mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CEREAL: Few-Sample Clustering Evaluation

arXiv 2210.00064 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2022cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating clustering quality with reliable evaluation metrics like normalized mutual information (NMI) requires labeled data that can be expensive to annotate. We focus on the underexplored problem of estimating clustering quality with limited labels. We adapt existing approaches from the few-sample model evaluation literature to actively sub-sample, with a learned surrogate model, the most informative data points for annotation to estimate the evaluation metric. However, we find that their estimation can be biased and only relies on the labeled data. To that end, we introduce CEREAL, a comprehensive framework for few-sample clustering evaluation that extends active sampling approaches in three key ways. First, we propose novel NMI-based acquisition functions that account for the distinctive properties of clustering and uncertainties from a learned surrogate model. Next, we use ideas from semi-supervised learning and train the surrogate model with both the labeled and unlabeled data. Finally, we pseudo-label the unlabeled data with the surrogate model. We run experiments to estimate NMI in an active sampling pipeline on three datasets across vision and language. Our results show that CEREAL reduces the area under the absolute error curve by up to 57% compared to the best sampling baseline. We perform an extensive ablation study to show that our framework is agnostic to the choice of clustering algorithm and evaluation metric. We also extend CEREAL from clusterwise annotations to pairwise annotations. Overall, CEREAL can efficiently evaluate clustering with limited human annotations.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2022.

Builds on

23 of 47 references.

References · 23

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  3. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  4. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  5. 2017mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 5,155
  6. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  7. 2022Flamingo: a Visual Language Model for Few-Shot Learningcited by 4,337
  8. 2017Billion-scale similarity search with GPUscited by 2,477
  9. 2021SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 2,168
  10. 2020FixMatch: Simplifying Semi-Supervised Learning with Consistency and Confidencecited by 2,080
  11. 2019MixMatch: A Holistic Approach to Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 1,390
  12. 2019Self-training with Noisy Student improves ImageNet classificationcited by 1,304
11 more
  1. 2017Deep Bayesian Active Learning with Image Datacited by 812
  2. 2019Deep Batch Active Learning by Diverse, Uncertain Gradient Lower Boundscited by 602
  3. 2019BatchBALD: Efficient and Diverse Batch Acquisition for Deep Bayesian Active Learningcited by 428
  4. 2019Multi-class Classification without Multi-class Labelscited by 100
  5. 2021Gone Fishing: Neural Active Learning with Fisher Embeddingscited by 88
  6. 2021Active Testing: Sample-Efficient Model Evaluationcited by 82
  7. 2021On Statistical Bias In Active Learning: How and When To Fix Itcited by 72
  8. 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 48
  9. 2020Can I Trust My Fairness Metric? Assessing Fairness with Unlabeled Data and Bayesian Inferencecited by 31
  10. 2016Classifier Risk Estimation under Limited Labeling Resourcescited by 7
  11. 2021Low-Shot Validation: Active Importance Sampling for Estimating Classifier Performance on Rare Categoriescited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.