Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Pruning nearest neighbor cluster trees

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1105.0540 v2 pith:W4UBUH3S submitted 2011-05-03 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords clustercontributiondistributionfinitefirstguaranteek-nnnearest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Nearest neighbor (k-NN) graphs are widely used in machine learning and data mining applications, and our aim is to better understand what they reveal about the cluster structure of the unknown underlying distribution of points. Moreover, is it possible to identify spurious structures that might arise due to sampling variability? Our first contribution is a statistical analysis that reveals how certain subgraphs of a k-NN graph form a consistent estimator of the cluster tree of the underlying distribution of points. Our second and perhaps most important contribution is the following finite sample guarantee. We carefully work out the tradeoff between aggressive and conservative pruning and are able to guarantee the removal of all spurious cluster structures at all levels of the tree while at the same time guaranteeing the recovery of salient clusters. This is the first such finite sample result in the context of clustering.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Persistent Multiscale Density-based Clustering

    cs.LG 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PLSCAN automatically selects the minimum cluster size in HDBSCAN* by ranking leaf clusters by persistence across all sizes, achieving higher average ARI (0.72 vs 0.58) and lower sensitivity to k on 17 benchmark datasets.

Pith tools