Comparing hard and overlapping clusterings

Similarity measures for comparing clusterings is an important component, e.g., of evaluating clustering algorithms, for consensus clustering, and for clustering stability assessment. These measures have been studied for over 40 years in the domain of exclusive hard clusterings (exhaustive and mutually exclusive object sets). In the past years, the literature has proposed measures to handle more general clusterings (e.g., fuzzy/probabilistic clusterings). This paper provides an overview of these new measures and discusses their drawbacks. We ultimately develop a corrected-for-chance measure (13AGRI) capable of comparing exclusive hard, fuzzy/probabilistic, non-exclusive hard, and possibilistic clusterings. We prove that 13AGRI and the adjusted Rand index (ARI, by Hubert and Arabie) are equivalent in the exclusive hard domain. The reported experiments show that only 13AGRI could provide both a fine-grained evaluation across clusterings with different numbers of clusters and a constant evaluation between random clusterings, showing all the four desirable properties considered here. We identified a high correlation between 13AGRI applied to fuzzy clusterings and ARI applied to hard exclusive clusterings over 14 real data sets from the UCI repository, which corroborates the validity of 13AGRI fuzzy clustering evaluation. 13AGRI also showed good results as a clustering stability statistic for solutions produced by the expectation maximization algorithm for Gaussian mixture

Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale

Notions of community quality underlie network clustering. While studies surrounding network clustering are increasingly common, a precise understanding of the realtionship between different cluster quality metrics is unknown. In this paper, we examine the relationship between stand-alone cluster quality metrics and information recovery metrics through a rigorous analysis of four widely-used network clustering algorithms -- Louvain, Infomap, label propagation, and smart local moving. We consider the stand-alone quality metrics of modularity, conductance, and coverage, and we consider the information recovery metrics of adjusted Rand score, normalized mutual information, and a variant of normalized mutual information used in previous work. Our study includes both synthetic graphs and empirical data sets of sizes varying from 1,000 to 1,000,000 nodes. We find significant differences among the results of the different cluster quality metrics. For example, clustering algorithms can return a value of 0.4 out of 1 on modularity but score 0 out of 1 on information recovery. We find conductance, though imperfect, to be the stand-alone quality metric that best indicates performance on information recovery metrics. Our study shows that the variant of normalized mutual information used in previous work cannot be assumed to differ only slightly from traditional normalized mutual information. Smart local moving is the best performing algorithm in our study, but discrepancies between cluster evaluation metrics prevent us from declaring it absolutely superior. Louvain performed better than Infomap in nearly all the tests in our study, contradicting the results of previous work in which Infomap was superior to Louvain. We find that although label propagation performs poorly when clusters are less clearly defined, it scales efficiently and accurately to large graphs with well-defined clusters

Axioms for graph clustering quality functions

We investigate properties that intuitively ought to be satisfied by graph clustering quality functions, that is, functions that assign a score to a clustering of a graph. Graph clustering, also known as network community detection, is often performed by optimizing such a function. Two axioms tailored for graph clustering quality functions are introduced, and the four axioms introduced in previous work on distance based clustering are reformulated and generalized for the graph setting. We show that modularity, a standard quality function for graph clustering, does not satisfy all of these six properties. This motivates the derivation of a new family of quality functions, adaptive scale modularity, which does satisfy the proposed axioms. Adaptive scale modularity has two parameters, which give greater flexibility in the kinds of clusterings that can be found. Standard graph clustering quality functions, such as normalized cut and unnormalized cut, are obtained as special cases of adaptive scale modularity. In general, the results of our investigation indicate that the considered axiomatic framework covers existing `good' quality functions for graph clustering, and can be used to derive an interesting new family of quality functions.Comment: 23 pages. Full text and sources available on: http://www.cs.ru.nl/~T.vanLaarhoven/graph-clustering-axioms-2014