Selecting the Number of Clusters KK with a Stability Trade-off: an Internal Validation Criterion

Model selection is a major challenge in non-parametric clustering. There is no universally admitted way to evaluate clustering results for the obvious reason that there is no ground truth against which results could be tested, as in supervised learning. The difficulty to find a universal evaluation criterion is a direct consequence of the fundamentally ill-defined objective of clustering. In this perspective, clustering stability has emerged as a natural and model-agnostic principle: an algorithm should find stable structures in the data. If data sets are repeatedly sampled from the same underlying distribution, an algorithm should find similar partitions. However, it turns out that stability alone is not a well-suited tool to determine the number of clusters. For instance, it is unable to detect if the number of clusters is too small. We propose a new principle for clustering validation: a good clustering should be stable, and within each cluster, there should exist no stable partition. This principle leads to a novel internal clustering validity criterion based on between-cluster and within-cluster stability, overcoming limitations of previous stability-based methods. We empirically show the superior ability of additive noise to discover structures, compared with sampling-based perturbation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method for selecting the number of clusters through a large number of experiments and compare it with existing evaluation methods.Comment: 43 page

Benchmarking in cluster analysis: A white paper

To achieve scientific progress in terms of building a cumulative body of knowledge, careful attention to benchmarking is of the utmost importance. This means that proposals of new methods of data pre-processing, new data-analytic techniques, and new methods of output post-processing, should be extensively and carefully compared with existing alternatives, and that existing methods should be subjected to neutral comparison studies. To date, benchmarking and recommendations for benchmarking have been frequently seen in the context of supervised learning. Unfortunately, there has been a dearth of guidelines for benchmarking in an unsupervised setting, with the area of clustering as an important subdomain. To address this problem, discussion is given to the theoretical conceptual underpinnings of benchmarking in the field of cluster analysis by means of simulated as well as empirical data. Subsequently, the practicalities of how to address benchmarking questions in clustering are dealt with, and foundational recommendations are made

Integrating Articulatory Features into HMM-based Parametric Speech Synthesis

This paper presents an investigation of ways to integrate articulatory features into Hidden Markov Model (HMM)-based parametric speech synthesis, primarily with the aim of improving the performance of acoustic parameter generation. The joint distribution of acoustic and articulatory features is estimated during training and is then used for parameter generation at synthesis time in conjunction with a maximum-likelihood criterion. Different model structures are explored to allow the articulatory features to influence acoustic modeling: model clustering, state synchrony and cross-stream feature dependency. The results of objective evaluation show that the accuracy of acoustic parameter prediction can be improved when shared clustering and asynchronous-state model structures are adopted for combined acoustic and articulatory features. More significantly, our experiments demonstrate that modeling the dependency between these two feature streams can make speech synthesis more flexible. The characteristics of synthetic speech can be easily controlled by modifying generated articulatory features as part of the process of acoustic parameter generation

Clustering as an example of optimizing arbitrarily chosen objective functions

This paper is a reflection upon a common practice of solving various types of learning problems by optimizing arbitrarily chosen criteria in the hope that they are well correlated with the criterion actually used for assessment of the results. This issue has been investigated using clustering as an example, hence a unified view of clustering as an optimization problem is first proposed, stemming from the belief that typical design choices in clustering, like the number of clusters or similarity measure can be, and often are suboptimal, also from the point of view of clustering quality measures later used for algorithm comparison and ranking. In order to illustrate our point we propose a generalized clustering framework and provide a proof-of-concept using standard benchmark datasets and two popular clustering methods for comparison

Evidence Transfer for Improving Clustering Tasks Using External Categorical Evidence

In this paper we introduce evidence transfer for clustering, a deep learning method that can incrementally manipulate the latent representations of an autoencoder, according to external categorical evidence, in order to improve a clustering outcome. By evidence transfer we define the process by which the categorical outcome of an external, auxiliary task is exploited to improve a primary task, in this case representation learning for clustering. Our proposed method makes no assumptions regarding the categorical evidence presented, nor the structure of the latent space. We compare our method, against the baseline solution by performing k-means clustering before and after its deployment. Experiments with three different kinds of evidence show that our method effectively manipulates the latent representations when introduced with real corresponding evidence, while remaining robust when presented with low quality evidence