Extracting a flat clustering solution from a hierarchy is a common task in practical cluster analysis and can be formulated as an optimisation problem. Existing approaches focus on finding a single optimal solution. We introduce FOSC-X, a framework for extracting the top-M globally optimal flat clusterings from local, non-horizontal cuts of a hierarchical cluster tree, while optionally enforcing constraints on the number of clusters. This enables automatic identification of multiple high-quality alternative clusterings that capture different aspects of the hierarchical structure. Without constraints, the top-M problem can be solved in polynomial time using dynamic programming, exploiting the property that locally optimal partial candidates within subtrees can be combined to form globally optimal solutions while automatically determining the number of clusters. However, this can lead to solutions with numbers of clusters that are ultimately undesirable -- e.g., too large to be meaningful or practically analysed within a particular application domain. Imposing cluster-count constraints breaks the optimality property underlying the unconstrained dynamic programming approach, since locally optimal partial candidates may no longer combine into feasible globally optimal solutions. FOSC-X addresses this challenge through a dynamic programming strategy that maintains compact sets of feasible candidates using lower and upper feasibility bounds while pruning infeasible or dominated combinations. The resulting method guarantees optimal rankings of the top-M solutions with linear-time complexity in the number of cluster nodes and dataset size, both with and without cluster-count constraints. Experiments show that FOSC-X efficiently reveals alternative clustering structures overlooked by single-solution extraction methods.

The explosion in the amount of data available for analysis often necessitates a transition from batch to incremental clustering methods, which process one element at a time and typically store only a small subset of the data. In this paper, we initiate the formal analysis of incremental clustering methods focusing on the types of cluster structure that they are able to detect. We find that the incremental setting is strictly weaker than the batch model, proving that a fundamental class of cluster structures that can readily be detected in the batch setting is impossible to identify using any incremental method. Furthermore, we show how the limitations of incremental clustering can be overcome by allowing additional clusters.

The explosion in the amount of data available for analysis often necessitates a transition from batch to incremental clustering methods, which process one element at a time and typically store only a small subset of the data. In this paper, we initiate the formal analysis of incremental clustering methods focusing on the types of cluster structure that they are able to detect. We find that the incremental setting is strictly weaker than the batch model, proving that a fundamental class of cluster structures that can readily be detected in the batch setting is impossible to identify using any incremental method. Furthermore, we show how the limitations of incremental clustering can be overcome by allowing additional clusters.

Clustering is a fundamental skill in your Data Science toolkit. It can solve a huge array of problems -- from user segmentation to anomaly detection -- and can help your team derive very interesting insights. Determining the right number of clusters for your project is a little more art than science. In this article, I will go over a few common ways to determine the right number of clusters. The objective of this metric is to find the "Elbow" of the WSS curve in order to determine the smallest number of clusters that captures the most amount of signal in your data.

The explosion in the amount of data available for analysis often necessitates a transition from batch to incremental clustering methods, which process one element at a time and typically store only a small subset of the data. In this paper, we initiate the formal analysis of incremental clustering methods focusing on the types of cluster structure that they are able to detect. We find that the incremental setting is strictly weaker than the batch model, proving that a fundamental class of cluster structures that can readily be detected in the batch setting is impossible to identify using any incremental method. Furthermore, we show how the limitations of incremental clustering can be overcome by allowing additional clusters.