It is an evaluation framework for evaluating and comparing graph embedding techniques
| Dataset | Interpretation of clusters | Clusters | Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teams | {Football Teams, Basketball Teams} | 2 | 4,206 |
| (Balanced) Cities and Countries | {Cities, Countries} | 2 | 4,344 |
| Cities, Albums, Movies, AAUP, Forbes | {Cities, Albums, Movies, Universities, Companies} | 5 | 6,357 |
| ! Cities and Countries | {Cities, Countries} | 2 | 11,182 |
| Model | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Agglomerative Clustering | similarity_metric |
| Ward Hierarchical Clustering | similarity_metric |
| DBSCAN | similarity_metric |
| k-Means | - |
For each missing entity a singleton cluster is created, i.e. a cluster which contains only the current entity. Further, soft clustering approaches, such as DBscan, do not cluster all entities. We call these entities miss-clustered entities and manage them exactly as the missing entities, i.e., we create a singleton cluster for each of them. The evaluation metrics are applied to the combination of the clusters returned by the clustering algorithm and all the singleton clusters.
| Metric | Range | Optimum |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted rand score | [-1,1] | Highest |
| Adjusted mutual info score | [0,1] | Highest |
| Fowlkes Mallow index | [0,1] | Highest |
| v_measure score | [0,1] | Highest |
| Homogeneity score | [0,1] | Highest |
| Completeness score | [0,1] | Highest |