From Dictionary to Tensor: A Scalable Multi-View Subspace Clustering Framework with Triple Information Enhancement

Authors: zhibin  gu
songhe  feng
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-10 03:45:42

Abstract: While Tensor-based Multi-view Subspace Clustering (TMSC) has garnered significant attention for its capacity to effectively capture high-order correlations among multiple views, three notable limitations in current TMSC methods necessitate consideration: 1) high computational complexity and reliance on dictionary completeness resulting from using observed data as the dictionary, 2) inaccurate subspace representation stemming from the oversight of local geometric information and 3) under-penalization of noise-related singular values within tensor data caused by treating all singular values equally. To address these limitations, this paper presents a \textbf{S}calable TMSC framework with \textbf{T}riple inf\textbf{O}rmatio\textbf{N} \textbf{E}nhancement (\textbf{STONE}). Notably, an enhanced anchor dictionary learning mechanism has been utilized to recover the low-rank anchor structure, resulting in reduced computational complexity and increased resilience, especially in scenarios with inadequate dictionaries. Additionally, we introduce an anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularizer to preserve the inherent geometry of the data within the subspace representation. Simultaneously, an improved hyperbolic tangent function has been employed as a precise approximation for tensor rank, effectively capturing the significant variations in singular values. Extensive experimentation on a variety of datasets demonstrates that our approach surpasses SOTA methods in both effectiveness and efficiency.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Data clustering, a fundamental technique within the domains of machine learning and computer vision, aims to partition an unlabeled dataset into discernible subgroups characterized by substantial internal similarity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . In practical scenarios, objects are frequently characterized by a multitude of properties or data originating from various sources [6] [7] [8] [9] . For instance, in medical analysis, imaging data from modalities such as X-ray, CT, and MRI play a crucial role in diagnosis and disease monitoring. These diverse features, representing various aspects of the same object, collectively constitute multi-view data. Multi-view clustering (MVC), which endeavors to harness the abundant information inherent in multi-view data to enhance the quality of clustering, has emerged as a highly esteemed research avenue [10] [11] [12] . Existing MVC methods can be broadly categorized into four groups based on the underlying learning mechanisms: matrix factorization-based approaches [13] [14] [15] , subspace-based approaches [16] [17] [18] , graph-based approaches [19] [20] [21] , and kernel-based approaches [22] [23] [24] . Among these, subspace approaches are highly regarded for their straightforward implementation and excellent results.Multi-view subspace clustering is oriented towards the incorporation of diverse constraints within subspace representations to acquire a consensus one that is conducive to clustering [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] . For instance, Cao et al. [26] and Li et al. [30] proposed the utilization of the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion as a dependency measure, aiming to capture diversity and consistency from multi-view data, respectively. Pan and Kang [28] integrated a contrastive loss regularization into the consensus subspace representation, encouraging the proximity of similar samples and the separation of dissimilar ones. In addition, Huang et al. [32] facilitated the extraction of valuable consensus representation by assuming cross-view sparsity of inconsistent components in multi-view data. Nevertheless, these methods are confined to investigating only the linear affinity relationships between data pairs within individual views and do not capitalize on the higher-order correlations among data points across multiple views. This limitation results in suboptimal clustering performance. As a result, tensor-based multi-view subspace clustering methods (TMSC) have remained the focus of sustained attention in recent years. Typically, these TMSC methods consolidate various subspace representations into a 3D tensor, subsequently applying global structural constraints to uncover the complex, nonlinear relationships among data points across different views [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] . For example, Xie et al. [34] advanced cross view consistency exploration by employing Tensor Nuclear Norm (TNN) on the rotated tensor. Jia et al. [36] characterized the intra-view and inter-view relationships of data points by applying symmetric low-rank constraints to the frontal slices and structured sparse low-rank constraints to the horizontal slices. Furthermore, Guo et al. [38] and Sun et al. [39] introduced the logarithmic Schatten-p norm and the arctan rank norm as compact surrogates for tensor rank, aimed at capturing distinctive information from tensor singular values.Despite the noteworthy clustering quality achieved by the TMSC methods described above, there remains considerable potential for further enhancements across four critical dimensions. First, many existing methods exhibit quadratic or even cubic time and space complexities, which restricts their scalability for large-scale datasets. Second, previous techniques have utilized the given feature matrix as the dictionary for subspace recovery. However, this method requires that the feature representations to include a sufficient number of uncontaminated sampled points; otherwise, the resulting subspace representation may not accurately capture the affinity relationships among the data points. Third, traditional approaches often emphasize the low-rank structure of tensor representations to investigate high-order nonlinear correlations among data points across various views, while frequently neglecting the intricate local geometric correlations within individual view. Finally, many methods impose equal penalties on the singular values of tensor data, which may lead to excessive penalization of larger singular values while under-penalizing smaller ones, resulting in suboptimal tensor representations. This issue arises from the differing significance of singular values in tensor data, where larger singular values indicate valuable features and smaller ones are often associated with noise.Drawing from the principles and justifications discussed previously, this paper proposes a Scalable TMSC framework with Triple infOrmatioN Enhancement (STONE). First, STONE employs an enhanced anchor dictionary representation mechanism instead of the traditional self-representation to learn a subspace representation. This approach effectively reduces computational complexity and enhances the stability and robustness of the algorithm in situations where dictionary are insufficient or corrupted. Additionally, we introduce an anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularization to guide the learning of target anchor tensor representation, facilitating the simultaneous utilization of highorder correlations among data points across views and geometric correlations among data points within each view. Furthermore, a refined hyperbolic tangent rank is developed as a non-convex low-rank regularization for tensor data, enabling the STONE model to effectively distinguish the distinct physical meanings of various singular values. Compared to existing TMSC methods, the contributions of this paper can be outlined as follows:• We introduce an enhanced anchor dictionary representation strategy to recover the anchor subspace representation, mitigating the high computational complexity of self-representation methods and improving accuracy under dictionary under-sampling.• We develop a refined Hyperbolic Tangent Rank (HTR) as a precise approximation to the tensor rank. In contrast to TNN, HTR allows for variable penalties on individual singular values, facilitating a thorough exploration of differences among different singular values.• We utilize anchor hypergraphs that encode geometric manifold correlation to regularize the target tensor representation, allowing for the simultaneous utilization of high-order correlations across different views and the complex relationships within each view.• We present an iterative optimization algorithm along with analyses of its complexity and convergence. Comprehensive experimental results demonstrate that the STONE model excels in both clustering performance and efficiency. 
theoretical foundation: 
 Let X = {x 1 , ..., x n } ∈ R d×n denotes a dataset comprising n instances, with each instance represented by a d-dimensional feature vector. Low-Rank Representation (LRR) [40] aims to recover a subspace representation by employing the feature matrix X as a dictionary, which can be mathematically described as follows:EQUATIONwhere Z ∈ R n×n represents the subspace representation, which is regularized with the nuclear norm • * to ensure a low-rank structure. The reconstruction error is denoted by E ∈ R d×n and is constrained by the 2,1 -norm to promote sparsity. The parameter α serves as a balancing factor.LRR has proven its effectiveness in uncovering the spatial structure of data patterns [41] [42] [43] , yet it hinges on a critical requirement: the data matrix X must contain a sufficient number of data points sampled from the subspaces. Otherwise, a potential solution to Eq. ( 1) could be the identity matrix, which hinders the implementation of low-rank representation (LRR). To address this issue, Liu and Yan [44] proposed that, alongside the given data X, there exists a set of unobserved data points Y in the dictionary representation, which acts as an ideal supplement to X. This strategy is known as the latent low-rank representation model (LatLRR), which helps to mitigate the impacts of insufficient and corrupted observational data. Its mathematical definition is as follows:EQUATIONwhere Y ∈ R k×n represents the unobserved feature representation, which is concatenated with X along the columns to form a complete feature representation serving as the dictionary. For practicality, [44] relaxes Eq. ( 2) into the following nuclear norm minimization problem to approximate the unobserved data and learn an accurate subspace representation:EQUATIONwhere P ∈ R d×d denotes an intermediate result, which is obtained through the skinny SVD theory, which serves as a tool for feature extraction [44] . Emphasizing our focus on clustering, the subsequent discussion revolves around the subspace representation Z, and the nuclear norm on P will be relaxed to the Frobenius norm-a convex surrogate for low-rank constraint that adheres to the block diagonal condition [45] [46] [47] .3 The Proposed MethodQuestion: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper predominantly highlights the development of a new multi-view clustering model, which, in comparison to state-of-the-art methods, doesn't appear to exhibit any limitations.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.• The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be. • The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated. • The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach.For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon. • The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size. • If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations. 
the stone model: 
 Consider a dataset containing n samples and m views, denoted as {X v } m v=1 , where X v ∈ R dv×n represents the v-th view feature, and d v indicating the corresponding dimension. The objective of the TMSC method is to organize multiple view-specific subspace representations into a 3-D low-rank tensor, with the aim of unveiling higher-order correlation information spanning multiple views. Formally, the general mathematical expression of TMSC is as follows:EQUATIONwhere Z v ∈ R n×n represents the subspace representation of the v-th view, and Z ∈ R n×m×n is a 3-D tensor formed from the collection {Z v } m v=1 , with ψ acting as the tensorization operator. R(•) is used for compact approximation of the tensor rank, while L(•) is tailored to capture noise. T (•) represents the structured constraint applied to the subspace representation Z v . α and β are two trade-off parameters.Although model (4) effectively captures the high-order consistency of data points across different views, it has two notable limitations regarding its mechanism of using the observed data as a dictionary for constructing the tensor representation. First, the time and space complexity of Model (4) becomes quadratic or even cubic, which restricts its scalability to large datasets. Second, it requires the feature representation matrix X v to contain a sufficient number of uncontaminated sampled data points; otherwise, the learned subspace matrix Z v may manifest as the identity matrix, hindering the effectiveness of the LRR method [44] .To overcome these limitations, we introduce the Enhanced Anchor Dictionary (EAD) representation strategy for recovering anchor subspace representations. EAD first selects a set of distinctive samples from the available data to form an anchor dictionary (i.e., A v ∈ R dv×l , l is the number of anchors), enabling the recovery of a subspace representation Z v ∈ R n×l that is smaller in size. This approach helps alleviate the issue of high computational complexity. Additionally, inspired by LatLRR [44] , EAD integrates the observed anchors A v with the unobserved sampled data Y v into a comprehensive dictionary (i.e., [X v ; Y v ]), effectively mitigating problems arising from under-sampling of feature characteristics in the anchor dictionary. As a result, we formulate a TMVC framework induced by EAD as follows: minEQUATIONwhere Z v ∈ R n×l and P v ∈ R d v ×d v denote the anchor subspace and projection matrix, respectively, and presented in tensor forms as Z ∈ R l×m×n and P ∈ R dv×m×dv . F(•) is a constraint on P. Notably, the anchor matrix A v ∈ R dv×l is subjected to orthogonality constraints to ensure optimal distinguishability. α, β and γ are three trade-off parameters.To delve deeper into the valuable information embedded in multi-view data and refine the quality of the anchor tensor representation obtained in the Model (5), tailored constraints-including Hyperbolic Tangent Rank, Linear Weighted Frobenius norm, and Anchor Hypergraph Laplacian Regularization-are applied to Z, P, and Z v , respectively. These constraints are clearly defined as follows: Definition 1. For a tensor Z ∈ R n1×n2×n3 , the Hyperbolic Tangent Rank (HTR) is defined as follows:EQUATIONwhere δ > 0, h = min(n 1 , n 2 ). Z k f denotes the k-th frontal slice of Z and C k f is the representation of the Fourier domain obtained by the tensor-SVD (i.e.,Z k f = B k f C k f (D k f ) ). Definition 2. For multiple matrices {P v } m v=1, their Linearly Weighted Frobenius (LWF) norm is defined as follows:EQUATIONwhere • F denotes the Frobenius norm of a matrix, and ξ = [ξ 1 , ξ 2 , ..., ξ m ] represents the weighted coefficient vector, with each weight empirically set to 1. Definition 3. For the given tensor Z ∈ R l×m×n , its Anchor Hypergraph Laplacian Regularization (AHR) is defined as follows:EQUATIONwhere L v h denotes the anchor hyper-Laplacian matrix constructed based on the anchor hypergraph S v h (V, Q, W) (with V, Q, and W denoting vertices, hyperedge set, and weights, respectively). Specifically,L v h = D v h -R v W v e (D v e ) -1 R v .Here, D v h , D v e and W v e being degree matrices with diagonal elements as vertex degrees, hyperedge degrees and hyperedge weights, respectively. R v defines vertex-hyperedge relationships, where r v (v, e) = 1 if the v-th vertex is in the e-th hyperedge, otherwise 0 [48] [49] [50] .By unifying Eqs. ( 5) -( 8), we formulate the objective function for the STONE model as follows:min {Z v ,P v ,A v },E, Z HTR + α P LWF + β E 2,1 + γ Z AHR s.t. ∀v, X v = A v (Z v ) + P v X v + E v , E = [E 1 , . . . , E m ] , (A v ) A v = I, Z = ψ(Z 1 , .. . , Z m ), P = ψ(P 1 , . . . , P m ), (9) where E = [E 1 ; . . . ; E m ] is derived by horizontally concatenating elements along the rows of {E v }. In the end, by utilizing the k-means clustering algorithm on the left singular vectors of the connectivity matrix Z = 1 √ m [Z 1 , ..., Z m ] ∈ R n×lm , we achieve the clustering partition results [51] . Remark 1. [Why STONE outperforms other selfrepresentation methods?] Unlike previous TMSC methods [38, 52] , the STONE model employs the EAD strategy instead of self-representation to recover subspace representations, combining the benefits of anchor representation and latent low-rank representation (LatLRR) for the preservation of both accuracy and efficiency. Notably, illustrated in Figure 1 , the efficacy of EAD stems from its thoughtful design: the utilization of the anchor representation enables the EAD model to recover the subspace representation of size n × l, ensuring linear scalability for extensive datasets. Additionally, the introduction of the LatLRR mechanism permits both the observed anchor vectors and the unobserved sampled data to function as dictionaries, safeguarding the recovered anchor tensor representation against deficiencies in insufficient dictionaries. The STONE focuses on using the hyperbolic tangent tensor rank as a low-rank structural regularization constraint for tensor representation, defined as f (x) = e δx -e -δx e δx +e -δx . Since HTR is a non-convex function with adjustable slopes, it can delve into the distinct physical meanings of different singular values in tensor data, thereby enhancing the representation capability of tensors. Analysis of Figure 2 reveals a clear superiority of the HTR in approximating tensor rank compared to TNN [34] and TLS p N [38] , particularly for values nearing zero and relatively large singular values. Specifically, as x approaches 0, f HTR (x) is considerably greater than x and log(1 + x p ); on the other hand, as x increases, f HTR (x) approaches 1. The STONE method adaptively applies appropriate strong and weak penalties to both small and large singular values, preserving valuable information while also demonstrating robustness against noise. Furthermore, when x = 0, f (x) = 0, which is consistent with the true tensor rank.To tackle the objective function, we start by introducing auxiliary variables S and {Q v }, which ensure that all variables in Eq. ( 9) become separable, as follows:EQUATIONwhere Y, {H v 1 } and {H v 2 } are the Lagrange multipliers, and θ, 1 and 2 signifies the penalty coefficients. Then, the optimization of the STONE objective function can be streamlined into six sub-problems labeled as {Z v }, {A v }, {P v }, {Q v }, E and S for individual optimization. Given space limitations, the comprehensive optimization procedures and pseudocode are outlined in the A.1 of the supplementary materials.The validation presented in Theorem 1 establishes the reliability of the optimization algorithm's convergence, while Appendix A.2 of the supplementary materials offers an in-depth exploration of the underlying details. Theorem 1. The sequence generated by the employed optimization algorithm, denoted asG t = {Z v t , E v t , P v t , A v t , H v 1 t , H v 2 t , Q v t , S t } ∞ t=1, adheres to the following two fundamental principles:• The set {G t } ∞ t=1 is bounded; • Any accumulation point of the sequence {G t } ∞t=1 is a KKT point of Eq.(10).The computational requirements of STONE are split into two primary areas: optimizing variables and performing clustering. At the outset, the process involves updating several key variables-L v h , Z v , E v , P v , A v , Q v , S -with their respective time complexities being O(l 2 m log(l), O(nl 2 +nld v ), O(nd v ), O(n(d v ) 2 + nld v ), O(nld v + l 2 d v ), O(nl 2 ), O(mnl log(mn) + nm 2 l). In the following phase, the computational complexity is given by O(nlm + nd max ). This indicates a direct proportionality to the sample size n. Furthermore, the memory complexity of the STONE model, expressed as O(nlm + nd max ), also maintains a linear growth pattern with respect to n.In recent years, various tensor-based multi-view clustering algorithms, such as MVSC-TLRR [36] , TLS p NM-MSC [38] , SSG-TAR [39] , NOODLE [53] , ASR-ETR [33] , and EDISON [54] , have been proposed to explore high-order correlations among views by pursuing a global low-rank structure in tensor representations. However, our STONE model significantly differs from these methods. For instance, unlike MVSC-TLRR, TLS p NM-MSC, SSG-TAR and NOODLE, our STONE model differs by enhancing computational efficiency through the construction of anchor subspace representations rather than relying on traditional subspace representations. Moreover, unlike the ASR-ETR, which lowers computational complexity through anchor dictionary representation, our STONE model builds on this by using the EAD strategy to address challenges related to insufficient data sampling. Additionally, STONE employs anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularization rather than anchor Laplacian regularization in ASR-ETR, which further enhances the accuracy of subspace representations. In contrast to the EDISON, designed for incomplete multi-view data, our approach not only has differences in dictionary representations due to variations in data completeness, but also employs distinct non-convex functions to regularize the singular values of tensor data during the recovery of compact tensor representations.Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Appendix A.2 presents the proof of convergence for the iterative optimization algorithm, with each lemma and theorem involved being rigorously proven within this subsection.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.• All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and crossreferenced. • All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.• The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition. • Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material. • Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced. 
experiment: 
 In this section, we present comprehensive experiments to evaluate the performance of the STONE model. Due to space constraints, a portion of the experiments is presented here, with additional experiments detailed in the Appendix A.3 of the supplementary materials. Datasets: For the clustering experiments, we employ eight datasets: NGs, BBCSport, HW, Scene15, MSRCV1, Caltech101-all, ALOI-100, and CIFAR10. More detailed descriptions of these datasets can be found in Table 1 .Baselines: Ten SOTA methods, including eight shallow-based models and two deep learning models: SMVSC (2021) [55] , SFMC (2022) [56] , GMC (2019) [57] , MSC 2 D (2023) [58] , MVCtopl (2022) [59] , MVSCTM (2022) [60] , ETLMC (2019) [61] , 0.259±0.001 0.710±0.000 0.218±0.000 0.982±0.000 0.977±0.003 0.440±0.000 0.264±0.000 0.679±0.001 0.236±0.000 0.710±0.000 0.650±0.000 1.000±0.000 NMI 0.018±0.000 0.564±0.000 0.021±0.000 0.939±0.000 0.927±0.010 0.351±0.000 0.071±0.000 0.604±0.002 0.035±0.000 0.567±0.000 0.506±0.000 1.000±0.000 PUR 0.259±0.001 0.712±0.000 0.220±0.000 0.982±0.000 0.977±0.003 0.500±0.000 0.266±0.000 0.707±0.001 0.240±0.000 0.736±0.000 0.680±0.000 1.000±0.000 F-score 0.221±0.000 0.628±0.000 0.329±0.000 0.964±0.000 0.955±0.006 0.432±0.000 0.334±0.000 0.647±0.001 0.327±0.000 0.632±0.000 0.569±0.000 1.000±0.000 NGs ARI 0.005±0.000 0.520±0.000 0.001±0.000 0.955±0.000 0.944±0.008 0.205±0.000 0.015±0.000 0.551±0.001 0.002±0.000 0.534±0.000 0.461±0.000 1.000±0.000 ACC 0.504±0.004 0.507±0.000 0.366±0.000 0.807±0.000 0.606±0.001 0.752±0.000 0.421±0.000 0.961±0.000 0.548±0.000 0.643±0.000 0.638±0.000 1.000±0.000 NMI 0.210±0.002 0.210±0.000 0.021±0.000 0.723±0.000 0.479±0.018 0.601±0.000 0.201±0.000 0.890±0.000 0.277±0.000 0.453±0.000 0.393±0.000 1.000±0.000 PUR 0.553±0.004 0.535±0.000 0.369±0.000 0.844±0.000 0.642±0.007 0.789±0.000 0.461±0.000 0.961±0.000 0.550±0.000 0.684±0.000 0.638±0.000 1.000±0.000 F-score 0.414±0.002 0.368±0.000 0.385±0.000 0.794±0.000 0.581±0.008 0.689±0.000 0.445±0.000 0.938±0.000 0.473±0.000 0.510±0.000 0.482±0.000 1.000±0.000 BBCSport ARI 0.159±0.005 0.171±0.000 0.004±0.000 0.722±0.000 0.373±0.014 0.577±0.000 0.125±0.000 0.919±0.000 0.188±0.000 0.375±0.000 0.339±0.000 1.000±0.000 ACC 0.739±0.000 0.821±0.000 0.859±0.000 0.882±0.000 0.879±0.010 0.631±0.000 0.653±0.000 0.998±0.000 0.863±0.000 0.871±0.000 0.829±0.000 1.000±0.000 NMI 0.699±0.000 0.789±0.000 0.900±0.000 0.893±0.000 0.892±0.011 0.676±0.000 0.691±0.000 0.995±0.000 0.890±0.000 0.883±0.000 0.791±0.000 1.000±0.000 PUR 0.739±0.000 0.821±0.000 0.883±0.000 0.882±0.000 0.879±0.010 0.674±0.000 0.696±0.000 0.998±0.000 0.881±0.000 0.871±0.000 0.829±0.000 1.000±0.000 F-score 0.653±0.000 0.752±0.000 0.855±0.000 0.865±0.000 0.860±0.018 0.595±0.000 0.613±0.000 0.996±0.000 0.854±0.000 0.850±0.000 0.744±0.000 1.000±0.000 HW ARI 0.612±0.000 0.723±0.000 0.838±0.000 0.850±0.000 0.844±0.021 0.542±0.000 0.563±0.000 0.996±0.000 0.836±0.000 0.833±0.000 0.715±0.000 1.000±0.000 ACC 0.229±0.005 0.336±0.000 0.092±0.000 0.140±0.000 0.274±0.059 0.631±0.000 0.196±0.000 0.847±0.030 0.298±0.000 0.328±0.000 0.341±0.000 0.977±0.000 NMI 0.204±0.002 0.323±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.058±0.000 0.218±0.072 0.676±0.000 0.160±0.000 0.867±0.016 0.257±0.000 0.344±0.000 0.359±0.000 0.962±0.000 PUR 0.288±0.003 0.348±0.000 0.092±0.000 0.146±0.000 0.290±0.056 0.674±0.000 0.232±0.000 0.886±0.017 0.302±0.000 0.339±0.000 0.383±0.000 0.977±0.000 F-score 0.151±0.003 0.242±0.000 0.129±0.000 0.132±0.000 0.172±0.041 0.595±0.000 0.133±0.000 0.831±0.033 0.199±0.000 0.245±0.000 0.242±0.000 0.958±0.000 Scene15 ARI 0.085±0.003 0.170±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.004±0.000 0.060±0.054 0.542±0.000 0.015±0.000 0.818±0.035 0.102±0.000 0.183±0.000 0.187±0.000 0.955±0.000 ACC 0.643±0.000 0.819±0.000 0.810±0.000 0.748±0.000 0.846±0.052 0.367±0.000 0.376±0.000 0.962±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.414±0.000 0.543±0.000 1.000±0.000 NMI 0.555±0.000 0.718±0.000 0.721±0.000 0.742±0.000 0.780±0.017 0.287±0.000 0.296±0.000 0.937±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.387±0.000 0.496±0.000 1.000±0.000 PUR 0.700±0.000 0.819±0.000 0.810±0.000 0.790±0.000 0.855±0.032 0.400±0.000 0.410±0.000 0.962±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.419±0.000 0.557±0.000 1.000±0.000 F-score 0.531±0.000 0.699±0.000 0.714±0.000 0.697±0.000 0.754±0.026 0.295±0.000 0.295±0.000 0.928±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.372±0.000 0.433±0.000 1.000±0.000 MSRCV1 ARI 0.452±0.000 0.649±0.000 0.663±0.000 0.640±0.000 0.712±0.032 0.155±0.000 0.157±0.000 0.917±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.244±0.000 0.346±0.000 1.000±0.000 ACC 0.651±0.011 0.351±0.000 0.680±0.000 0.721±0.000 0.689±0.035 0.441±0.000 0.443±0.000 0.767±0.000 0.694±0.000 0.274±0.000 0.807±0.000 0.814±0.000 NMI 0.802±0.003 0.613±0.000 0.702±0.000 0.744±0.000 0.732±0.026 0.652±0.000 0.619±0.000 0.862±0.000 0.728±0.000 0.687±0.000 0.908±0.000 0.909±0.000 PUR 0.677±0.010 0.359±0.000 0.691±0.000 0.731±0.000 0.707±0.028 0.514±0.000 0.509±0.000 0.789±0.000 0.709±0.000 0.274±0.000 0.824±0.000 0.849±0.000 F-score 0.553±0.009 0.217±0.000 0.129±0.000 0.173±0.000 0.166±0.034 0.187±0.000 0.111±0.000 0.687±0.000 0.162±0.000 0.228±0.000 0.760±0.000 0.736±0.000 TBGL (2023) [62] , MFLVC (2022) [63] , GCFAgg (2023) [64] , along with spectral clustering with the best view (SC-best) [65] , are used for comparison.ALOIEvaluation Metrics: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of clustering quality, we employ five metrics, namely ACC, NMI, PUR, F-score, and ARI. Better clustering quality is indicated by higher values of these metrics.Implementation Overview: For the comparative methods, the parameters are fine-tuned in accordance with the instructions presented in the respective literature, and the optimal outcomes are reported. For the STONE model, there are five parameters that necessitate adjustment. To be specific, the intrinsic parameter δ and the number of anchor points c are tuned individually within the ranges [0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 5] and [c, 2c, ..., 7c], respectively. The three balancing parameters α, β, and γ are finely tuned within the range [1e-5,1e-5,..., 1e+1] using a grid search strategy. To maintain rigor, we perform each experiment a total of 10 times, and we present both the mean results and the standard deviations for comparison. The experimental procedures for the shallow learning model are implemented using MATLAB 2018a on a computer featuring a 3.70GHz i9-10900k CPU and 64GB RAM. Conversely, the deep learning model experiments are facilitated by PyTorch 1.12, deployed on an RTX 4060 GPU.The clustering performance and computational efficiency of the proposed STONE model are demonstrated separately in this subsection.Performance Assessment: To validate the effectiveness of our STONE method, we evaluate its clustering performance on eight datasets and compared it with ten SOTA methods across five metrics. The number of anchors The results are summarized in Table 2 , where the highest and second-highest values are marked with bold and underlined, respectively. The acronym 'OM' signifies occurrences of out-of-memory errors.From Table 2 , we can draw the following three findings:1) Our STONE model exhibits excellent clustering performance across all datasets, significantly surpassing competitors in certain scenarios. For instance, on the Scene15 dataset, STONE outperforms the second-ranked method, ETMSLC, across five performance metrics (ACC, NMI, PUR, F-score, and ARI) with improvements of 13%, 9.5%, 9.1%, 12.7% and 13.7%, respectively. Moreover, STONE demonstrates ideal clustering performance on the NGs, BBCSport, HW, and MSRCV1 datasets. These results indicate that the STONE model effectively uncovers higher-order correlations among multiple views as well as the geometric manifold information within each view, contributing to improved clustering outcomes.2) Methods based on tensor constraints often outperform those based on matrix constraints in terms of clustering performance. This enhancement is primarily attributed to the ability of tensor-based approaches to impose low-rank constraints at the tensor level, effectively capturing the inherent high-order correlations in multi-view data. In contrast, matrix-based methods generally focus only on linear correlations within individual views.3) In comparison to prominent deep learning models, such as MFLVC [63] and GCFAgg [64] , the STONE method demonstrates superior performance in most scenarios. This suggests that shallow learning models can still produce more effective clustering results than deep learning methods in multi-view tasks by cleverly extracting the rich information contained within multi-view data.Efficiency Assessment: To demonstrate the efficiency of the STONE method, we record its running time on datasets containing over 4000 instances and compared it with other benchmark methods. The comparison results are summarized in Table 3 . Notably, STONE exhibits significant efficiency in this comparison. For instance, on the ALOI-100 dataset, our method runs in 66.57 seconds, whereas the anchor tensor-induced model TBGL takes over 26000 seconds, which is considerably longer than the STONE model. The STONE method achieves higher efficiency due to its innovative combination of anchor point dictionary representation learning and anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularization. This approach selectively incorporates a small subset of the most discriminative anchor points, ensuring faster computational efficiency while preserving precise clustering performance.In the STONE model, there are five parameters, including the built-in parameter δ, the number of anchors l, and three balancing parameters α, β, and γ. This subsection investigates the impact of these parameters on the STONE model. Specifically, the parameters δ and l are treated as independent variables for individual tuning, while the balancing parameters are adjusted pairwise using a grid search strategy. As illustrated in Figure 4 , the clustering performance of STONE shows a fluctuating pattern as the number of anchors varies. Interestingly, the performance curve does not monotonically increase with the number of anchors, which means that choosing a smaller number of discriminant anchors is preferable to choosing a larger number of non-discriminant anchors. In addition, the best clustering quality can be obtained by using c or 2c anchor points in STONE, which shows that the coordination between the EAD and the AHR improves the discrimination of the anchor points.To assess the importance of the balancing parameters α, β, and γ in the STONE model, we implement a grid search strategy across the range of [1e-5, 1e+1] to optimize these parameters. Figure 5 demonstrates how the model's performance changes with various combinations of these parameters, highlighting fluctuations in clustering performance based on the chosen values. Notably, optimal performance can be achieved through careful tuning, suggesting that the modules within the STONE model can effectively coordinate their importance to extract valuable information, thereby enhancing clustering performance.This subsection provides an experimental validation of the convergence of the STONE model, utilizing two key metrics: reconstruction error (RE), defined as RE= m v=1 X v -A v (Z v ) -P v X v -E v ∞and matching error (ME), represented as ME = Z -S ∞ . The iterative trends observed on the NGs, HW, and MSRCV1 datasets, as depicted in Figure 6 , demonstrate that both RE and ME exhibit rapid convergence to 0 within 15 iterations, followed by stabilization. This outcome substantiates the robust convergence properties of the STONE method. Cal101-all CIFAR10 STONE-v1 0.379±0.000 0.648±0.000 0.740±0.000 0.629±0.000 0.469±0.000 0.600±0.000 0.319±0.000 0.501±0.000 STONE 1.000±0.000 1.000±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.977±0.000 1.000±0.000 0.814±0.000 0.650±0.000 0.994±0.000 that the clustering performance of degraded models, achieved by removing one or two submodules from the STONE model, is notably inferior to that of the complete STONE model. This emphasizes the successful collaboration of L EAD , L RE , and L AHR within the STONE framework, allowing them to synergistically exploit the abundant information embedded in multi-view data and attain commendable clustering performance. Additionally, HTR is a novel tensor low-rank constraint in our STONE model, aimed at capturing high-order correlations and managing variations in tensor singular values. To assess its impact, we conduct an ablation study comparing the original STONE model with a version that excludes the HTR module (referred to as STONE-v1). Table 5 shows the clustering ACC across different datasets, revealing a drop in performance on all datasets when the HTR module is removed. This suggests that the integration of HTR enhances the exploration of high-order correlations, thereby improving the quality of data partitioning.Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We have thoroughly disclosed the experimental details for reproducibility in the experimental section of the paper and the pseudocode section in the appendix. Additionally, the code is provided in the supplementary materials. 
conclusion: 
 This paper introduces a novel tensor-based multi-view subspace clustering framework that integrates triple information enhancement from dictionary to tensor representation. Through the design of the enhanced anchor dictionary representation, hyperbolic tangent rank, and anchored hypergraph Laplacian regularization, our model extensively investigates valuable insights within multi-view data.Experimental results demonstrate that the STONE model outperforms SOTA models on eight datasets in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency.Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We have provided the source code and datasets in the supplementary materials.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted. 
experimental setting/details: 
 Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Detailed experimental settings have been introduced in subsection 4.1.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We reported the standard deviations of various algorithms on different datasets in Table 2 .Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. • The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). • It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. Justification: The paper does not involve applications with direct societal implications.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA]Justification: The paper does not involve the description of safeguards for responsible release of data or models with a high risk for misuse.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: The code for the comparison methods in the experimental section all includes proper citations.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. • If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators. 
new assets: 
 Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We have provided the source code of our algorithm, which is included in the supplementary materials.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.• Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc. • The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used. • At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file. 
crowdsourcing and research with human subjects: 
 Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper focuses on machine learning algorithm research and does not involve crowdsourcing or research with human subjects at all. 
institutional review board (irb) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects: 
 Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?Answer: [NA] Justification: Our manuscript focuses on algorithmic research, and it does not involve crowdsourcing or research with human subjects. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper. • We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review. 
 
 Appendix: This supplementary material offers a comprehensive elaboration on the optimization steps presented in the main manuscript, as well as the validation of the theorems. We also include additional experimental results.As detailed in the main text, auxiliary variables S and {Q v } are introduced to facilitate the independent optimization of each variable.EQUATIONNext, we utilize the ADMM algorithm [66] to individually optimize each variable as follows:{Z v } Subproblem: Under the assumption that all other variables remain constant while Z v varies, the optimization in Eq (11) simplifies to a single-variable optimization problem. To find the optimal solution, we take the partial derivative of Eq (11) with respect to Z v and set it to zero, resulting in the following solution:EQUATION{P v } Subproblem: In this case, we treat only P v as a variable. To find the optimal solution, we set the first derivative of Eq. ( 11) with respect to P v to zero, resulting in the following expression:EQUATIONE Subproblem: In a similar vein, assuming that all variables in Eq (11) are constant except for E, we can reframe the optimization problem for E as follows:EQUATION)where R is constructed by horizontally stackingX v -A v (Z v ) -P v X v + H v 1 1. The optimal solution for E can then be derived by solving Eq (14) as follows:EQUATION{A v } Subproblem: When the other variables are held constant and A v is treated as the variable, the optimization problem for A v can be reformulated as follows:EQUATIONIn Eq (16) , we defineEQUATION1 )Z v and apply singular value decomposition (SVD). From the results of the SVD, we can determine that the optimal solution for A = BD , where B and D represent the left and right singular vector matrices, respectively.{Q v } Subproblem: In the scenario where Q v is the sole variable in Eq (11) , we take the partial derivative of Eq (11) with respect to Q v and set it to zero, leading us to express the optimal solution for Q v in the following form:EQUATIONS Subproblem: When S is the only variable, the optimal value of S can be redefined as a tensor hyperbolic tangent rank optimization problem in the following mathematical form:EQUATIONTo find the solution for Eq. ( 18) with respect to S, we first introduce the following theorem related to the tensor optimization problem: Theorem 2. Let G ∈ R n1×n2×n3 be a tensor, and consider its t-SVD (tensor singular value decomposition) expressed as G = B * C * D . We will analyze the following tensorial hyperbolic tangent rank minimization problem:EQUATIONThe optimal solution for Eq. ( 19) takes the following mathematical form:EQUATIONwhereif f t(Θ f,τ (C (k) f ), [],3) is a tensor in which all frontal slices are diagonal matrices, andEQUATIONwhere f (x) = e δx -e -δx e δx +e -δx .Proof of the boundedness of the sequence {G t } ∞ t=1 : In the course of the (t + 1)-th cycle, the mechanism updating E v t+1 ensures it complies with the necessary first-order optimality criteria. Consequently, it follows that:EQUATIONFrom Eq. ( 24), we can derive the following:EQUATIONwhere [H v 1,t+1 ] :,j and [E v t+1 ] :,j correspond to the j-th column of the matrices. Furthermore, taking into account the self-duality property of the 2 norm and utilizing Lemma 2, we can conclude that1 β [H v 1,t+1 ] :,j ≤ 1.This further establishes the boundedness of the sequence [H v 1,t+1 ]. In parallel, the update for Q v t+1 ensures that H 2,t+1 not only meets but also optimizes the first-order optimality criteria. Hence, it can be inferred that the sequence H v 2,t+1 is bounded as well. Regarding the sequence {Y t+1 }, the update mechanism for S guarantees that S t+1 achieves optimality and meets the criteria for first-order optimality. Thus, we have:EQUATIONFurthermore, leveraging the tensor singular value decomposition and Lemma 2, we can derive the following relationship:EQUATIONThis observation indicates that ∂ S f,t+1 HTR has an upper bound, which in turn allows us to deduce that the sequenc {Y t+1 } is bounded.Based on the iterative procedures described in Algorithm 1, we can derive the following inequality relationships:EQUATIONConsequently, by adding up both sides of Eq. ( 28) over the range from t = 1 to t = n, we deduce the following consequence:EQUATIONGiven the finite nature of the initialL(Z v 1 , E v 1 , P v 1 , A v 1 , Q v 1 , S 1 , H v 1,0 , H v 2,0 , Y 0 , θ 0 , 1,0 , 2,0) evaluated at the starting points and the boundedness of the sequences {Y t }, {H 1,t }, {H 2,t }, along with the boundedness of the incremental sums involvingn t=1 θt-θt-1 2θ 2 t-1 , n t=1 1,t-1,t-1 2 2 1,t-1 and n t=1 2,t-2,t-1 2 2 2,t-1, we deduce that sequence L remains bounded at iteration t + 1. Additionally, since the norm S t+1 HTR is bounded, it follows that the singular values of S t+1 are also constrained. Continuing with the equation:EQUATIONIt is verified that the sequence {S t+1 } has finite limits. Moreover, it is evident that the sequences{A v t+1 }, {Z v t+1 }, {Q v t+1 },and {P v t+1 } are also finite. Continuing from the earlier findings, we can assert that the sequence G t , as yielded by Algorithm 1, is bounded for every component within it.Proof of convergence of accumulation points to stationary KKT points: As per the Weierstrass-Bolzano theorem, it is guaranteed that the sequence {G t } ∞ t=1 contains at least one accumulation point, which we label asG * t = {Z v t , E v t , P v t , A v t , Y t , H v 1 t , H v 2 t , S t } ∞ t=1 .From this, we can infer that:EQUATIONAdhering to the update mechanism forY, we arrive at the subsequent expression:EQUATIONSince θ t approach infinity as t goes to infinity, and considering that the sequence {Y t } is bounded, we can use the properties of limits to derive:EQUATIONBy applying the analogous update processes for H 1 and H 2 , we can formulate the subsequent relationship:EQUATIONIn the same vein, considering that the sequences {H v 1,t } and {H v 2,t } remain bounded, while 1,t and 2,t increase indefinitely as t approaches infinity, we can infer the following conclusions based on limit properties:EQUATIONBased on Eqs. ( 33) and ( 35), we can deduce that in the limit,Z * is equal to Z * , while X v and E v exhibit a specific linear relationship, andZ v * equals Q v * . Additionally, since S t+1 , E v t+1 and Q v t+1satisfy the first-order optimality conditions, we can conclude that:EQUATIONConsequently, the accumulation points of the sequence G t produced by Algorithm 1 fulfill the KKT conditions. This section outlines additional experimental results, including visualizations of block diagonal structures, t-SNE, and some extra experiments mentioned in the text, such as parameter sensitivity, convergence curves, and ablation studies.In this section, we examine the block diagonal structures of affinity matrices learned by the STONE model alongside several other state-of-the-art multi-view clustering methods. The comparative results on the NGs dataset are illustrated in Figure 7 . Notably, the consensus affinity matrix generated by the STONE model clearly displays a well-defined block diagonal structure, while those produced by other approaches frequently exhibit many spurious connections. This reinforces the effectiveness of the STONE model in leveraging rich information from multi-view data through the synergistic integration of discriminative anchor point learning, local structural information extraction, and the utilization of tensor data priors, ultimately enhancing clustering performance.To demonstrate the STONE model's capability in leveraging the rich information inherent in multi-view data, Figure 8 displays the t-SNE visualizations for each individual view alongside the integrated consensus graph. Notably, the consensus graph presents a more distinct clustering pattern when compared to the individual view graphs, which aids in the more precise segregation of the MSRCV1 dataset into seven unique classes. This finding highlights the effectiveness of the STONE method in synthesizing multi-view data for improved clustering performance.Experimental Results for More Datasets: Due to space constraints, the main text presents only partial results for some experiments. Here, we provide the complete results for all datasets, including parameter sensitivity analyses, convergence curves, and ablation studies. Specifically, Figure 9 , Figure 10 and Figure 11 showcase the sensitivity of the STONE model to the parameters δ, the number of anchors l, and the balancing parameters. Figure 12 illustrates the convergence curves for eight datasets, while Table 6 -Table 9 summarize the ablation studies for the three loss terms L EAD , L RE and L AHR of STONE across all datasets. The number of anchors 0 0.1(a) NGs1c 2c 3c 4c 5c 6c 7cThe number of anchors 0 0.1EQUATIONThe number of anchors 0 0.1(c) HW1c 2c 3c 4c 5c 6c 7cThe number of anchors 0 0.1 Justification: The abstract and introduction provide a clear and accurate overview of the paper's contributions and scope, aligning with the main claims made throughout the text.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper. • The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers. • The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings. • It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not. • If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable. • Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways.For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed. • While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. (d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility.In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper. • According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector. 


Decision: The paper is about multi-view subspace clustering, a fundamental and significant problem to study. While the review scores diverge greatly, no critical concerns can be found in the reviews. Reviewer QZiQ and Reviewer eQ9V, who give respectively scores of 4 and 3, only complain minor issues such as typos, which are not difficult to fix. I have also read the paper quickly, and my assertion is the paper contains solid contribution that would be valuable to this conference. I would recommend accepting the paper.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: The authors introduce the STONE framework, a Tensor-based Multi-view Subspace Clustering (TMSC) approach, designed to surmount the paramount limitations inherent in contemporary methodologies. By augmenting anchor dictionary learning, they adeptly reconstruct low-rank structures, resulting in a reduction in computational intricacy and bolstering resilience, particularly in scenarios constrained by limited dictionaries. Furthermore, the framework incorporates an innovative anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularizer, ensuring the preservation of data geometry within subspace representations, and leverages an enhanced hyperbolic tangent function for precision in tensor rank approximation.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1) The authors clarify that their proposed method employs an advanced dictionary learning mechanism to delve into and uncover latent data, which refers to information that is inherently present but not directly observable or accessible without specific techniques. However, the exact nature of this "hidden data" could be further elaborated to avoid ambiguity. It is crucial to distinguish this concept from missing multi-view data, which pertains to instances where certain views or features of the data are absent or incomplete. The enhanced dictionary learning aims to capture and represent these underlying, yet hidden, patterns and structures within the data, distinct from simply filling in gaps caused by missing views.
2) There are some typographical errors in the manuscript, such as on line 584 where "Eq. (11)" seems to have an incorrect sequence number.
questions: questions: 1) Does the dimensionality k of the latent data remain consistent across various views? 
2) The proposed method innovatively employs hypergraph Laplacian regularization to delve into and uncover local intrinsic manifold structures within the data. How does this hypergraph differ from traditional anchor graphs? Additionally, how many anchor points are set in the hypergraph, and is this consistent across all datasets?
3) The method introduces multiple variables, each requiring careful initialization to ensure the stability and convergence of the optimization process. The authors should clarify the initialization strategies adopted for each variable. How are each of these variables initialized?
4) In Section Experimental Setup, how is $\delta$ set across different datasets?
limitations: limitations: See the weaknesses.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper presents a novel framework, STONE (Scalable TMSC framework with Triple information Enhancement), addressing significant limitations in current Tensor-based Multi-view Subspace Clustering (TMSC) methods. The proposed approach aims to reduce computational complexity, improve subspace representation accuracy, and better handle noise-related singular values in tensor data. Through an enhanced anchor dictionary learning mechanism, an anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularizer, and the use of an improved hyperbolic tangent function, the authors demonstrate superior performance compared to state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. In Figure 5, the authors should carefully check the name of each subfigure.
2. The authors state that A represents l anchors of the v-th view, with orthogonal constraints for optimal discriminability. However, the matrix A is d*l, and the size of constraint A * A’ is d * d， It is not true that features have orthogonality to each other.
3. In Equation 7, the LWF constraint introduces the weighted coefficient vector to balance the weight of each view, while this coefficient vector is not seen in Equation 10. Thu authors should check it.
4. The trace of Z in Equation 8 should be added.
5. In the experiments, specifications need to be given as to what number of anchors is selected.
6. Although the performance of the proposed method is superior to other compared methods, the number of parameters is too many, including four parameters and a parameter number of anchors. According to the code, we can obtain 8 * 8 * 8 * 8 * 6=24576 combinations of parameters. Authors should optimize the model, not simply add constraints together.
7. The authors should explain the difference between the proposed model and the existing work ''Anchor Structure Regularization Induced Multi-view Subspace Clustering via Enhanced Tensor Rank Minimization'' published in ICCV.
questions: questions: None
limitations: limitations: None
paper_summary: paper_summary: The manuscript introduces a novel tensor-based multi-view clustering algorithm designed to address three critical limitations of existing approaches: high computational complexity arising from reliance on complete dictionaries, inaccurate subspace representation due to disregarding local geometric information, and inadequate penalization of singular values associated with noise. To overcome these challenges, the authors propose the STONE framework, which integrates enhanced anchor dictionary learning, anchor hypergraph Laplacian regularization, and an improved hyperbolic tangent function for more accurate tensor rank approximation. Experimental results demonstrate that STONE surpasses current state-of-the-art methods in both effectiveness and efficiency.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The introduction of Enhanced Anchor Dictionary (EAD) lacks clarity. Could the authors clarify the fundamental differences between EAD, traditional dictionary learning, and anchor dictionary learning? Additionally, how does the methodology incorporate hidden data?

2. In Section 4.3, the authors reference Figure 11 in the first part, but the figure numbering is incorrect and needs to be corrected.

3. From Table 2 in the manuscript, it appears that most methods have a standard deviation of 0.000. Could the authors explain why these methods exhibit no standard deviation?

4. Based on Figure 10, why does the performance of the proposed method not exhibit a linear positive correlation with the number of anchor points? Typically, increasing the number of anchor points should lead to acquiring more valuable information.

5. The pseudocode displayed for Algorithm 1 in the appendix has formula indices that do not correspond with those in the main manuscript.
questions: questions: See the weaknesses.
limitations: limitations: Recent years have seen the emergence of various tensor-based multi-view clustering methods and anchor-based approaches. It is crucial to compare and contrast these methods in the manuscript to highlight their fundamental differences.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper proposes a scalable tensor-based multi-view subspace clustering model by using triple information enhancement, which aims to reduce the computational complexity and the bias from the real rank minimization.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1) In LatLRR, P is constraint by nuclear norm. In model (5), the authors indicate that P is constraint by weighted Frobenius norm. The authors can explain the reasons.
2) On line 158, “Z_f^k denotes the k-th frontal slice of Z” should be changed into “Z_f^k denotes the k-th frontal slice of Z_f”.
3) On line 159, “Z=U_f V_f W_f” should be changed into “Z_f=U_f V_f W_f”. The authors could also distinguish the matrix multiplication and tensor multiplication.
4) In Eq. (8), “Tr(Z^v L_h^v Z^v)” should be changed into “Tr(〖〖(Z〗^v)〗^T L_h^v Z^v)”. 
5) In Eq. (8), is the hyper-Laplacian matrix L_h^v constructed by anchor subspace Z^v or feature X^v? If L_h^v is constructed by Z^v, the authors could introduce a consistent indicator matrix instead of regularize the Z^v in the trace norm.
6) In Remark 2, as x→0, these small singular values may be caused by the noise. However, the proposed HTR would amplify these small singular values by f(x), resulting in less robustness.
7) In Eq. (10), “α/2” should be changed into “α”.
8) In Eq. (10), “Tr(Q^v L_h^v 〖〖(Q〗^v)〗^T)” should be changed into “Tr(〖〖(Q〗^v)〗^T L_h^v Q^v)”.
9) On line 233, “d” should be changed into “d_v”.
10) How does the HTR effect the proposed model? In Ablation Study, the authors could provide more experiments for verifying the effectiveness of the HTR.
questions: questions: 1) In Eq. (26), how is the parameter “β derived?
limitations: limitations: Please refer to the above "Weaknesses".

Comments: title: Official Review of Submission3569 by Reviewer iXTf
comment: Dear Reviewer QZiQ,

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback. We have carefully responded to all the concerns you raised about our manuscript. With the rebuttal deadline approaching, we would like to gently inquire if you have any further questions or need additional information. If not, we would greatly appreciate it if you could revisit your score.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Best regards,

Author
Dear Reviewer eQ9V,

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback. We have addressed all your concerns regarding our manuscript. As the rebuttal deadline approaches, we would like to kindly ask if you have any further questions or require additional clarification. If not, we would be very grateful if you could reconsider your score.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Author
Thank you for your response. We are pleased to hear that our rebuttal has resolved your concerns. We appreciate your valuable feedback and the time you have spent reviewing our manuscript, which has positively contributed to its improvement.

Best regards,

Author
Thanks for the authors' response. My concerns have been addressed.
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and for providing constructive feedback.
Thanks for your responses, and my questions have been resolved.