Organizations: École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS), Montréal, QC, Canada · University of Bahrain (UOB), Kingdom of Bahrain · Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, QC, Canada · COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan
Dense self-expression matrices and full-affinity spectral clustering limit the scalability of subspace clustering. We introduce the Latent Orthogonal Optimization Model for Subspace Clustering (LoomSC), a framework that addresses both bottlenecks through projector factorization and exact spectral reduction. Motivated by the spectral structure of least-squares regression, LoomSC jointly learns latent features and a projector self-representation through two thin factors. Alternating Procrustes and least-squares updates preserve the sample factor's orthogonality while keeping the coefficient matrix implicit. We construct a nonnegative quadratic affinity that preserves the projector's support. An exact feature map then reduces its normalized spectral problem to an eigenproblem whose dimension depends only on the factor width. Neither the full affinity nor the sample Laplacian needs to be formed. Our analysis quantifies the projector approximation and identifies conditions for subspace preservation and within-subspace connectivity. For fixed dimensions and iteration budgets, the complete pipeline has linear time and memory complexity in the number of samples. Across five image-clustering benchmarks, LoomSC ranks first or second in all 15 dataset-metric comparisons against 9 state-of-the-art baselines. Its mean accuracy exceeds the highest baseline mean by 6.66 percentage points. Synthetic experiments scale to 500,000 samples while maintaining at least 99.8% accuracy.
Figures & tables
Non-deep methods
Deep methods
Dataset
n
k
EnSC
SSC-OMP
LMVSC
SGL
S 5 C
LSR
A-DSSC
SSSC
PRO-DSC
LoomSC
Fashion-MNIST
5,000
10
61.35 ± 0.00
56.19 ± 1.36
59.18
54.47 ± 0.36
54.62 ± 1.99
59.52 ± 0.00
39.01 ± 2.20
42.01 ± 1.70
52.12 ± 2.92
65.33 ± 1.79
ORL
400
40
78.00 ± 1.59
73.75 ± 0.82
55.25 ± 0.00
62.25 ± 0.00
42.50 ± 0.00
82.50 ± 0.00
50.75 ± 0.00
46.50 ± 1.54
52.00 ± 7.91
86.17 ± 2.01
UMIST
575
20
72.52 ± 0.00
67.70 ± 0.00
60.62 ± 0.00
65.00 ± 0.00
40.87 ± 0.00
58.26 ± 0.00
52.52 ± 0.00
21.16 ± 1.31
81.39 ± 1.58
80.00 ± 2.19
EYaleB
2,432
38
88.19 ± 0.00
80.84 ± 1.34
21.50 ± 0.00
21.50 ± 0.00
22.41 ± 0.00
96.26 ± 0.00
61.88 ± 0.00
25.11 ± 2.27
77.63 ± 0.73
94.73 ± 1.26
COIL-100
7,200
100
67.50 ± 0.69
59.46 ± 0.00
49.50 ± 0.00
49.26 ± 0.00
42.04 ± 0.00
61.10 ± 0.00
48.57 ± 0.00
13.81 ± 1.31
82.31 ± 0.30
74.64 ± 1.34
TABLE I: Clustering quality — ACC (%) on the five benchmarks. Higher is better. Mean ± standard deviation over three seeds where available. Bold indicates the largest mean in each row.
Non-deep methods
Deep methods
Dataset
EnSC
SSC-OMP
LMVSC
SGL
S 5 C
LSR
A-DSSC
SSSC
PRO-DSC
LoomSC
Fashion-MNIST
60.29 ± 0.88
57.93 ± 0.41
64.37 ± 0.63
62.51 ± 0.42
54.82 ± 2.33
63.33 ± 0.00
53.83 ± 1.00
46.88 ± 0.45
56.45 ± 3.08
63.91 ± 0.82
ORL
89.25 ± 0.07
84.54 ± 0.37
74.53 ± 0.00
78.24 ± 0.00
64.76 ± 0.00
90.07 ± 0.00
77.93 ± 0.00
66.84 ± 1.34
71.71 ± 5.39
91.76 ± 0.88
UMIST
87.06 ± 0.00
63.61 ± 0.53
62.49 ± 0.00
56.84 ± 0.00
56.72 ± 0.00
75.40 ± 0.00
66.01 ± 0.00
32.89 ± 1.40
90.02 ± 0.20
87.83 ± 1.44
EYaleB
74.31 ± 0.03
83.17 ± 0.55
13.37 ± 0.00
6.44 ± 0.00
37.92 ± 0.00
95.44 ± 0.00
75.61 ± 0.00
34.24 ± 2.42
82.38 ± 0.91
95.47 ± 0.43
COIL-100
90.95 ± 0.02
57.11 ± 0.16
74.69 ± 0.00
74.54 ± 0.00
68.03 ± 0.00
85.21 ± 0.00
74.31 ± 0.00
37.80 ± 1.08
95.75 ± 0.05
90.95 ± 0.41
TABLE II: Clustering quality — NMI (%) on the five benchmarks. Higher is better. Mean ± standard deviation over three seeds. Bold indicates the largest mean in each row.
Non-deep methods
Deep methods
Dataset
EnSC
SSC-OMP
LMVSC
SGL
S 5 C
LSR
A-DSSC
SSSC
PRO-DSC
LoomSC
Fashion-MNIST
43.21 ± 1.04
42.00 ± 0.16
45.35 ± 0.87
42.75 ± 0.22
40.27 ± 1.50
46.53 ± 0.00
22.24 ± 1.29
19.41 ± 1.49
37.76 ± 4.07
51.89 ± 1.43
ORL
69.50 ± 0.55
60.22 ± 0.74
39.22 ± 0.00
47.60 ± 0.00
22.66 ± 0.00
74.10 ± 0.00
21.49 ± 0.00
15.32 ± 4.98
35.55 ± 8.75
78.05 ± 2.67
UMIST
66.91 ± 0.00
34.81 ± 0.47
32.12 ± 0.00
25.19 ± 0.00
26.63 ± 0.00
46.89 ± 0.00
22.99 ± 0.00
1.07 ± 0.31
79.36 ± 0.65
75.55 ± 2.69
EYaleB
19.67 ± 0.06
53.91 ± 5.11
1.87 ± 0.00
-0.40 ± 0.00
13.65 ± 0.00
92.19 ± 0.00
21.67 ± 0.00
2.16 ± 0.31
64.15 ± 1.28
91.76 ± 0.90
COIL-100
61.38 ± 1.84
21.98 ± 0.13
43.00 ± 0.00
43.93 ± 0.00
35.05 ± 0.00
54.03 ± 0.00
7.84 ± 0.00
1.59 ± 0.04
80.63 ± 1.28
66.60 ± 0.66
TABLE III: Clustering quality — ARI (%) on the five benchmarks. Higher is better. Mean ± standard deviation over three seeds. Bold indicates the largest mean in each row.
Non-deep methods
Deep methods
Dataset
n
EnSC
SSC-OMP
LMVSC
SGL
S 5 C
LSR
A-DSSC
SSSC
PRO-DSC
LoomSC
Fashion-MNIST
5,000
3219.752 ± 46.948
5.447 ± 0.681
16.965 ± 0.179
17.203 ± 0.219
8.280 ± 1.000
6.260 ± 0.157
35.612 ± 0.584
2231.314 ± 69.877
563.338 ± 1.392
9.008 ± 0.987
ORL
400
7.953 ± 0.514
1.856 ± 0.058
0.929 ± 0.031
0.958 ± 0.003
7.440 ± 0.419
0.049 ± 0.001
0.699 ± 0.005
7.084 ± 0.183
102.797 ± 2.671
0.239 ± 0.089
UMIST
575
24.366 ± 26.899
0.498 ± 0.012
1.086 ± 0.033
1.263 ± 0.043
10.249 ± 4.946
0.077 ± 0.002
1.026 ± 0.027
9.774 ± 1.423
78.689 ± 0.172
0.203 ± 0.003
EYaleB
2,432
43.843 ± 0.398
12.666 ± 0.975
9.124 ± 0.063
9.221 ± 0.083
471.768 ± 24.647
2.389 ± 0.542
13.918 ± 0.132
2286.421 ± 94.488
313.648 ± 2.670
2.240 ± 0.581
COIL-100
7,200
50.858 ± 1.523
1319.586 ± 164.863
21.421 ± 0.143
22.498 ± 0.390
4709.568 ± 169.023
49.888 ± 5.451
175.328 ± 1.551
2409.599 ± 245.492
7443.627 ± 4.992
25.311 ± 9.976
TABLE IV: Measured wall-clock time (s). Lower is better. Bold indicates the smallest mean in each row.
Fig. 1: Synthetic-data comparison with ten subspaces and ni samples per subspace. Panels show (a) ACC, (b) connectivity, (c) CPU runtime, and (d) GPU runtime. “Ours” denotes LoomSC.
Fig. 2: Synthetic-data scalability from 1,000 to 500,000 samples: (a) runtime and (b) clustering accuracy. The horizontal-axis symbol N denotes the total sample count n . The reference curves indicate linear and quadratic growth. “Ours” denotes LoomSC.
Fig. 3: Relative Frobenius change ∥At−At−1∥F/∥At−1∥F on (a) synthetic datasets with ten subspaces and (b) real datasets. Here, At denotes the affinity matrix in ( 24 ) at outer iteration t , and ni is the number of samples in synthetic subspace i .
Fig. 4: Learned sample relations on a ten-class EYaleB subset at epochs 10 , 100 , and 500 . Class boundaries are overlaid.
Fig. 5: Learned sample relations on a ten-class ORL subset at epochs 10 , 100 , and 500 . Class boundaries are overlaid.
Fig. 6: Learned sample relations on synthetic data with ten subspaces at epochs 10 , 100 , and 500 . Subspace boundaries are overlaid.
Fig. 7: Learned sample relations on synthetic data with ten subspaces and increasing total sample count at epoch 500 . Subspace boundaries are overlaid.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Deep
Representation / affinity learning
Spectral computation
Matrix storage
LMVSC [ 15 ]
No
ndxm+nm3
nm2+m3
nm
SGL [ 16 ]
No
ndxm+nm3
nm2+m3 a
nm
S 5 C [ 29 ]
No
n(dxm+cℓ1)
Csp(n,nm)
nm
EnSC [ 19 ]
No
n2dx+ncEN
Csp(n,ns)
ns
SSC-OMP [ 18 ]
No
n2dxs
Csp(n,ns)
ns
A-DSSC [ 22 ]
No
CC+Cchk+eact
Csp(n,eact)
MC+eact
Appendix
TABLE V: Time and representation-storage complexity of the compared methods. All entries are inside O(⋅) . The two time columns are additive, with the common final k -means cost added once. Fixed optimization budgets are suppressed. Spectral budgets are included through ( 55 ). The last column counts the principal coefficient, factor, and affinity matrices, not total working memory. Bounds are obtained from the original algorithms under the implementation conventions stated below.
We derive the linear union-of-subspaces (UoS) model for subspace clustering (SC) from the nonlinear mixture model (NMM) used in blind source separation (BSS) to represent a D-dimensional observation vector as an unknown multivariate nonlinear mapping of C latent variables. Assuming the mapping is differentiable up to an unknown order K, we approximate NMM by a K-th order Taylor expansion, yielding a model equivalent to the linear UoS framework underlying SC. This establishes that: (i) the smoothness order K corresponds to the unknown subspace dimension d; (ii) KC equals the number of anchors; and (iii) the sparsity of the representation vector equals K (i.e., d). These relationships enable estimation of bounds on subspace dimension, and that is validated on six benchmark datasets using five established SC algorithms. Established theoretical results are important for post-processing of self-representation matrices estimated by SC algorithms.
Ivica Kopriva
Division of Computing and Data Science, Ruđer Bošković Instute, Zagreb, Croatia
Accurate optimization of a supervised spectral objective need not produce an accurate population subspace or a better predictive representation. We investigate these distinctions for Online Kernel Supervised Principal Component Analysis (OKSPCA), which combines a centered cross-moment in finite random-feature coordinates with an Adam-style orthonormal basis update for an established objective. Fixed-map consistency, concentration and perturbation results describe the estimator and its exact subspace; same-target comparisons then assess the practical iterate separately. Across six predictive benchmarks, performance depends on the declared pipeline: replacing the tracker with the exact empirical target leaves the two regression deficits largely unchanged. Direct classification-rank models capture nearly all terminal objective energy on average, but a saved intermediate state exhibits substantial geometric deviation; a controlled sample-size study further separates empirical accuracy from population recovery. In distinct numerical-service workloads, exact on-request computation is faster in the tested classification settings, whereas Adam saves time relative to the tested full thin-SVD service for some dense wider-regression requests, alongside persistent geometric error. These diagnostics limit explanations based solely on terminal optimization accuracy and distinguish numerical cost from quality, rank coverage and freshness; they establish neither practical-tracker convergence nor predictive or deployment benefits from basis availability.
Zhenlin Yao, Wei Xiong
School of Statistics University of International Business and Economics Beijing, China
Scaling LLM-based applications to millions of users is bottlenecked by the inference cost and latency of modern foundation models. A natural fix is to cluster the inputs and call the LLM only on cluster representatives, letting other members inherit the output -- but this is only safe if each member is measurably close to its representative. Existing clustering methods do not offer such per-sample quality control at scale: none jointly guarantee a minimal within-cluster similarity, exact matching of categorical attributes, and scalability to tens of millions of samples. We propose a two-stage algorithm that generates initial clusters with Mini-batch K-Means, then greedily selects representatives within each initial cluster -- a step equivalent to the Johnson-Chvatal heuristic for Set Cover over alpha-balls in embedding space. The algorithm enforces the similarity and attribute guardrails exactly by construction, and runs in O(nd+n2d/K) time and O(nd+n2/K2) memory for n samples, feature dimension d, and K initial clusters -- linear in n when K grows proportionally with n. We provide benchmarks against common clustering methods on internal and public datasets: our method not only delivers per-sample guardrails but also runs 10-1000x faster and scales to data sizes where most standard methods become intractable. Deployed on 38 million customers for a persona-based recommender, the clustering method cut downstream cost and latency by 50-fold while preserving personalization and unblocked the production launch.