↓ Skip to main content

Clustering with Hypergraphs: The Case for Large Hyperedges

Overview of attention for article published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clustering with Hypergraphs: The Case for Large Hyperedges
Published in
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, October 2016
DOI 10.1109/tpami.2016.2614980
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pulak Purkait, Tat-Jun Chin, Alireza Sadri, David Suter

Abstract

The extension of conventional clustering to hypergraph clustering, which involves higher order similarities instead of pairwise similarities, is increasingly gaining attention in computer vision. This is due to the fact that many clustering problems require an affinity measure that must involve a subset of data of size more than two. In the context of hypergraph clustering, the calculation of such higher order similarities on data subsets gives rise to hyperedges. Almost all previous work on hypergraph clustering in computer vision, however, has considered the smallest possible hyperedge size, due to a lack of study into the potential benefits of large hyperedges and effective algorithms to generate them. In this paper, we show that large hyperedges are better from both a theoretical and an empirical standpoint. We then propose a novel guided sampling strategy for large hyperedges, based on the concept of random cluster models. Our method can generate large pure hyperedges that significantly improve grouping accuracy without exponential increases in sampling costs. We demonstrate the efficacy of our technique on various higher-order grouping problems. In particular, we show that our approach improves the accuracy and efficiency of motion segmentation from dense, long-term, trajectories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 27%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 26 43%
Engineering 7 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Mathematics 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
#5,060
of 6,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,530
of 327,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
#23
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.