ML Interview Q Series: In what scenarios would it be more advantageous to apply Hierarchical Clustering instead of Spectral Clustering?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

Hierarchical Clustering and Spectral Clustering each have their own strengths and practical use cases. Although both methods aim to group data points into coherent clusters, they fundamentally differ in how they represent and partition the data.

Conceptual Difference

Hierarchical Clustering proceeds by either merging smaller clusters into bigger clusters (agglomerative) or splitting a large cluster into smaller clusters (divisive). The outcome is a dendrogram structure that gives a full hierarchy of clusters at varying levels of granularity. The user can cut this dendrogram at a specific height to produce a chosen number of clusters.

Spectral Clustering relies on graph theory. It constructs a similarity graph of all data points and then applies linear algebra techniques to the graph Laplacian to identify clusters. It is often beneficial for complex, non-convex cluster shapes and can sometimes perform well on high-dimensional data.

Dendrogram and Interpretability

One major reason to favor Hierarchical Clustering is when you need a direct visual representation or an interpretable structure of how clusters get formed. The dendrogram not only shows how points are assigned to clusters but also provides a user-friendly way to tune the number of clusters by selecting different cut points. In contrast, Spectral Clustering does not natively produce a hierarchical view. It typically requires specifying the number of clusters beforehand, and while there are methods to estimate the optimal number of clusters, they might not be as straightforward as examining a dendrogram.

Handling Varying Granularity

Hierarchical Clustering is especially beneficial if you want the flexibility of exploring clusters at multiple levels of granularity without rerunning the entire clustering process. By simply adjusting the dendrogram's cut threshold, you can move from fewer to more clusters or vice versa. This approach is simpler than re-running Spectral Clustering repeatedly with different cluster counts.

Data Size and Complexity

Spectral Clustering can become computationally expensive for large datasets, since it involves constructing an n x n similarity matrix and computing eigenvectors of the graph Laplacian. By contrast, hierarchical methods (especially certain optimized variants) can sometimes be more feasible, although standard agglomerative clustering has its own complexity concerns because it computes distances between all possible pairs of points or clusters.

For very large datasets, people sometimes consider approximate or specialized methods. Hierarchical Clustering might still be chosen if the primary goal is a dendrogram-based interpretability, even if an approximate strategy is needed to handle scale efficiently.

Suitability for Certain Similarity Measures

In some domains, you might have domain-specific distance metrics that are easier to incorporate into a hierarchical scheme. For instance, specialized measures for textual, biological, or geographical data can be plugged directly into an agglomerative or divisive hierarchical approach. Spectral Clustering, although flexible, requires constructing a similarity graph that must be carefully tuned (choice of kernel function or similarity metric), and it might be tricky to set the right scaling parameters for the adjacency matrix in certain specialized domains.

Graph Laplacian in Spectral Clustering

Spectral Clustering typically uses the graph Laplacian defined by the diagonal degree matrix D and adjacency matrix A. The matrix is given by

Here, L is the graph Laplacian, D is a diagonal matrix where each entry is the degree of a node, and A is the adjacency matrix encoding pairwise similarities. Eigen-decomposition of L reveals cluster structure by focusing on the eigenvectors corresponding to the smallest eigenvalues, which often encode strong grouping cues. While this method is powerful, the process may be more complex to fine-tune if you do not have a clear way to determine the appropriate number of clusters or an ideal bandwidth for your similarity function.

Summary of When to Prefer Hierarchical Clustering

It might be chosen over Spectral Clustering when you want the direct interpretability and convenience of a dendrogram, the flexibility to select or explore cluster counts after the fact, or the ability to integrate specialized distance metrics readily. In relatively smaller datasets or when you explicitly want to see how clusters merge or split at multiple scales, Hierarchical Clustering can be more intuitive than a single partitioning method like Spectral Clustering.

Follow-up Question 1

How do you decide on the number of clusters when using Hierarchical Clustering?

A common approach is to look at the dendrogram and visually inspect the distances at which clusters are merged. You can choose a threshold distance where the distance between clusters starts to become large, effectively cutting the dendrogram at that point. This method might be somewhat subjective, so another approach is to use cluster validity indices or objective measures (such as the silhouette coefficient) for different cut points. Once you evaluate these metrics across potential cluster solutions, you can determine an optimal number of clusters. In practice, domain knowledge can guide where it is meaningful to cut.

Follow-up Question 2

What are potential pitfalls when constructing a similarity graph for Spectral Clustering?

There are a few tricky aspects. First, the scale parameter for the similarity or kernel function must be carefully selected so that you capture meaningful relationships without making all points look either equally similar or dissimilar. Second, if your data has varying density regions, a single global scaling might fail to capture local structures. Third, constructing the adjacency matrix can be expensive for large datasets, and storing it might require substantial memory. To address these, you can use methods like the nearest-neighbor kernel (where each point only connects to its nearest neighbors), or you can employ adaptive bandwidth approaches that adjust the kernel width locally. Tuning these parameters often requires experimentation or domain expertise.

Follow-up Question 3

Can you provide a simple Python example comparing Hierarchical Clustering and Spectral Clustering on a small dataset?

Below is a concise code snippet illustrating the usage of both methods in scikit-learn. This example uses a toy dataset so you can see the difference in how each approach is implemented:

import numpy as np
from sklearn.datasets import make_moons
from sklearn.cluster import AgglomerativeClustering, SpectralClustering
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Generate a toy 2D dataset
X, y_true = make_moons(n_samples=200, noise=0.05, random_state=42)

# Hierarchical Clustering
hc = AgglomerativeClustering(n_clusters=2, linkage='ward')
hc_labels = hc.fit_predict(X)

# Spectral Clustering
sc = SpectralClustering(n_clusters=2, affinity='nearest_neighbors', random_state=42)
sc_labels = sc.fit_predict(X)

# Plotting the results
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(10, 4))

axes[0].scatter(X[:, 0], X[:, 1], c=hc_labels, cmap='viridis', s=50)
axes[0].set_title("Hierarchical Clustering")

axes[1].scatter(X[:, 0], X[:, 1], c=sc_labels, cmap='viridis', s=50)
axes[1].set_title("Spectral Clustering")

plt.show()

In this example, Hierarchical Clustering uses the Ward linkage to combine clusters by minimizing the within-cluster variance, while Spectral Clustering builds a similarity graph and applies eigen-decomposition. Even on a small dataset, differences can emerge depending on the chosen parameters for each method.

Follow-up Question 4

Is it ever beneficial to use Hierarchical Clustering on large datasets?

In many industrial-scale scenarios, Hierarchical Clustering might appear impractical because its naive implementation can have high time complexity (often around O(n^2 log n) in the agglomerative case, depending on the algorithm). However, there are approximate and memory-efficient implementations. For instance, you can use sampling-based approaches or incremental methods that do not strictly compute all pairwise distances. These variants allow you to retain some interpretability benefits of dendrograms while scaling to larger datasets, although you might lose some accuracy. If the interpretability and the hierarchy of clusters are critical for your application, you might consider such methods despite the computational overhead.

Follow-up Question 5

How do you address the issue of deciding the appropriate similarity metric in hierarchical clustering?

Choosing a similarity or distance metric is a crucial step in any clustering method, especially in hierarchical clustering where the entire structure can change depending on the distance function. One key strategy is to rely on domain knowledge to identify what type of distance or similarity measure is most meaningful. For instance, in text clustering, you might use cosine similarity on TF-IDF vectors. In gene expression data, correlation-based distances might be relevant. If you are unsure, you can experiment with different metrics (Euclidean, Manhattan, correlation, etc.) and evaluate cluster quality using internal metrics (like silhouette score or Davies-Bouldin index) or external metrics (like purity or adjusted Rand index if you have ground truth labels). Understanding the nature of your data, including any scaling or normalization requirements, will guide you toward the right metric.

Follow-up Question 6

Could you explain an edge case where Spectral Clustering could fail but Hierarchical Clustering might still succeed?

An example edge case might be a scenario where the similarity function for Spectral Clustering is improperly scaled, causing nearly all data points to appear equally similar. In such a situation, the eigen-decomposition might fail to detect distinct clusters, leading to degenerate results. Hierarchical Clustering, on the other hand, would still proceed to merge or split clusters based on local distance information, potentially unveiling a structure that Spectral Clustering missed due to an ill-chosen adjacency matrix. This highlights the importance of properly tuning the similarity graph in Spectral Clustering and shows how the simpler direct distance-based approach of Hierarchical Clustering can still be robust in certain situations.