SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2601.11160

Clustering High-dimensional Data: Balancing Abstraction and Representation Tutorial at AAAI 2026

Abstract

How to find a natural grouping of a large real data set? Clustering requires a balance between abstraction and representation. To identify clusters, we need to abstract from superfluous details of individual objects. But we also need a rich representation that emphasizes the key features shared by groups of objects that distinguish them from other groups of objects. Each clustering algorithm implements a different trade-off between abstraction and representation. Classical K-means implements a high level of abstraction - details are simply averaged out - combined with a very simple representation - all clusters are Gaussians in the original data space. We will see how approaches to subspace and deep clustering support high-dimensional and complex data by allowing richer representations. However, with increasing representational expressiveness comes the need to explicitly enforce abstraction in the objective function to ensure that the resulting method performs clustering and not just representation learning. We will see how current deep clustering methods define and enforce abstraction through centroid-based and density-based clustering losses. Balancing the conflicting goals of abstraction and representation is challenging. Ideas from subspace clustering help by learning one latent space for the information that is relevant to clustering and another latent space to capture all other information in the data. The tutorial ends with an outlook on future research in clustering. Future methods will more adaptively balance abstraction and representation to improve performance, energy efficiency and interpretability. By automatically finding the sweet spot between abstraction and representation, the human brain is very good at clustering and other related tasks such as single-shot learning. So, there is still much room for improvement.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Claudia Plant, Lena G. M. Bauer, Christian Böhm. 2026-01-16. Clustering High-dimensional Data: Balancing Abstraction and Representation Tutorial at AAAI 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11160

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG