Explaining AutoClustering: Uncovering Meta-Feature Contribution in AutoML for Clustering
Authors: Matheus Camilo da Silva, Leonardo Arrighi, Ana Carolina Lorena, Sylvio Barbon Junior
Organizations: Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Geosciences, University of Trieste, Piazzale Europa, 1, 34127 Trieste TS, Italy. · Division of Computer Science, Aeronautics Institute of Technology, Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, 12228-900 São José dos Campos SP, Brazil.
AutoClustering methods aim to automate unsupervised learning tasks, including algorithm selection (AS), hyperparameter optimization (HPO), and pipeline synthesis (PS), by often leveraging meta-learning over dataset meta-features. While these systems often achieve strong performance, their recommendations are often difficult to justify: the influence of dataset meta-features on algorithm and hyperparameter choices is typically not exposed, limiting reliability, bias diagnostics, and efficient meta-feature engineering. This limits reliability and diagnostic insight for further improvements. In this work, we investigate the explainability of the meta-models in AutoClustering. We first review 22 existing methods and organize their meta-features into a structured taxonomy. We then apply a global explainability technique (i.e., Decision Predicate Graphs) to assess feature importance within meta-models from selected frameworks. Finally, we use local explainability tools such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to analyse specific clustering decisions. Our findings highlight consistent patterns in meta-feature relevance, identify structural weaknesses in current meta-learning strategies that can distort recommendations, and provide actionable guidance for more interpretable Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) design. This study therefore offers a practical foundation for increasing decision transparency in unsupervised learning automation.
Figures & tables
Title
Reference
Ranking and selecting clustering algorithms using a meta-learning approach
de Souto et al. (2008)
Mining rules for the automatic selection process of clustering methods applied to cancer gene expression data
Nascimento et al. (2009)
An analysis of meta-learning techniques for ranking clustering algorithms applied to artificial data
Soares et al. (2009)
Clustering algorithm recommendation: a meta-learning approach
Ferrari and de Castro (2012)
Dealing with overlapping clustering: a constraint-based approach to algorithm selection
Adam and Blockeel (2015)
Clustering algorithm selection by meta-learning systems: a new distance-based problem characterization and ranking combination methods
Ferrari and De Castro (2015)
Table 1: Overview of 22 AutoClustering frameworks reviewed in this study.
Framework
Group
#Datasets
#Samples
#Dimensions
#Clusters
de Souto et al. (2008)
A
32
76.58
1383.38
3.00
Nascimento et al. (2009)
A
35
76.58
1383.38
3.00
Soares et al. (2009)
B
160
309.40
75.00
7.50
Ferrari and de Castro (2012)
C
30
1636.23
36.20
7.50
Adam and Blockeel (2015) (1)
C
14
522.93
11.07
3.92
Adam and Blockeel (2015) (2)
–
22
–
–
–
Table 2: Summary of dataset usage across AutoClustering frameworks. Dataset groups: A = Cancer gene expression microarray data, B = Synthetic datasets, C = General-purpose benchmark repositories, D = Clustering benchmarking collections. Note: Numerical columns for samples, dimensions, and clusters report average values per framework across the datasets used. Parentheses indicate different dataset settings within the same publication.
Figure 1: Heatmap showing the distribution of meta-feature families across various AutoClustering frameworks. The color intensity corresponds to the number of meta-features in each family for each framework. The frameworks are sorted ascending by publication date.
Figure 2: Comparison of top and bottom meta-feature predicates per AutoClustering framework ( AutoClust , AutoCluster , ML2DAC , PoAC ) based on LRC. Top predicates (a) highlight features most embedded in the information flow, while bottom predicates (b) reflect less influential or potentially redundant aspects. Bars are color-coded by meta-feature category.
Figure 3: SHAP summary plot for ML2DAC showing the average contribution of each meta-feature to the model’s CVI recommendation. Colors denote the predicted CVI (CH, DBCV, SIL, COP).
Figure 4: Cohort-level SHAP summary plot analysing PoAC’s recommended clustering pipelines across 25 datasets. Each point represents a dataset/pipeline meta-feature value (color: red=high, blue=low) and its impact on the prediction (x-axis: SHAP value). Meta-features are ranked by mean absolute SHAP value.
Figure 5: SHAP explanations for two PoAC-predicted pipelines on the thy dataset, representing low and high clustering quality.
Figure 6: Ablation experiment comparing the meta-feature extraction time across three different feature sets: (i) poac_full the complete set of 39 meta-features used by Poac; (ii) poac_dpg a reduced set of 24 meta-features with a minimum LRC value; (iii) poac_core a minimal set of the 10 most central meta-features based on LRC.
Meta-Feature Set
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
R 2 ↑
Extraction Time
PoAC Full
0.0735
0.0521
0.8644
4h 54m
PoAC DPG
0.0782
0.0564
0.8465
4h 49m
PoAC CORE
0.0825
0.0600
0.8291
0h 7m
Table 3: Cross-validated performance of Random Forest regressors using different feature subsets. Lower values are better for RMSE and MAE; higher values are better for R 2 . The last column shows the total time required to extract each meta-feature set across all 6,000 datasets.
Observation
Why it matters
Decision influence is concentrated in a small subset of meta-features (DPG).
Large meta-feature sets often introduce redundancy and do not necessarily improve generalisation beyond a stable core set.
Recommendations may inherit assumptions encoded by CVIs and landmarkers, which can diverge from user intent or domain semantics in unsupervised settings.
Global and local explanations provide complementary evidence (DPG vs. SHAP).
Global structure can highlight dominant decision logic, while local attributions justify individual recommendations and reveal regime-dependent feature reliance.
Explainability-guided pruning yields large efficiency gains with modest accuracy loss (ablation).
Meta-feature extraction can dominate end-to-end runtime; pruning based on relevance provides a principled route to faster, more deployable systems.
Table 4: Summary of findings for AutoClustering design.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Framework
Simple
Statistical
Info.-Theoretical
Landmarkers
Model-Based
Complexity
Souto (2008)
3
4
0
0
0
0
Nascimento (2009)
3
4
0
0
0
0
Soares (2009)
0
9
0
0
0
0
Ferrari (2012)
5
3
2
0
0
0
Ferrari (2015)
0
19
0
0
0
0
CBOvalue (2015)
0
0
0
0
0
1
Appendix
Table 5: Meta-feature family usage across AutoClustering frameworks (2008–2024).
Framework
Predicate
LRC
LRC normalized
MF Category
autoclust
SIL > -0.24
33.0543
1.000
Landmarkers
autoclust
DBI <= 1.38
30.2646
0.7678
Landmarkers
autoclust
CH <= -12.63
29.9616
0.7426
Landmarkers
autoclust
CH > -12.63
29.1075
0.6715
Landmarkers
autoclust
COP > 0.36
27.9701
0.5768
Landmarkers
autoclust
DI > -0.44
27.6708
0.5519
Landmarkers
Appendix
Table 6: Top meta-feature predicates per AutoClustering framework based on original and normalized LRC.
Category
No.
Meta-feature
Simple
1
Number of instances
2
Log number of instances
3
Number of features
4
Log number of features
5
Dataset ratio
6
Log dataset ratio
Appendix
Table 7: The implemented meta-features in AutoCluster.
A major limitation of clustering approaches is their lack of explainability: methods rarely provide insight into which features drive the grouping of similar observations. To address this limitation, we propose an ensemble-based clustering framework that integrates bagging and feature dropout to generate feature importance scores, in analogy with feature importance mechanisms in supervised random forests. By leveraging multiple bootstrap resampling schemes and aggregating the resulting partitions, the method improves stability and robustness of the cluster definition, particularly in small-sample or noisy settings. Feature importance is assessed through an information-theoretic approach: at each step, the mutual information between each feature and the estimated cluster labels is computed and weighted by a measure of clustering validity to emphasize well-formed partitions, before being aggregated into a final score. The method outputs both a consensus partition and a corresponding measure of feature importance, enabling a unified interpretation of clustering structure and variable relevance. Its effectiveness is demonstrated on multiple simulated and real-world datasets.
Federico Maria Quetti, Elena Ballante, Silvia Figini +1
Department of Mathematics, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy. · Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy. · Department of Economics and Management, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy.
In recent years, much of the research on clustering algorithms has primarily focused on enhancing their accuracy and efficiency, frequently at the expense of interpretability. However, as these methods are increasingly being applied in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems, the need of transparent and interpretable clustering outcomes has become a critical concern. This is not only necessary for gaining user trust but also for satisfying the growing ethical and regulatory demands in these fields. Ensuring that decisions derived from clustering algorithms can be clearly understood and justified is now a fundamental requirement. To address this need, this paper provides a comprehensive and structured review of the current state of explainable clustering algorithms, identifying key criteria to distinguish between various methods. These insights can effectively assist researchers in making informed decisions about the most suitable explainable clustering methods for specific application contexts, while also promoting the development and adoption of clustering algorithms that are both efficient and transparent. For convenient access and reference, an open repository organizes representative and emerging interpretable clustering methods under the taxonomy proposed in this survey, available at https://hulianyu.xyz/Interpretable-Clustering-Repository
Lianyu Hu, Mudi Jiang, Junjie Dong +2
College of Information Science and Engineering, Henan University of Technology, China · School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, China · Xinchang Power Supply Company, State Grid Corporation of China, China
Clustering is widely used for exploratory analysis and scientific discovery, driving insights from market segmentation to biological data analysis, but its outputs can be difficult to interpret, audit, and reproduce as modern datasets become increasingly large and complex. Reliable use of clustering requires understanding which features drive the discovered structure, yet feature-level explanations for clustering remain scarce compared with methods in supervised learning. Furthermore, existing clustering feature importance scores are often tied to specific algorithms and data assumptions. To address these challenges, we propose Cluster LOCO (Leave-One-Covariate-Out), a family of model-agnostic feature importance scores for clustering. Cluster LOCO is built on feature occlusion and clustering generalizability, defined as whether cluster labels learned on one subset of the data can be accurately predicted on held-out samples. For any chosen clustering algorithm, Cluster LOCO quantifies a feature's importance by measuring how much its removal degrades generalizability. We first introduce Cluster LOCO-Split, which relies on data splitting, and then extend it to Cluster LOCO-MP, a minipatch ensemble-based version designed for large-scale data. Across synthetic simulations and an application to cell-type discovery in single-cell transcriptomics, we show that Cluster LOCO more reliably recovers informative features than existing clustering feature importance methods.
Claire M. He, Genevera I. Allen
Department of Statistics · Columbia University · New York, NY 10027, USA