Clustering is a widely-used data mining tool, which aims to discover partitions of similar items in data. We introduce a new clustering paradigm, accordant clustering, which enables the discovery of (predefined) group level insights. Unlike previous clustering paradigms that aim to understand relationships amongst the individual members, the goal of accordant clustering is to uncover insights at the group level through the analysis of their members. Group level insight can often support a call to action that cannot be informed through previous clustering techniques. We propose the first accordant clustering algorithm, and prove that it finds near-optimal solutions when data possesses inherent cluster structure. The insights revealed by accordant clusterings enabled experts in the field of medicine to isolate successful treatments for a neurodegenerative disease, and those in finance to discover patterns of unnecessary spending.

Clustering is a fundamental data mining tool that aims to divide data into groups of similar items. Intuition about clustering reflects the ideal case - exact data sets endowed with flawless dissimilarity between individual instances. In practice however, these cases are in the minority, and clustering applications are typically characterized by noisy data sets with approximate pairwise dissimilarities. As such, the efficacy of clustering methods necessitates robustness to perturbations. In this paper, we address foundational questions on perturbation robustness, studying to what extent can clustering techniques exhibit this desirable characteristic. Our results also demonstrate the type of cluster structures required for robustness of popular clustering paradigms.

The class of linkage-based algorithms is perhaps the most popular class of hierarchical algorithms. We identify two properties of hierarchical algorithms, and prove that linkage- based algorithms are the only ones that satisfy both of these properties. Our characterization clearly delineates the difference between linkage-based algorithms and other hierarchical methods. We formulate an intuitive notion of locality of a hierarchical algorithm that distinguishes between linkage-based and global hierarchical algorithms like bisecting $k$-means, and prove that popular divisive hierarchical algorithms produce clusterings that cannot be produced by any linkage-based algorithm.

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.

Selecting a clustering algorithm is a perplexing task. Yet since different algorithms may yield dramatically different outputs on the same data, the choice of algorithm is crucial. When selecting a clustering algorithm, users tend to focus on cost-related considerations (software purchasing costs, running times, etc). Differences concerning the output of the algorithms are not usually considered. Recently, a formal approach for selecting a clustering algorithm has been proposed [2]. The approach involves distilling abstract properties of the input-output behavior of different clustering paradigms and classifying algorithms based on these properties. In this paper, we extend the approach in [2] into the hierarchical setting. The class of linkagebased algorithms is perhaps the most popular class of hierarchical algorithms. We identify two properties of hierarchical algorithms, and prove that linkage-based algorithms are the only ones that satisfy both of these properties. Our characterization clearly delineates the difference between linkage-based algorithms and other hierarchical algorithms. We formulate an intuitive notion of locality of a hierarchical algorithm that distinguishes between linkagebased and “global ” hierarchical algorithms like bisecting k-means, and prove that popular divisive hierarchical algorithms produce clusterings that cannot be produced by any linkage-based algorithm. 1

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.

Aiming towards the development of a general clustering theory, we discuss abstract axiomatization for clustering. In this respect, we follow up on the work of Kelinberg, (Kleinberg) that showed an impossibility result for such axiomatization. We argue that an impossibility result is not an inherent feature of clustering, but rather, to a large extent, it is an artifact of the specific formalism used in Kleinberg. As opposed to previous work focusing on clustering functions, we propose to address clustering quality measures as the primitive object to be axiomatized. We show that principles like those formulated in Kleinberg's axioms can be readily expressed in the latter framework without leading to inconsistency. A clustering-quality measure is a function that, given a data set and its partition into clusters, returns a non-negative real number representing how strong' orconclusive' the clustering is. We analyze what clustering-quality measures should look like and introduce a set of requirements (`axioms') that express these requirement and extend the translation of Kleinberg's axioms to our framework. We propose several natural clustering quality measures, all satisfying the proposed axioms. In addition, we show that the proposed clustering quality can be computed in polynomial time.