We investigate the extent to which clustering algorithms are robust to the addition of a small, potentially adversarial, set of points. Our analysis reveals radical differences in the robustness of popular clustering methods. k-means and several related techniques are robust when data is clusterable, and we provide a quantitative analysis capturing the precise relationship between clusterability and robustness. In contrast, common linkage-based algorithms and several standard objective-function-based clustering methods can be highly sensitive to the addition of a small set of points even when the data is highly clusterable. We call such sets of points oligarchies. Lastly, we show that the behavior with respect to oligarchies of the popular Lloyd’s method changes radically with the initialization technique.

One important challenge of current search engines is to satisfy the users' needs when they provide a poorly formulated query. When the pages matching the user's original keywords are judged to be unsatisfactory, query recommendation techniques are used to propose alternative queries and alter the result set. These techniques search for queries that are semantically similar to the user's original query, often searching for keywords that are similar to the keywords given by the user. However, when the original query is sufficiently ill-posed, the user's informational need is best met using entirely different keywords, and a substantially different query may be necessary.

We investigate a natural generalization of the classical clustering problem, considering clustering tasks in which different instances may have different weights. We conduct the first extensive theoretical analysis on the influence of weighted data on standard clustering algorithms in both the partitional and hierarchical settings, characterizing the conditions under which algorithms react to weights. Extending a recent framework for clustering algorithm selection, we propose intuitive properties that would allow users to choose between clustering algorithms in the weighted setting and classify algorithms accordingly.

Clustering is a basic data mining task with a wide variety of applications. Not surprisingly, there exist many clustering algorithms. However, clustering is an ill defined problem - given a data set, it is not clear what a “correct” clustering for that set is. Indeed, different algorithms may yield dramatically different outputs for the same input sets. Faced with a concrete clustering task, a user needs to choose an appropriate clustering algorithm. Currently, such decisions are often made in a very ad hoc, if not completely random, manner. Given the crucial effect of the choice of a clustering algorithm on the resulting clustering, this state of affairs is truly regrettable. In this paper we address the major research challenge of developing tools for helping users make more informed decisions when they come to pick a clustering tool for their data. This is, of course, a very ambitious endeavor, and in this paper, we make some first steps towards this goal. We propose to address this problem by distilling abstract properties of the input-output behavior of different clustering paradigms. In this paper, we demonstrate how abstract, intuitive properties of clustering functions can be used to taxonomize a set of popular clustering algorithmic paradigms. On top of addressing deterministic clustering algorithms, we also propose similar properties for randomized algorithms and use them to highlight functional differences between different common implementations of k-means clustering. We also study relationships between the properties, independent of any particular algorithm. In particular, we strengthen Kleinbergs famous impossibility result, while providing a simpler proof.