A Taxonomy of Visual Cluster Separation Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide two contributions, a taxonomy of visual cluster separation factors in scatterplots, and an in‐depth qualitative evaluation of two recently proposed and validated separation measures. We initially intended to use these measures to provide guidance for the use of dimension reduction (DR) techniques and visual encoding (VE) choices, but found that they failed to produce reliable results. To understand why, we conducted a systematic qualitative data study covering a broad collection of 75 real and synthetic high‐dimensional datasets, four DR techniques, and three scatterplot‐based visual encodings. Two authors visually inspected over 800 plots to determine whether or not the measures created plausible results. We found that they failed in over half the cases overall, and in over two‐thirds of the cases involving real datasets. Using open and axial coding of failure reasons and separability characteristics, we generated a taxonomy of visual cluster separability factors. We iteratively refined its explanatory clarity and power by mapping the studied datasets and success and failure ranges of the measures onto the factor axes. Our taxonomy has four categories, ordered by their ability to influence successors: Scale, Point Distance, Shape, and Position. Each category is split into Within‐Cluster factors such as density, curvature, isotropy, and clumpiness, and Between‐Cluster factors that arise from the variance of these properties, culminating in the overarching factor of class separation. The resulting taxonomy can be used to guide the design and the evaluation of cluster separation measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".