A Comprehensive Survey on Deep Clustering: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Future Directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering is a fundamental machine learning task, which aim at assigning instances into groups so that similar samples belong to the same cluster while dissimilar samples belong to different clusters. Shallow clustering methods usually assume that data are collected and expressed as feature vectors within which clustering is performed. However, clustering high-dimensional data, such as images, texts, videos, and graphs, poses significant challenges for clustering tasks, such as indiscriminate representation and intricate relationships among instances. Over the past decades, deep learning has achieved remarkable success in effective representation learning and modeling complex relationships. Motivated by these advancements, Deep Clustering seeks to improve clustering outcomes through deep learning techniques, garnering considerable interest from both academia and industry. Despite many contributions to this vibrant area of research, the lack of systematic analysis and a comprehensive taxonomy has hindered progress in this field. In this survey, we first explore how deep learning can be integrated into deep clustering and identify two fundamental components: the representation learning module and the clustering module. Then, we summarize and analyze the representative design of these two modules. Furthermore, we introduce a novel taxonomy of deep clustering based on how these two modules interact, specifically through multistage, generative, iterative, and simultaneous approaches. In addition, we present well-known benchmark datasets, evaluation metrics, and open-source tools to clearly demonstrate different experimental approaches. Finally, we examine the practical applications of deep clustering and propose challenging areas for future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it