity score S_{i,j} (Eq. 15) is then formed from link compactness (LC), link similarity (LS), density similarity (DS), and the coefficient of variation (CV) of linkage-edge weights. The method is evaluated on ten synthetic datasets against four baseline families and is reported to achieve NMI above 0.95 on all ten datasets. The authors further claim that the stopping threshold T_s averages about 0.38 with moderate variation, suggesting a possible intrinsic, dataset-independent threshold.

Significance. If validated, the ECS-based similarity metric would be a genuinely useful contribution to hierarchical/density/graph clustering for low-dimensional data, and the intrinsic-threshold hypothesis is an interesting direction. The paper provides a clear algorithm pseudocode, a public code repository, and results on standard synthetic benchmarks, which are strengths. However, the headline contribution (3) about an intrinsic threshold currently rests on per-dataset fitted T_s values rather than a validated out-of-sample prediction, and several aspects of the evaluation protocol are underspecified. These issues are fixable through additional experiments and clearer reporting, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2, contribution (3)] The intrinsic-threshold claim is not supported by the evidence presented. Table 2 lists a different T_s for nearly every dataset, ranging from 0.14 to 0.55, so the mean value 0.38 is an in-sample summary of per-dataset fitted parameters, not a demonstrated dataset-independent threshold. The paper itself concedes 'the thresholds still exhibit dataset-dependent variations'. In addition, the statement in §4.1 point (4) that only T_s varies is inaccurate: K also differs for Spiral (K=8) and Compound (K=7), and Compound requires an extra stopping condition T_n,final = 0.95√N not used elsewhere. Please provide an out-of-sample or fixed-threshold test, for example re-running all datasets with T_s = 0.38 and K = 10, or showing NMI/ARI as a function of T_s around 0.38 for each dataset, to demonstrate that a single threshold transfers.
  2. [Eq. (15)–(19), §4.1] The scale dependence of S_{i,j} undermines the intrinsic-threshold argument. Since W(e) = 1/(d+1), the similarity score is not invariant under coordinate scaling because of the '+1' in the denominator, and the paper reports no normalization of the datasets or analysis of their distance scales. Without such normalization or an explicit demonstration that all ten datasets share compatible distance scales, T_s ≈ 0.38 may simply reflect the common scale of the selected 2D benchmarks. Please either standardize each dataset, provide a scale-invariance analysis of Eq. (15), or report the distance-scale statistics of the datasets.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The comparison protocol is underspecified and potentially outcome-dependent. The sentence 'the Euclidean distance or the geodesic distance is adopted for all baseline algorithms other than G-RMS, depending on the dataset features and clustering performance' does not state which distance was used for which dataset or how 'clustering performance' entered the choice. If the distance yielding the best index was selected per baseline, the comparison is not neutral. Please list the exact distance used for each dataset and each baseline and justify the choice independently of the reported indices.
  4. [§4.1, Table 1 and Table 2] The evaluation protocol lacks a description of how K and T_s were tuned. The paper reports single scores per dataset and method, with no repeated trials, confidence intervals, or parameter-search grids. Since the proposed algorithm is deterministic, error bars are not strictly required, but the paper's robustness claim depends on knowing how the reported parameter values were selected (for example, whether T_s was chosen to maximize NMI/ARI). Please state the search space, objective, and number of configurations tried, and report variability if the baseline algorithms have any stochastic components.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The rows labeled 'min', 'max', 'cen', 'mean' are apparently the traditional single-linkage, complete-linkage, centroid, and average-linkage baselines, but the table has no header and the text never defines these abbreviations; rename them or add a group header so readers do not mistake them for aggregate statistics.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The displayed formula in Eq. (15) is difficult to parse because multiplication signs and some parentheses are missing; please typeset it as S_{i,j} = 2 * LC * (1/((|LS-1|+1)^alpha)) * (1/((|DS-1|+1)^alpha)) or equivalent.
  3. [References] References [8] and [25] are the same paper (Guo, Zhao, and Liu, 2019) and should be merged or cross-referenced.
  4. [§4.2] The complexity claim that a priority-queue implementation reduces the first stage to O(N^2 log N) is only referenced to [36] and is not accompanied by runtime experiments; please either provide a short derivation or move the practical-competitiveness statement to future work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Intrinsic-threshold evidence reduces to averaging per-dataset fitted T_s values; the clustering algorithm itself is benchmarked independently.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Table 2; contribution (3) in Section 1.4]
    "...although these datasets exhibit distinct features, the parameter applied to all the datasets are quite similar as shown in Table 2, except the threshold of similarity for stop condition (the mean value of 𝑇s is around 0.38 and the variation is moderate)... To summarize, these results provide empirical evidence for the existence of intrinsic thresholds."

    T_s is an input stopping parameter of Algorithm 1, and Table 2 lists a different T_s per dataset (0.38, 0.55, 0.23, 0.42, 0.14, 0.38, 0.38, 0.38, 0.43, 0.51). The claimed intrinsic threshold of about 0.38 is exactly the average of these fitted values; there is no fixed-threshold or out-of-sample experiment showing transfer. Hence the 'empirical evidence for intrinsic thresholds' reduces to a descriptive summary of the tuned parameter itself, i.e., a fitted input is relabeled as a discovered invariant. Compound needing an extra T_n,final=0.95√N further confirms the stopping rule is dataset-specific.

full rationale

Clustering-accuracy claims (NMI>0.95, etc.) are benchmarked against ground-truth labels and compared with external baselines, so the proposed similarity metric itself is not circular: the metric is defined from graph/density quantities and its performance is falsifiable on independent datasets. The circular part is narrower. Contribution (3), 'intrinsic threshold', is supported only by Table 2, where T_s is chosen per dataset (values 0.14-0.55), and Section 4.1 then averages those choices to ~0.38 and calls this evidence for a dataset-independent threshold. Because T_s is the algorithm's stopping threshold—an input that directly controls the number of clusters—reporting its per-dataset tuned values and averaging them does not demonstrate an intrinsic constant; no fixed-threshold experiment or out-of-sample test is provided. Compound's additional final threshold T_n,final=0.95√N further violates the claimed universality. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked, so the rest of the derivation chain is independent. Overall circularity score reflects that the central clustering result is self-contained but the intrinsic-threshold contribution reduces by construction to a summary of fitted parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The algorithm rests on several hand-chosen parameters (K, T_s, T_n, r) and on domain assumptions about the adequacy of KNN graphs and kernel density estimates. The most significant free parameter is T_s, because the intrinsic-threshold claim is derived entirely from tuned T_s values. The ECS representation is an invented construct without independent external evidence, though it is a reasonable algorithmic idea rather than a physical entity.

free parameters (5)
  • K (number of nearest neighbors) = per dataset, 7 to 10
    Controls the KNN graph and the connection subgraph structure; Table 2 sets K=8 for Spiral, K=7 for Compound, and K=10 for all other datasets.
  • T_s (similarity stop threshold) = per dataset, 0.14 to 0.55
    Stopping condition in the second stage; tuned per dataset and then averaged to claim an intrinsic threshold near 0.38.
  • T_n (sub-cluster count after stage one) = sqrt(N), except Compound uses an additional 0.95*sqrt(N) final threshold
    Determines how many sub-clusters remain before the refined merging stage; chosen by a heuristic from the literature.
  • r (CV influence exponent) = 3
    Controls the influence of the coefficient of variation on the adaptive exponent alpha in Eq. (19); fixed by hand with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Distance metric choice = geodesic for synthetic datasets; Euclidean or geodesic for baselines chosen per dataset
    The paper states that geodesic distance is used for synthetic datasets and that baselines receive Euclidean or geodesic distance depending on dataset features and clustering performance, which is a per-dataset selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The KNN graph with a fixed small K preserves the true cluster structure of the data.
    All similarity calculations depend on the KNN graph defined in Eq. (9)-(10); if K is too small or too large, the connection subgraphs may misrepresent cluster boundaries.
  • ad hoc to paper The element categorization into linkage points, internal points, linkage edges, and internal edges captures the meaningful structure of the connection region.
    Defined in Section 3 after Eq. (14); no independent evidence is given that this particular categorization is the right one for merging decisions.
  • ad hoc to paper The multiplicative combination of LC, LS, DS, and CV in Eq. (15) is a valid and sufficient merge criterion.
    The formula is introduced directly as the similarity metric without derivation from first principles or from an optimization objective.
  • domain assumption Kernel density D(x) = sum over KNN of exp(-dist(x,y)) is an appropriate local density estimator.
    Used in Eq. (18) to compute density similarity; the choice of exponential kernel and unit bandwidth is not justified by the data.
  • ad hoc to paper An intrinsic dataset-independent clustering threshold exists.
    Posited in Section 1.3 and supported only by the observation that tuned T_s values are moderately clustered; this is an assumption, not a proven property.
invented entities (2)
  • Element-categorized connection subgraph (ECS)
    purpose: A graph-theoretic representation of the region connecting two sub-clusters, with vertices and edges explicitly labeled as linkage or internal.
    The ECS is a computational construct introduced in this paper. Its usefulness is evidenced only by the in-paper experiments; there is no external falsifiable prediction tied to the construct itself.
  • Intrinsic threshold
    purpose: A hypothesized dataset-independent similarity threshold that determines cluster membership under a given evaluation criterion.
    The paper introduces this as a conceptual possibility and uses the spread of tuned T_s values as evidence. No independent datasets or predictions are used to validate the existence of such a threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density-aware Hierarchical Clustering Based on Element-Categorized Connection Subgraphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTTK57QR

@misc{pith2026260806990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density-aware Hierarchical Clustering Based on Element-Categorized Connection Subgraphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTTK57QR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06990}
}
read the original abstract

Clustering is a fundamental data mining technique for pattern recognition through unsupervised learning. Among various clustering methods, hierarchical clustering, density-based clustering, and graph clustering stand out as representative approaches. For hierarchical clustering, it can be categorized into agglomerative and divisive modes to construct clusters in a recursive manner. The key aspect of both modes is the calculation of inter-cluster similarity, which determines whether to merge the sub-clusters into one cluster or divide a current cluster into sub-clusters. Traditionally, the similarity is derived from pairwise distances, often overlooking density variations and structural connectivity in graphs. To address this, we propose a density-aware hierarchical clustering method based on element-categorized connection subgraphs (DHC-ECS), which effectively integrates the hierarchical clustering, density-based clustering, and graph clustering. Particularly, a novel inter-cluster similarity metric is introduced that considers not only distances but also the element categorization in the KNN connection subgraphs, kernel density estimation, and local connectivity within sub-clusters. Extensive evaluations on heterogeneous benchmark datasets demonstrate that DHC-ECS exhibits superior overall performance in terms of clustering accuracy and parameter robustness compared with the baseline methods (including AChameleon, RNN-DBSCAN, McDPC, and G-RMS). The work indicates the great potential of the proposed clustering algorithm for low-dimensional datasets by leveraging local density and graph-structured connectivity (i.e., the duality of vertices and edges), as well as the possibility to determine an intrinsic threshold, reducing the reliance on manual parameter tuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Utilizable intrinsic features of clusters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of KNN connection subgraph and categorization of vertices and edges (k=4). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Clustering results on synthetic datasets (The points that are wrongly categorized are circled in black). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    RNN-DBSCAN: A density-based clustering algorithm using reverse nearest neighbor density estimates.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(6):1109–1121, 2018

    Avory Bryant and Krzysztof Cios. RNN-DBSCAN: A density-based clustering algorithm using reverse nearest neighbor density estimates.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(6):1109–1121, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2017.2787640

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Sarasvady

    Kamran Khan, Saif Ur Rehman, Kamran Aziz, Simon Fong, and S. Sarasvady. DBSCAN: Past, present and future. In The Fifth International Conference on the Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies (ICADIWT 2014), pages 232–238, 2014. doi: 10.1109/ICADIWT.2014.6814687

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    CURE: An efficient clustering algorithm for large databases.ACM Sigmod record, 27(2):73–84, 1998

    Sudipto Guha, Rajeev Rastogi, and Kyuseok Shim. CURE: An efficient clustering algorithm for large databases.ACM Sigmod record, 27(2):73–84, 1998. doi: 10.1145/276305.276312

    work page arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    ROCK: A robust clustering algorithm for categorical attributes

    Sudipto Guha, Rajeev Rastogi, and Kyuseok Shim. ROCK: A robust clustering algorithm for categorical attributes. Information systems, 25(5):345–366, 2000. doi: 10.1109/ICDE.1999.754967

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Chameleon: Hierarchical clustering using dynamic modeling

    George Karypis, Eui-Hong Han, and Vipin Kumar. Chameleon: Hierarchical clustering using dynamic modeling. computer, 32(8):68–75, 1999. doi: 10.1109/2.781637

    work page doi:10.1109/2.781637 1999

  6. [6]

    Reza Asharif, Yulwan Sung, and Seiji Ogawa

    Zahra Nazari, Dongshik Kang, M. Reza Asharif, Yulwan Sung, and Seiji Ogawa. A new hierarchical clustering algorithm. In2015 International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS), pages 148–152, 2015. doi: 10.1109/ICIIBMS.2015.7439517

    work page arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    A new hierarchical clustering algorithm with intersection points

    Zahra Nazari and Dongshik Kang. A new hierarchical clustering algorithm with intersection points. In2018 5th IEEE Uttar Pradesh Section International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (UPCON), pages 1–5,

    work page

  8. [9]

    An optimized CHAMELEON algorithm based on local features

    Xiaoxiao Cao, Tianyun Su, Pengyu Wang, Guoyu Wang, Zhihan Lv, and Xinfang Li. An optimized CHAMELEON algorithm based on local features. InProceedings of the 2018 10th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computing, pages 184–192, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [10]

    Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise

    Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Jörg Sander, and Xiaowei Xu. Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise. InInt. Conf. knowledge discovery and data mining, volume 240, 1996

    1996

  2. [11]

    Clustering by fast search and find of density peaks.science, 344(6191):1492–1496, 2014

    Alex Rodriguez and Alessandro Laio. Clustering by fast search and find of density peaks.science, 344(6191):1492–1496, 2014

    2014

  3. [12]

    Hybrid clustering algorithm based on improved density peak clustering

    Limin Guo, Weijia Qin, Zhi Cai, and Xing Su. Hybrid clustering algorithm based on improved density peak clustering. Applied Sciences, 14(2):715, 2024

    2024

  4. [13]

    Mean shift analysis and applications

    Dorin Comaniciu and Peter Meer. Mean shift analysis and applications. InProceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on computer vision, volume 2, pages 1197–1203. IEEE, 1999

    1999

  5. [14]

    Hierarchical density estimates for data clustering, visualization, and outlier detection.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 10(1): 1–51, 2015

    Ricardo JGB Campello, Davoud Moulavi, Arthur Zimek, and Jörg Sander. Hierarchical density estimates for data clustering, visualization, and outlier detection.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 10(1): 1–51, 2015

    2015

  6. [15]

    DenPEHC: Density peak based efficient hierarchical clustering.Information Sciences, 373:200–218, 2016

    Ji Xu, Guoyin Wang, and Weihui Deng. DenPEHC: Density peak based efficient hierarchical clustering.Information Sciences, 373:200–218, 2016

    2016

  7. [16]

    Efficient computation and visualization of multiple density-based clustering hierarchies.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33(8):3075–3089, 2019

    Antonio Cavalcante Araujo Neto, Jörg Sander, Ricardo JGB Campello, and Mario A Nascimento. Efficient computation and visualization of multiple density-based clustering hierarchies.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33(8):3075–3089, 2019

    2019

  8. [17]

    Hierarchical clustering that takes advantage of both density-peak and density-connectivity.Information Systems, 103:101871, 2022

    Ye Zhu, Kai Ming Ting, Yuan Jin, and Maia Angelova. Hierarchical clustering that takes advantage of both density-peak and density-connectivity.Information Systems, 103:101871, 2022

    2022

  9. [18]

    Fast sparse representative tree splitting via local density for large-scale clustering.Scientific Reports, 15(1):29398, 2025

    Renmin Wang and Jie Li. Fast sparse representative tree splitting via local density for large-scale clustering.Scientific Reports, 15(1):29398, 2025

    2025

  10. [19]

    Graph clustering with local density-cut

    Junming Shao, Qinli Yang, Zhong Zhang, Jinhu Liu, and Stefan Kramer. Graph clustering with local density-cut. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 187–202. Springer, 2018

    2018

  11. [20]

    ADPSCAN: Structural graph clustering with adaptive density peak selection and noise re-clustering.Applied Sciences, 14(15):6660, 2024

    Xinyu Du, Fangfang Li, Xiaohua Li, and Ge Yu. ADPSCAN: Structural graph clustering with adaptive density peak selection and noise re-clustering.Applied Sciences, 14(15):6660, 2024

    2024

  12. [21]

    DSets-DBSCAN: A parameter-free clustering algorithm.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(7):3182–3193, 2016

    Jian Hou, Huijun Gao, and Xuelong Li. DSets-DBSCAN: A parameter-free clustering algorithm.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(7):3182–3193, 2016

    2016

  13. [22]

    Multiview clustering: A scalable and parameter-free bipartite graph fusion method.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):330–344, 2020

    Xuelong Li, Han Zhang, Rong Wang, and Feiping Nie. Multiview clustering: A scalable and parameter-free bipartite graph fusion method.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):330–344, 2020

    2020

  14. [23]

    K*-means: A parameter-free clustering algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11904, 2025

    Louis Mahon and Mirella Lapata. K*-means: A parameter-free clustering algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11904, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Ruspini, James C

    Enrique H. Ruspini, James C. Bezdek, and James M. Keller. Fuzzy clustering: A historical perspective.IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 14(1):45–55, 2019. doi: 10.1109/MCI.2018.2881643. Graph-based Density-aware Hierarchical Clustering 17

    2019

  16. [25]

    Research and application of improved CHAMELEON algorithm based on condensed hierarchical clustering method

    Dongwei Guo, Jingjing Zhao, and Jici Liu. Research and application of improved CHAMELEON algorithm based on condensed hierarchical clustering method. InProceedings of the 2019 8th international conference on networks, communication and computing, pages 14–18, 2019

    2019

  17. [26]

    Chameleon 2: an improved graph-based clustering algorithm.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 13(1):1–27, 2019

    Tomas Barton, Tomas Bruna, and Pavel Kordik. Chameleon 2: an improved graph-based clustering algorithm.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 13(1):1–27, 2019

    2019

  18. [27]

    Data partitioning in hierarchical clustering: A parameter-insensitive approach.International Information Institute (Tokyo)

    Kyo-Sung Jeong, Seok-Ho Yoon, Suk-Soon Song, Sang-Chul Lee, Minsoo Ryu, Sang-Wook Kim, and Byung-Soo Jeong. Data partitioning in hierarchical clustering: A parameter-insensitive approach.International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 16(10):7699, 2013

    2013

  19. [28]

    Chameleon2++: An efficient and scalable variant of chameleon clustering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02612, 2025

    Priyanshu Singh and Kapil Ahuja. Chameleon2++: An efficient and scalable variant of chameleon clustering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02612, 2025

    2025

  20. [29]

    K-means properties on six clustering benchmark datasets, 2018

    Pasi Fränti and Sami Sieranoja. K-means properties on six clustering benchmark datasets, 2018. URL http://cs.uef.fi/ sipu/datasets/

    2018

  21. [30]

    McDPC: multi-center density peak clustering

    Yizhang Wang, Di Wang, Xiaofeng Zhang, Wei Pang, and You Zhou. McDPC: multi-center density peak clustering. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(17), 2020. doi: 10.1007/s00521-020-04754-5

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    A novel mean-shift algorithm for data clustering.IEEE Access, 10: 14575–14585, 2022

    Claude Cariou, Steven Le Moan, and Kacem Chehdi. A novel mean-shift algorithm for data clustering.IEEE Access, 10: 14575–14585, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3147951

    2022

  23. [32]

    Christopher D Manning.An introduction to information retrieval. 2009

    2009

  24. [33]

    Information theoretic measures for clusterings comparison: Variants, properties, normalization and correction for chance.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:2837–2854, 2010

    Nguyen Xuan Vinh, Julien Epps, and James Bailey. Information theoretic measures for clusterings comparison: Variants, properties, normalization and correction for chance.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:2837–2854, 2010

    2010

  25. [34]

    Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation

    David MW Powers. Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. Jonunal of Machine Learning Technologies, 2:2229–3981, 2011

    2011

  26. [35]

    nearest neighbor

    Kevin Beyer, Jonathan Goldstein, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Uri Shaft. When is “nearest neighbor” meaningful? In Database Theory—ICDT’99: 7th International Conference Jerusalem, Israel, January 10–12, 1999 Proceedings 7, pages 217–235. Springer, 1999

    1999

  27. [36]

    Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 2008

    Hinrich Schütze, Christopher D Manning, and Prabhakar Raghavan.Introduction to information retrieval, volume 39. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  28. [2018]

    doi: 10.1109/UPCON.2018.8596795

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.