Existing clustering methods for functional data often prioritize partitioning accuracy over interpretability, making it challenging to extract meaningful insights when the data-generating process follows a specific underlying structure and an ordinal relationship among clusters is suspected. This work introduces K-Models, a novel framework that integrates ordinal constraints and estimates key underlying elements of the random process generating the observed functional profiles, improving both interpretability and structure identification. The proposed method is evaluated through simulations and real-world applications. In particular, it is tested on Region of Interest (ROI) curves, which represent reaction profiles from a reflectometric sensor monitoring biomolecular interactions, such as antigen-antibody binding. These curves represent changes in reflected light intensity over time at multiple measurement spots with immobilized antigens during analyte exposure, capturing the binding dynamics of the system. The goal is to identify intrinsic signal patterns solely from the observed dynamics, making this dataset an ideal benchmark for assessing the added interpretability of the proposed approach. By incorporating structural assumptions into the clustering process, K-Models enhances interpretability while maintaining performance comparable to state-of-the-art techniques, providing a valuable tool for analyzing functional data with an underlying ordinal structure.

To understand neural network behavior, recent works quantitatively compare different networks' learned representations using canonical correlation analysis (CCA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and other dissimilarity measures. Unfortunately, these widely used measures often disagree on fundamental observations, such as whether deep networks differing only in random initialization learn similar representations. These disagreements raise the question: which, if any, of these dissimilarity measures should we believe? We provide a framework to ground this question through a concrete test: measures should have sensitivity to changes that affect functional behavior, and specificity against changes that do not. We quantify this through a variety of functional behaviors including probing accuracy and robustness to distribution shift, and examine changes such as varying random initialization and deleting principal components. We find that current metrics exhibit different weaknesses, note that a classical baseline performs surprisingly well, and highlight settings where all metrics appear to fail, thus providing a challenge set for further improvement.

To understand neural network behavior, recent works quantitatively compare different networks' learned representations using canonical correlation analysis (CCA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and other dissimilarity measures. Unfortunately, these widely used measures often disagree on fundamental observations, such as whether deep networks differing only in random initialization learn similar representations. These disagreements raise the question: which, if any, of these dissimilarity measures should we believe? We provide a framework to ground this question through a concrete test: measures should have sensitivity to changes that affect functional behavior, and specificity against changes that do not. We quantify this through a variety of functional behaviors including probing accuracy and robustness to distribution shift, and examine changes such as varying random initialization and deleting principal components. We find that current metrics exhibit different weaknesses, note that a classical baseline performs surprisingly well, and highlight settings where all metrics appear to fail, thus providing a challenge set for further improvement.

To understand neural network behavior, recent works quantitatively compare different networks' learned representations using canonical correlation analysis (CCA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and other dissimilarity measures. Unfortunately, these widely used measures often disagree on fundamental observations, such as whether deep networks differing only in random initialization learn similar representations. These disagreements raise the question: which, if any, of these dissimilarity measures should we believe? We provide a framework to ground this question through a concrete test: measures should have \emph{sensitivity} to changes that affect functional behavior, and \emph{specificity} against changes that do not. We quantify this through a variety of functional behaviors including probing accuracy and robustness to distribution shift, and examine changes such as varying random initialization and deleting principal components. We find that current metrics exhibit different weaknesses, note that a classical baseline performs surprisingly well, and highlight settings where all metrics appear to fail, thus providing a challenge set for further improvement.

These disagreements raise the question: which, if any, of these dissimilarity measures should we believe?

Clustering based on belief functions has been gaining increasing attention in the machine learning community due to its ability to effectively represent uncertainty and/or imprecision. However, none of the existing algorithms can be applied to complex data, such as mixed data (numerical and categorical) or non-tabular data like time series. Indeed, these types of data are, in general, not represented in a Euclidean space and the aforementioned algorithms make use of the properties of such spaces, in particular for the construction of barycenters. In this paper, we reformulate the Evidential C-Means (ECM) problem for clustering complex data. We propose a new algorithm, Soft-ECM, which consistently positions the centroids of imprecise clusters requiring only a semi-metric. Our experiments show that Soft-ECM present results comparable to conventional fuzzy clustering approaches on numerical data, and we demonstrate its ability to handle mixed data and its benefits when combining fuzzy clustering with semi-metrics such as DTW for time series data.

Time series clustering is an unsupervised learning method for classifying time series data into groups with similar behavior. It is used in applications such as healthcare, finance, economics, energy, and climate science. Several time series clustering methods have been introduced and used for over four decades. Most of them focus on measuring either Euclidean distances or association dissimilarities between time series. In this work, we propose a new dissimilarity measure called ranked Pearson correlation dissimilarity (RDPC), which combines a weighted average of a specified fraction of the largest element-wise differences with the well-known Pearson correlation dissimilarity. It is incorporated into hierarchical clustering. The performance is evaluated and compared with existing clustering algorithms. The results show that the RDPC algorithm outperforms others in complicated cases involving different seasonal patterns, trends, and peaks. Finally, we demonstrate our method by clustering a random sample of customers from a Thai electricity consumption time series dataset into seven groups with unique characteristics.