Spectral Clustering on Large Datasets: When Does it Work? Theory from Continuous Clustering and Density Cheeger-Buser
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Spectral clustering is one of the most popular clustering algorithms that has stood the test of time. It is simple to describe, can be implemented using standard linear algebra, and often finds better clusters than traditional clustering algorithms like k-means and k-centers. The foundational algorithm for two-way spectral clustering, by Shi and Malik, creates a geometric graph from data and finds a spectral cut of the graph. In modern machine learning, many data sets are modeled as a large number of points drawn from a probability density function. Little is known about when spectral clustering works in this setting -- and when it doesn't. Past researchers justified spectral clustering by appealing to the graph Cheeger inequality (which states that the spectral cut of a graph approximates the ``Normalized Cut''), but this justification is known to break down on large data sets. We provide theoretically-informed intuition about spectral clustering on large data sets drawn from probability densities, by proving when a continuous form of spectral clustering considered by past researchers (the unweighted spectral cut of a probability density) finds good clusters of the underlying density itself. Our work suggests that Shi-Malik spectral clustering works well on data drawn from mixtures of Laplace distributions, and works poorly on data drawn from certain other densities, such as a density we call the `square-root trough'. Our core theorem proves that weighted spectral cuts have low weighted isoperimetry for all probability densities. Our key tool is a new Cheeger-Buser inequality for all probability densities, including discontinuous ones.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2023.
Builds on
22 of 66 references.
References · 22
- 2022Deep Spectral Methods: A Surprisingly Strong Baseline for Unsupervised Semantic Segmentation and Localizationcited by 150
- 2018SpectralNet: Spectral Clustering using Deep Neural Networkscited by 94
- 2019Guarantees for Spectral Clustering with Fairness Constraintscited by 72
- 2015A variational approach to the consistency of spectral clusteringcited by 28
- 2014Continuum limit of total variation on point cloudscited by 24
- 2020Algorithms and Hardness for Linear Algebra on Geometric Graphscited by 22
- 2018Understanding Regularized Spectral Clustering via Graph Conductancecited by 14
- 2016Eldan's Stochastic Localization and the KLS Conjecture: Isoperimetry, Concentration and Mixingcited by 13
- 2022A Tighter Analysis of Spectral Clustering, and Beyondcited by 13
- 2022A Slightly Improved Bound for the KLS Constantcited by 10
- 2013Improved Cheeger's Inequality: Analysis of Spectral Partitioning Algorithms through Higher Order Spectral Gapcited by 8
- 2021Two-way kernel matrix puncturing: towards resource-efficient PCA and spectral clusteringcited by 7
10 more
- 2014Consistency of Cheeger and Ratio Graph Cutscited by 6
- 2018The Kannan-Lov'asz-Simonovits Conjecturecited by 4
- 2018Expander Decomposition and Pruning: Faster, Stronger, and Simplercited by 4
- 2022Cheeger Inequalities for Vertex Expansion and Reweighted Eigenvaluescited by 4
- 2019A Deterministic Algorithm for Balanced Cut with Applications to Dynamic Connectivity, Flows, and Beyondcited by 3
- 2015Improved Cheeger's Inequality and Analysis of Local Graph Partitioning using Vertex Expansion and Expansion Profilecited by 2
- 2014Cheeger-type approximation for sparsest st-cutcited by 1
- 2018A Schur Complement Cheeger Inequalitycited by 1
- 2018Hardy-Muckenhoupt Bounds for Laplacian Eigenvaluescited by 1
- 2020Weighted Cheeger and Buser Inequalities, with Applications to Clustering and Cutting Probability Densitiescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.