For my work, I analyse a rather new method for out-of-sample extension of spectral embedding methods (mostly Laplacian Eigenmaps). Instead of just providing a discrete embedding for every data point, based on a training set a function is generated, which only needs to be evaluated for out-of-sample points.

In the papers I considered (e.g. the one by Bengio et al proposing a Nyström-based out-of-sample extension) very different methods are used to prove quality and performance of such out-of-sample-extension. Bengio measures the difference between some sort of "training set variability" and the out-of-sample-error obtained via leave-one-out-cross-validation. Gisbrecht et al simply apply ten-fold cross-validation, while another paper uses a mean adjusted rand index of several test sets out-of-sample data after performing some clustering on the data.

Question: Is there any up-to-date concept, which method is the most useful for such a quality/performance measurement, or is it left to the researcher?

(I am considering embedding specificially; results for clustering would be interesting, too, as mostly my embedding is a preprocessing step for clustering, but would not solve the problem.)


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.