Papers › [Re] Deep Fair Clustering for Visual Learning
[Re] Deep Fair Clustering for Visual Learning
Pauline Baanders, Chris Al Gerges, Nienke Reints, Tobias Teule
Scope of Reproducibility Deep Fair Clustering (DFC) aims to provide a clustering algorithm that is fair, clusteringfavourable, and which can be used on high-dimensional and large-scale data. In existing frameworks there is a trade-off between clustering quality and fairness. In this report we aim to reproduce a selection of the results of DFC; using two of four datasets and all four metrics that were used in the original paper, namely accuracy, Normalized Mutual Information (NMI), balance and entropy. We use the authorsʼ implementation and check whether it is consistent with the description in the paper. As extensions to the original paper we look into the effects of 1) using no pretrained cluster centers, 2) using different divergence functions as clustering regularizers and 3) using non-binary/corrupted sensitive attributes. Methodology The open source code of the authors has been used. The datasets and data-preprocessing has been done with our code, since the authors did not provide the datasets in their code. Also the pretrained Variational Autoencoder (VAE) dataset had to be re-implemented for the Color Reverse MNIST . For the extensions we wrote extra functions. For measuring the influence of discarding the pretrained cluster centers, the code was already provided by the authors. Results For the MNIST-USPS dataset, we report similar accuracy and NMI values that are within 1.2% and 0.5% of the values reported in the original paper. However, the balance and entropy differed significantly, where our results were within 73.1% and 30.3% of the original values respectively. For the Color Reverse MNIST dataset, we report similar values on accuracy, balance and entropy, which are within 5.3%, 2.6% and 0.2% respectively. Only the value of the NMI differed significantly, name within 12.9% of the original value In general, our results still support the main claim of the original paper, even though on some metrics the results differ significantly. What was easy The open source code of the authors was beneficial; it was well structured and ordered into multiple files. Furthermore, the code to use randomly initialized instead of pretrained cluster centers was already provided. What was difficult First of all, the main difficulty in reproducing the paper was caused by the coding style; due to the lack of comments it was difficult to get a good understanding of the code. Secondly, we were required to download the data ourselves. However, these filenames and labels did not correspond to the included txt-files by the authors. Therefore, the model did not learn and we regenerated train_mnist.txt and train_usps.txt. Finally, the authors only included pretrained models for the MNIST-USPS dataset. As a consequence, we had to pre-train some parts of the DFC algorithm for the Color Reverse MNIST dataset.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections