The DOI matches its Crossref record.
10.1162/153244303321897735
Abstract
This paper introduces the problem of combining multiple partitionings of a set of objects into a single consolidated clustering without accessing the features or algorithms that determined these partitionings. We first identify several application scenarios for the resultant 'knowledge reuse' framework that we call cluster ensembles. The cluster ensemble problem is then formalized as a combinatorial optimization problem in terms of shared mutual information. In addition to a direct maximization approach, we propose three effective and efficient techniques for obtaining high-quality combiners (consensus functions). The first combiner induces a similarity measure from the partitionings and then reclusters the objects. The second combiner is based on hypergraph partitioning. The third one collapses groups of clusters into meta-clusters which then compete for each object to determine the combined clustering. Due to the low computational costs of our techniques, it is quite feasible to use a supra-consensus function that evaluates all three approaches against the objective function and picks the best solution for a given situation. We evaluate the effectiveness of cluster ensembles in three qualitatively different application scenarios: (i) where the original clusters were formed based on non-identical sets of features, (ii) where the original clustering algorithms worked on non-identical sets of objects, and (iii) where a common data-set is used and the main purpose of combining multiple clusterings is to improve the quality and robustness of the solution. Promising results are obtained in all three situations for synthetic as well as real data-sets.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1198/106186006x133933 · Cited by 4,021
SC3: consensus clustering of single-cell RNA-seq data
Kiselev, V. Y., Kirschner, K., Schaub, M. T., Andrews, T., Yiu, A., Chandra, T., Natarajan, K. N., Reik, W., Barahona, M., Green, A. R., et al. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4236 · Cited by 1,500
Information theoretic measures for clusterings comparison: is a correction for chance necessary?
Vinh, N. X., Epps, J., & Bailey, J. (2009) · Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.1145/1553374.1553511 · Cited by 938
l 2,1 -norm regularized discriminative feature selection for unsupervised learning
Yang, Y. P., Shen, H. T., Ma, Z., Huang, Z. H., & Zhou, X. (2011) · Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) · doi:10.5591/978-1-57735-516-8/ijcai11-267 · Cited by 549
Efficient community detection in large networks using content and links
Ruan, Y., Fuhry, D., & Parthasarathy, S. (2013) · Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2488388.2488483 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Venue
- CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs
- Publisher
- Unmaintained records
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 1
- ISSN
- 0003-6951 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097645701
- Cited by
- 1,092
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 10.1162/153244303321897735. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/153244303321897735
- The paper
- 10.1162/153244303321897735. (2000). CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs. https://doi.org/10.1162/153244303321897735
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.