PreprintCited by 1Complexity and Algorithms in GraphsAdvanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research

Approximate Hierarchical Clustering via Sparsest Cut and Spreading Metrics

Open access
Charikar, Moses, Chatziafratis, Vaggos·2016·arXiv

Abstract

Dasgupta recently introduced a cost function for the hierarchical clustering of a set of points given pairwise similarities between them. He showed that this function is NP-hard to optimize, but a top-down recursive partitioning heuristic based on an alpha_n-approximation algorithm for uniform sparsest cut gives an approximation of O(alpha_n log n) (the current best algorithm has alpha_n=O(sqrt{log n})). We show that the aforementioned sparsest cut heuristic in fact obtains an O(alpha_n)-approximation for hierarchical clustering. The algorithm also applies to a generalized cost function studied by Dasgupta. Moreover, we obtain a strong inapproximability result, showing that the hierarchical clustering objective is hard to approximate to within any constant factor assuming the Small-Set Expansion (SSE) Hypothesis. Finally, we discuss approximation algorithms based on convex relaxations. We present a spreading metric SDP relaxation for the problem and show that it has integrality gap at most O(sqrt{log n}). The advantage of the SDP relative to the sparsest cut heuristic is that it provides an explicit lower bound on the optimal solution and could potentially yield an even better approximation for hierarchical clustering. In fact our analysis of this SDP served as the inspiration for our improved analysis of the sparsest cut heuristic. We also show that a spreading metric LP relaxation gives an O(log n)-approximation.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1609.09548

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This puts the objective outside the Dasgupta family and its relatives, which sum pairwise similarities weighted by a function of cluster cardinalities.

    “This puts it outside the Dasgupta family [10] and its relatives [5, 17, 8], which sum pairwise similarities weighted by a function of cluster cardinalities - indeed outside the admissibility characterisations for such objectives, which require the scaling to depend on the children's cardinalities.”

    From Prefix Sharing Is a Sorting Problem (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charikar, M., & Chatziafratis, V.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4297274312
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Clustering Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Numerical Analysis › Advanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Keywords
hierarchical clustering, sparsest cut, approximation algorithms, hardness of approximation, SDP relaxation, integrality gap, convex relaxation, linear programming relaxation, NP-hardness

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