Metrics clustering - CyrilB1531/lodestar GitHub Wiki
Development build. This page describes
main, not a released package. The latest published Lodestar.Metrics is 0.3.0 — read its documentation.
You clustered some samples. Most of the types on this page score the result against a reference partition — labels from a human, from an earlier model, or from a dataset that came with them — and none of them cares what the clusters are called: swapping the names of two clusters changes nothing, which is exactly what separates these from the classification metrics.
Three of them need no reference at all, and score a clustering from the samples themselves. They take a feature matrix rather than two label vectors, and they are what you reach for when there is nothing to compare against — choosing how many clusters to ask for, for instance. They have their own section below.
The reference-partition metrics disagree on what "agree" means, and the disagreement is the reason there are several.
-
Corrected for chance or not. Split every sample into a cluster of its own and
Homogeneityscores a perfect1, because every cluster does hold one class.AdjustedRandscores0on the same input, because that is what random labelling achieves. When a clustering looks suspiciously good, this is the pair to read together. -
Symmetric or not.
HomogeneityandCompletenessare the same measurement with the two labellings exchanged, and they pull in opposite directions: splitting raises one and merging raises the other.VMeasureis their harmonic mean, for when you want one number.
The degenerate cases answer surprisingly, and it is deliberate. An empty input scores 1 on
every metric here — agreeing about nothing is agreeing — and so does a single sample. Two
independent partitions of four samples score -0.5 on AdjustedRand, not 0: the correction for
chance is a subtraction, and it can go below zero. Every one of those numbers is scikit-learn's,
measured against 1.9.1 and frozen in the oracle corpus rather than reasoned about.
flowchart TD
A["You clustered some samples"] --> B{"Is there a reference<br/>partition to score against?"}
B -->|"no, only the samples"| C{"Features, or a distance<br/>matrix you computed?"}
C -->|"a distance matrix"| C1["Silhouette<br/>the only one that takes one"]
C -->|"a feature matrix"| C2["Silhouette, CalinskiHarabasz<br/>higher is better<br/>DaviesBouldin — lower is better"]
B -->|yes| D{"What do you want to learn?"}
D -->|"one number, and the two<br/>cluster counts differ"| E["AdjustedMutualInformation"]
D -->|"one number, comparable<br/>cluster counts"| F{"Corrected for chance?"}
F -->|yes| F1["AdjustedRand"]
F -->|"no — and read it<br/>knowing that"| F2["RandIndex, FowlkesMallows,<br/>MutualInformation"]
D -->|"which way it fails:<br/>split, or merged"| G["Homogeneity — one class per cluster<br/>Completeness — one cluster per class<br/>VMeasure — their harmonic mean"]
D -->|"shared information,<br/>scaled into 0..1"| I["NormalizedMutualInformation"]
D -->|"the pair counts<br/>underneath the others"| H["PairConfusionMatrix"]
Corrected for chance is the branch to get right, and it is the one above that costs most when
missed: the uncorrected three are easy to reach for by name and rarely what is wanted. The
paragraph above has the worked case — a clustering that scores a perfect 1 on Homogeneity and
0 on AdjustedRand for the same input.
| Type | What it measures |
|---|---|
AdjustedRand |
How many pairs of samples the two partitions agree about, minus what chance would give. |
RandIndex |
The same pair count as AdjustedRand, uncorrected for chance. |
MutualInformation |
Shared information between the two labellings, unnormalised and in nats. |
PairConfusionMatrix |
The four pair counts AdjustedRand and RandIndex are both built from. |
AdjustedMutualInformation |
Shared information between the two labellings, minus what chance would give — the one to use across different cluster counts. |
FowlkesMallows |
The geometric mean of pair precision and pair recall, uncorrected for chance. |
Completeness |
Whether every sample of one class landed in the same cluster. |
Homogeneity |
Whether each cluster holds samples of a single class. |
NormalizedMutualInformation |
How much knowing one labelling tells you about the other, scaled into [0, 1]. |
VMeasure |
Homogeneity and completeness as one number, their harmonic mean. |
These three read the samples, not a second labelling. All of them refuse a label count outside
[2, n - 1] with the same sentence — one cluster leaves nothing to compare against, one cluster per
sample leaves nothing inside one — and none of them ever answers a non-finite value on an input
scikit-learn accepts.
They do not all read in the same direction. A clustering that improves moves
Silhouette and CalinskiHarabasz
up and DaviesBouldin down. Reading a table of the three
without knowing that gets one of them backwards.
Only Silhouette accepts a distance matrix you computed yourself. The
other two read cluster centroids, which a distance matrix does not carry, so a reader arriving from
silhouette_score(metric='precomputed') will look for the equivalent and find none — the reference
has none either.
| Type | What it measures | Direction |
|---|---|---|
Silhouette |
How well each sample sits in its own cluster rather than the nearest other one. | higher is better |
CalinskiHarabasz |
How far the clusters sit from each other against how spread they are inside. | higher is better |
DaviesBouldin |
The worst pairing each cluster is in, averaged. | lower is better |