Aiming towards the development of a general clustering theory, we discuss abstract axiomatization for clustering. In this respect, we follow up on the work of Kelinberg, (Kleinberg) that showed an impossibility result for such axiomatization. We argue that an impossibility result is not an inherent feature of clustering, but rather, to a large extent, it is an artifact of the specific formalism used in Kleinberg. As opposed to previous work focusing on clustering functions, we propose to address clustering quality measures as the primitive object to be axiomatized. We show that principles like those formulated in Kleinberg's axioms can be readily expressed in the latter framework without leading to inconsistency. A clustering-quality measure is a function that, given a data set and its partition into clusters, returns a non-negative real number representing how strong' orconclusive' the clustering is. We analyze what clustering-quality measures should look like and introduce a set of requirements (`axioms') that express these requirement and extend the translation of Kleinberg's axioms to our framework. We propose several natural clustering quality measures, all satisfying the proposed axioms. In addition, we show that the proposed clustering quality can be computed in polynomial time.

Graph clustering methods such as spectral clustering are defined for general weighted graphs. In machine learning, however, data often is not given in form of a graph, but in terms of similarity (or distance) values between points. In this case, first a neighborhood graph is constructed using the similarities between the points and then a graph clustering algorithm is applied to this graph. In this paper we investigate the influence of the construction of the similarity graph on the clustering results, from a theoretical point of view. We first study the convergence of graph clustering criteria such as the normalized cut (Ncut) as the sample size tends to infinity. We find that the limit expressions are different for different types of graph, for example the r-neighborhood graph or the k-nearest neighbor graph. In plain words: Ncut on a knn graph does something systematically different than Ncut on an r-neighborhood graph! This finding shows that graph clustering criteria cannot be studied independently of the kind of graph they will be applied to. We also provide examples which show how those differences lead to big differences in clustering results in practice.