## 3 Evaluation
### Experimental Setup
#### 3.2.2 Classification Setting
The comparison results are shown in Table 8. As can be seen from the table, our proposed method achieves the second highest accuracy which exhibits the model's effectiveness on this dataset. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dataset** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **K-Means** \\ **Init. Method** \\ \end{tabular} & **Option** & **Test Set** & _Time_ & _Inertia_ & \(H\) & \(C\) & \(V_{\beta}\) & \(ARI\) & \(AMI\) & \(S\) \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Fashion- \\ MNIST \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{K-Means++} & Option1 & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 41.216 s & 30,290,316 & 0.505 & 0.536 & 0.520 & 0.338 & 0.505 & 0.151 \\  & & \(D^{\text{Ts}}_{\text{T}}\) & 24.270 s & **7.065,023** & **0.705** & **0.707** & **0.706** & **0.636** & **0.705** & **0.505** \\  & & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 14.065 s & 12,138,071 & 0.506 & 0.523 & 0.515 & 0.315 & 0.506 & 0.103 \\  & & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & **9.982 s** & **4.670,369** & 0.674 & 0.677 & 0.676 & 0.588 & 0.674 & 0.325 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Random} & \multirow{3}{*}{Option1} & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 44.563 s & 30,243,539 & 0.493 & 0.518 & 0.505 & 0.348 & 0.493 & 0.137 \\  & & \(D^{\text{Ts}}_{\text{T}}\) & 38.562 s & **7.067,789** & **0.693** & **0.712** & **0.702** & **0.607** & **0.693** & **0.510** \\  & & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 18.293 s & 12,179,589 & 0.510 & 0.524 & 0.517 & 0.331 & 0.510 & 0.084 \\  & & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & **10.308 s** & **4.670,369** & 0.674 & 0.677 & 0.676 & 0.588 & 0.674 & 0.355 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{PCA-Based} & \multirow{3}{*}{Option1} & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 10.170 s & 30,820,962 & 0.488 & 0.503 & 0.495 & 0.344 & 0.488 & 0.131 \\  & & \(D^{\text{Ts}}_{\text{T}}\) & 8.454 s & **8.803,305** & **0.675** & **0.690** & **0.682** & **0.587** & **0.675** & **0.479** \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 3.447 s & 12,274,965 & 0.514 & 0.530 & 0.522 & 0.361 & 0.514 & 0.100 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & **2.250 s** & **5,529,373** & 0.644 & 0.663 & 0.653 & 0.531 & 0.643 & 0.329 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dataset** & **Classifier** & **Option** & **Train Set** & **Test Set** & **Average Accuracy** & **Average Loss** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{MNIST} & \multirow{3}{*}{NN} & Option1 & \(D^{\text{Tr}}\) & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 0.829278 & 0.588378 \\  & & Option2 & \(Z_{tr}\) & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.817143 & 0.728606 \\  & & Option1 & \(\{D^{\text{Tr}},\,D^{\text{Tr}}\}\) & \(\bar{D}^{\text{Ts}}\) & **0.890600** & **0.423493** \\  & & Option2 & \(\{Z_{tr},\,Z_{tr}\}\) & \(\bar{Z}_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.881613 & 0.415675 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{3}{*}{LSVM} & Option1 & \(D^{\text{Tr}}\) & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 0.747853 & - \\  & & Option2 & \(Z_{tr}\) & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.817158 & - \\  & & Option1 & \(\{D^{\text{Tr}},\,D^{\text{Tr}}\}\) & \(\bar{D}^{\text{Ts}}\) & **0.866773** & - \\  & & Option2 & \(\{Z_{tr},\,Z_{tr}\}\) & \(\bar{Z}_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.736704 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{3}{*}{NN} & Option1 & \(D^{\text{Tr}}\) & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 0.780324 & 0.652228 \\  & & Option2 & \(Z_{tr}\) & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.782837 & 0.770872 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & Option1 & \(\{D^{\text{Tr}},\,D^{\text{Tr}}\}\) & \(\bar{D}^{\text{Ts}}\) & **0.809889** & **0.648123** \\ \cline{2-6}  & & Option2 & \(\{Z_{tr},\,Z_{tr}\}\) & \(\bar{Z}_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.808163 & 0.728820 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{3}{*}{LSVM} & Option1 & \(D^{\text{Tr}}\) & \(D^{\text{Ts}}\) & 0.709376 & - \\  & & Option2 & \(Z_{tr}\) & \(Z_{\text{ts}}\) & 0.763546 & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Option1 & \(\{D^{\text{Tr}},\,D^{\text{Tr}}\}\) & \(\bar{D}^{\text{Ts}}\) & 0.780488 & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Option2 & \(\{Z_{tr},\,Z_{tr}\}\) & \(\bar{Z}_{\text{ts}}\) & **0.800102** & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Set-2 pilot experiment classification setting results. Bolded values indicate the comparison result between the two options.