REVIEW 1 cited by
Deep Clustering Evaluation: How to Validate Internal Clustering Validation Measures
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
read the original abstract
Deep clustering, a method for partitioning complex, high-dimensional data using deep neural networks, presents unique evaluation challenges. Traditional clustering validation measures, designed for low-dimensional spaces, are problematic for deep clustering, which involves projecting data into lower-dimensional embeddings before partitioning. Two key issues are identified: 1) the curse of dimensionality when applying these measures to raw data, and 2) the unreliable comparison of clustering results across different embedding spaces stemming from variations in training procedures and parameter settings in different clustering models. This paper addresses these challenges in evaluating clustering quality in deep learning. We present a theoretical framework to highlight ineffectiveness arising from using internal validation measures on raw and embedded data and propose a systematic approach to applying clustering validity indices in deep clustering contexts. Experiments show that this framework aligns better with external validation measures, effectively reducing the misguidance from the improper use of clustering validity indices in deep learning.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Evaluating Loss Functions for Graph Neural Networks: Towards Pretraining and Generalization
A benchmark of 7 GNNs and 30 losses on 3 graphs claims hybrid losses and GIN rank best on average, but a central summary table contradicts the paper's full results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.