cs.LGJul 27, 2026

Why does Greedy Search produce Optimal Clustering Outcomes? A Fixed-Core Assignment Theory

Authors: Kaifeng ZhangKai Ming TingSanjay Chawla

Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence Nanjing University, China · Qatar Computing Research Institute, HBKU

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

Jul 14, 2026cs.DS

Hierarchical \mathcal{F}-Clustering: Approximation and Hardness of Clustering into Trees and Bounded Diameter Graphs

Consider the following variation on the Hierarchical Clustering problem: Usually, while building a hierarchical clustering, one recursively partitions the data until each cluster becomes a singleton. We relax the halting condition of the recursive process to stop whenever the remaining cluster is a graph belonging to a class F\mathcal{F}. We call this problem Hierarchical F\mathcal{F}-Clustering and we measure the quality of any solution using adapted Dasgupta's clustering objective. We study two natural choices of F\mathcal{F}: trees and graphs of bounded diameter. We present the first polynomial time O(lognloglogn)\mathcal{O}(\log n\cdot\log\log n) and O(logn)\mathcal{O}(\log n)-approximation algorithms for clustering into trees and bounded diameter graphs respectively. Our main technical contribution is a framework for approximating such problems based on linear programming. In fact, we characterize graphs classes F\mathcal{F} for which our approach can be applied and show that it includes both trees and bounded diameter graphs. However, our ideas are not limited to them and might be useful for other structures as well. Broadly speaking, our framework applies whenever the corresponding flat clustering problem, which we call pFp_{\mathcal{F}}-Partitioning, admits a natural ILP formulation together with a rounding procedure with provable approximation guarantees. Intuitively, given a set of vertices called terminals, the problem is to find an edge set whose removal results in satisfying certain vertex-dependent structural predicate for each terminal. We then use these ingredients to build clustering trees with the aforementioned approximation guarantees. To complement these results, we show that both Hierarchical Clustering into trees and into bounded diameter graphs cannot be approximated within any constant factor under the Small Set Expansion Hypothesis.
Michał Szyfelbein, Dariusz Dereniowski
Sep 11, 2026cs.LG

Hierarchical Clustering Can Jointly Satisfy Richness, Consistency, and Scale Invariance

Despite its ubiquity, clustering lacks a universally accepted definition of what is a cluster. Kleinberg's Impossibility Theorem formalizes this difficulty by showing that no flat clustering method can simultaneously satisfy three natural axioms: scale invariance, richness, and consistency. In this paper, we ask whether this impossibility persists when the output is a hierarchy rather than a single partition. We show that, in contrast to the flat clustering setting, the hierarchical analog of these axioms are jointly satisfiable. In fact, there exist uncountably many hierarchical clustering methods satisfying these axioms, which we call admissible. We explicitly construct several admissible methods, including methods based on well-separated clusters and a non-binary version of single linkage. For certain pairs of admissible methods, the hierarchy produced by one always refines that produced by the other. This refinement relation defines a partial order on the class of admissible methods. This partially ordered set has no greatest element and contains uncountably many pairwise incompatible maximal elements, revealing substantial diversity among admissible methods. Nevertheless, this diversity is constrained: every admissible method contains a hierarchy of sufficiently well-separated clusters, and every finite collection of admissible methods shares such a nontrivial common backbone.
Daichi Kuroda, Maximilien Dreveton, Matthias Grossglauser +1
Jul 15, 2024cs.DS

Faster and Simpler Greedy Algorithm for k-Median and k-Means

Clustering problems such as kk-means and kk-median are staples of unsupervised learning, and many algorithmic techniques have been developed to tackle their numerous aspects. In this paper, we focus on the class of greedy approximation algorithm, that attracted less attention than local-search or primal-dual counterparts. In particular, we study the recursive greedy algorithm developed by Mettu and Plaxton [SIAM J. Comp 2003]. We provide a simplification of the algorithm, allowing for faster implementation, in graph metrics or in Euclidean space, where our algorithm matches or improves the state-of-the-art.
Max Dupré la Tour, David Saulpic