Central Description Length (CDL) Clustering Validation Index

Clustering is widely used across the sciences as the foundation for downstream data-driven scientific discoveries. However, clustering results are highly sensitive to the choice of algorithm, preprocessing, and the number of clusters $k$, producing scientific claims that are often not reproducible. The current state of the art for validating clustering solutions consists of clustering validation indices (CVIs) such as Silhouette, Davies-Bouldin, and Calinski-Harabasz, which rely on geometric assumptions that break down on the heavy-tailed, high-dimensional, and nonlinearly structured data encountered in biomedical research. Resampling-based alternatives - grounded in the ideas of clustering stability and generalizability - have been proposed but remain scattered across specialized tools with no unified, accessible software. We fill this gap with CARVE (Cluster Analysis with Resampling for Validation and Exploration), an open-source Python and R package that jointly evaluates multiple clustering algorithms and hyperparameters, returning stability and generalizability diagnostics at the global, cluster, and sample level together with principled selection rules and consensus-based cluster labels. Across six synthetic benchmarks CARVE consistently recovers near-optimal clusterings where classical indices degrade substantially. On experimental genomics and proteomics data sets, CARVE recovers finer biological structure when classical CVIs collapse entirely. CARVE is available with a scikit-learn-compatible Python API and an analogous R interface compatible with Seurat workflows.

Many existing clustering methods are designed based on a set-oriented definition---a cluster is a set of similar points---relying a point-to-point similarity function to find similar points. This works well for compact clusters, but clustering performance can deteriorate badly when cluster shapes are irregular, and densities or sizes vary between clusters. Recent `Cluster-as-Distribution' (CaD) clustering has been shown to discover these generic types of clusters in practice by treating each cluster as a set of independent and identically distributed points generated from some unknown distribution via a greedy search, achieving a clustering objective equivalent to that of Spectral Clustering, but with better clustering outcomes without eigen-decomposition. However, a theoretical analysis of this phenomenon is still lacking. Our analyses are from two angles. First, we analyze the approximation error between the true and empirical distribution embeddings. Second, we show that the greedy search employed to achieve the CaD clustering objective can be mapped to a partition matroid---yielding greedy optimality. These yield a near-optimality guarantee for the CaD clustering objective, with regret controlled by the approximation error. This is the first analysis that explains why CaD clustering via greedy search can discover clusters of arbitrary shapes, densities and sizes (where all set-oriented clustering methods have failed to discover) when the estimated cluster embeddings faithfully approximate the underlying cluster distributions.

Clustering is a fundamental problem in data science with a long-standing research history, yielding numerous insightful algorithms. Despite this progress, a systematic and large-scale empirical evaluation that jointly considers conventional algorithms, deep learning-based methods, and recent foundation model-based clustering remains largely absent, leading to limited guidance on algorithm selection and deployment. To address this gap, we introduce CLUBench, a comprehensive clustering benchmark comprising 24 algorithms of diverse principles evaluated on 131 datasets across tabular, text, and image data, involving 178,815 experiments. Importantly, our analyses of (i) the impact of hyperparameter tuning,(ii) the impact of data types and characteristics,(iii) the impact of pretrained embeddings,(iv) large language model-based clustering,(v) the similarity of algorithms, and (vi) the low-rank structures of performance matrices, yield meaningful insights and promising pathways for clustering research. For instance, our study reveals that: 1) All evaluated deep clustering methods do not exhibit a significant advantage compared with the top-performing conventional clustering algorithms (e.g., KMeans, SpeClu) in terms of average performance; 2) For image and text clustering tasks, combining pretrained embeddings with conventional clustering algorithms (e.g., KMeans, SpeClu) offers effective and efficient clustering; 3) Clustering remains a challenging and nontrivial problem, even in the era of increasingly dominant foundation models. Moreover, we propose to use the low-rank structure in cross-model performance matrices to efficiently approximate the overall performance evaluation in practical applications. We further demonstrate the feasibility of model selection based on the performance matrices across all hyperparameter configurations.