Associativity-Peakiness Metric for Contingency Tables

Naomi E. Zirkind, William J. Diehl · Apr 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

Simulation Env

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

For the use case of comparing the performance of clustering algorithms whose output is a contingency table, a single performance metric for contingency tables is needed. Such a metric is vital for comparative performance analysis of clustering algorithms. A survey of publicly available literature did not show the presence of such a metric. Metrics do exist for vector pairs of truth values and predicted values, which are an alternative form of output of clustering algorithms. However, the metrics for vector pairs do not reveal the presence of detailed features that are apparent in contingency tables. This paper presents the Associativity Peakiness (AP) metric, which characterizes aspects of clustering algorithm performance that are critical for predicting a clustering algorithm's performance when deployed. The AP metric is analogous to measures of quality for confusion matrices that are outputs of supervised learning algorithms. This paper presents results from simulations in which 500 contingency tables were generated for multiple test scenarios. The results show that for the use case of evaluating clustering algorithms, the AP metric characterizes performance of contingency tables with higher dynamic range than publicly available metrics, and that it is computationally more efficient than comparable publicly available metrics.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 30%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.