ML Interview Q Series: When k-Means is run multiple times on the same dataset, how can we assess if the resulting cluster assignments stay consistent across those different runs?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Measuring how consistent multiple k-Means clustering outputs are involves quantifying the similarity or agreement between the cluster assignments across different runs. Because k-Means is sensitive to initialization and can converge to different local optima, evaluating consistency helps us understand the stability of our clustering solution. Below are several core approaches and considerations for assessing clustering consistency:
Relabeling Clusters Before Comparison
One major challenge in comparing different cluster assignments is that the labels can be permuted across runs (for example, cluster 1 in one run might be cluster 3 in another). To compare them correctly, we often use a label-alignment step, sometimes done via the Hungarian algorithm (or a similar minimum-cost matching method). This step ensures that the clusters from one run are matched with the closest or most similar clusters from another run before computing any similarity score.
Pairwise Comparison Metrics
Once the cluster labels from different runs are aligned, we typically evaluate their similarity with external cluster comparison measures. Common metrics include:
Adjusted Rand Index (ARI)
Normalized Mutual Information (NMI)
Homogeneity, Completeness, and V-measure
Jaccard Index
Adjusted Rand Index
The Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) is often preferred because it accounts for chance grouping. ARI essentially counts the agreement of all pairwise assignments across two clustering solutions, correcting for random assignments. Its value ranges from -1 to 1, with higher values indicating better agreement.
Here, n is the total number of data points. n_{ij} is the number of points that belong to cluster i in the first clustering and to cluster j in the second clustering. a_i is the total number of points assigned to cluster i in the first clustering, and b_j is the total number of points assigned to cluster j in the second clustering.
ARI = 1 implies perfect agreement, while ARI near 0 indicates randomness. Negative ARI values can arise if the similarity is worse than random.
Normalized Mutual Information
Another popular metric is Normalized Mutual Information (NMI), which measures the amount of information shared between two cluster assignments relative to the average entropy of each. NMI ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating perfect correspondence. A significant advantage is that NMI is not impacted by label permutations, although we still often do label alignment for direct interpretability.
Stability via Resampling
In addition to direct comparison between repeated runs on the same dataset, we can employ techniques that check cluster stability through resampling:
Bootstrap Sampling: Randomly sample the dataset (with replacement), run k-Means, then compare the resulting cluster assignments to those obtained with another sample. Repeated many times, consistency can be analyzed by how often points end up in the same cluster.
Cross-Validation for Clusters: Similar in spirit to supervised learning cross-validation, but here we partition the data, run clustering on each fold, and then compare how often points remain in the same (or matched) clusters.
Qualitative Examination
Beyond numerical measures, some teams also visually inspect consistency by:
Plotting cluster centroids across different runs. If the centroids remain relatively consistent, we assume stable clustering.
Using dimensionality reduction (like PCA or t-SNE) to see whether the visual separation of clusters remains roughly the same in multiple solutions.
Practical Python Example
Below is a brief Python code snippet that demonstrates how you might compare two k-Means solutions using the Adjusted Rand Index and Normalized Mutual Information with scikit-learn:
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans
from sklearn.metrics import adjusted_rand_score, normalized_mutual_info_score
import numpy as np
# Example dataset
X = np.random.rand(100, 2)
# First k-Means run
kmeans1 = KMeans(n_clusters=3, random_state=42).fit(X)
labels1 = kmeans1.labels_
# Second k-Means run
kmeans2 = KMeans(n_clusters=3, random_state=123).fit(X)
labels2 = kmeans2.labels_
# Calculate Adjusted Rand Index
ari = adjusted_rand_score(labels1, labels2)
# Calculate Normalized Mutual Information
nmi = normalized_mutual_info_score(labels1, labels2)
print("Adjusted Rand Index:", ari)
print("Normalized Mutual Information:", nmi)
In practice, you would repeat the procedure multiple times to compute an average measure of consistency.
How to Interpret These Metrics
The ARI and NMI values are especially useful:
High ARI means that most data points are being grouped together consistently across different runs.
High NMI indicates that the partitioning of the dataset carries approximately the same “information” across runs.
Any significant discrepancy (for example, ARI or NMI near zero) suggests that the clustering solution is highly unstable. In such cases, it might be necessary to explore different values of k, alternative clustering methods, or data preprocessing steps (like scaling and dimensionality reduction) to achieve more consistent results.
Potential Follow-up Questions
How do we handle a situation where the runs produce different numbers of clusters?
One approach is to predetermine the number of clusters k so that all solutions have the same cluster count. If the clustering algorithms themselves naturally choose different k values, label alignment becomes trickier. You might need to align only the overlapping clusters, ignore extra clusters, or apply a “merge/split” approach to unify the cluster assignments. Alternatively, you can use a model selection approach that identifies the optimal k in a consistent manner for each run (e.g., using the elbow method or silhouette-based selection).
Why not just compare cluster centroids instead of labels?
Comparing centroids directly is feasible if the clusters are indeed well-represented by their centroids (as is generally assumed in k-Means). However, distance between centroids alone can be misleading, especially if the distribution of points assigned to each cluster differs significantly between runs. Moreover, because clusters can shift in high-dimensional spaces and still produce similar label assignments, label-based similarity metrics (like ARI or NMI) usually give a more robust measure of how stable or consistent the solutions are.
Could we use internal metrics like the Silhouette Score for consistency?
Silhouette analysis primarily measures how well-separated clusters are within a single run. It does not directly compare different cluster assignments to each other. For consistency across runs, external metrics (e.g., ARI, NMI) are more appropriate because they explicitly capture the agreement between multiple label assignments.
What about computational complexity for large datasets?
For very large datasets, running k-Means multiple times can be computationally expensive. Incremental or mini-batch variants of k-Means can help reduce the computational burden. In extremely large-scale scenarios, you might sample a subset of the data for repeated clustering runs and measure consistency there. Distributed implementations (e.g., Spark’s MLlib) can also be leveraged.
Are there domain-specific considerations?
Yes. If you know certain data points must be grouped together (for instance, from domain knowledge), you can assess whether those groupings are preserved in repeated runs. Domain insight can also guide whether minor differences in cluster boundaries are acceptable or if they indicate a fundamental instability in the clustering solution.
By combining these consistency metrics, label alignment techniques, and domain understanding, you can gain deeper insights into whether repeated k-Means runs produce reliable and stable cluster structures.