Deep Clustering Evaluation: How to Validate Internal Clustering Validation Measures
Read the original on arXiv Statistics ML →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Statistics ML.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Statistics ML.
The paper examines whether Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) truly overcomes the fundamental limitations of k‑means clustering, such as handling clusters of arbitrary shapes, varied sizes, and densities. Through analysis, it finds that DEC does not exploit the underlying data distribution and therefore fails to address these limitations. Instead, a non‑deep learning approach that leverages distributional information of clusters can achieve the intended goals of deep clustering.
arXiv:2608. 00346v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Data imbalance poses a major challenge in supervised classification, where the majority-class bias contributes to false negatives and overestimates classification accuracy.
arXiv:2604. 07085v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In electronic health records (EHRs), clustering patients and distinguishing disease subtypes are key tasks to elucidate pathophysiology and aid clinical decision-making.
arXiv:2509. 25289v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Identifying an effective clustering algorithm for a given dataset remains a fundamental unsupervised learning issue.
arXiv:2608.23182v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present a comparative study of label-free metrics for assessing the quality of representations in deep neural networks to understand their reliabi...
arXiv:2607. 06887v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most self-supervised image clustering models, actually almost all deep learning approaches, are based on gradient descent: In order to calculate the loss, every optimization step requires a clearly defined target, whether a contrastive split, a masked patch or entity, an EMA-teacher output, a pseudo-label, or a differentiable information-theoretic functional.