Benchmarking of Clustering Validity Measures Revisited
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Validation plays a crucial role in the clustering process. Many different internal validity indexes exist for the purpose of determining the best clustering solution(s) from a given collection of candidates, e.g., as produced by different algorithms or different algorithm hyper-parameters. In this study, we present a comprehensive benchmark study of 26 internal validity indexes, which includes highly popular classic indexes as well as more recently developed ones. We adopted an enhanced revision of the methodology presented in Vendramin et al. (2010), developed here to address several shortcomings of this previous work. This overall new approach consists of three complementary custom-tailored evaluation sub-methodologies, each of which has been designed to assess specific aspects of an index's behaviour while preventing potential biases of the other sub-methodologies. Each sub-methodology features two complementary measures of performance, alongside mechanisms that allow for an in-depth investigation of more complex behaviours of the internal validity indexes under study. Additionally, a new collection of 16177 datasets has been produced, paired with eight widely-used clustering algorithms, for a wider applicability scope and representation of more diverse clustering scenarios.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 87 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Nov 2025.
Builds on
4 of 87 references.
References · 4
- 2022Are Cluster Validity Measures (In)valid?cited by 16
- 2016Ground Truth Bias in External Cluster Validity Indicescited by 10
- 2020The Area Under the ROC Curve as a Measure of Clustering Qualitycited by 8
- 2021Characterizing and comparing external measures for the assessment of cluster analysis and community detectioncited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.