  Clustering is one of the most universal approaches for understanding complex
data. A pivotal aspect of clustering analysis is quantitatively comparing
clusterings; clustering comparison is the basis for many tasks such as
clustering evaluation, consensus clustering, and tracking the temporal
evolution of clusters. In particular, the extrinsic evaluation of clustering
methods requires comparing the uncovered clusterings to planted clusterings or
known metadata. Yet, as we demonstrate, existing clustering comparison measures
have critical biases which undermine their usefulness, and no measure
accommodates both overlapping and hierarchical clusterings. Here we unify the
comparison of disjoint, overlapping, and hierarchically structured clusterings
by proposing a new element-centric framework: elements are compared based on
the relationships induced by the cluster structure, as opposed to the
traditional cluster-centric philosophy. We demonstrate that, in contrast to
standard clustering similarity measures, our framework does not suffer from
critical biases and naturally provides unique insights into how the clusterings
differ. We illustrate the strengths of our framework by revealing new insights
into the organization of clusters in two applications: the improved
classification of schizophrenia based on the overlapping and hierarchical
community structure of fMRI brain networks, and the disentanglement of various
social homophily factors in Facebook social networks. The universality of
clustering suggests far-reaching impact of our framework throughout all areas
of science.
