In the last issue of Bayesian Analysis, Lukasz Rajkowski studies the most likely (MAP) cluster associated with the Dirichlet process mixture model. Reminding me that most Bayesian estimates of the number of clusters are not consistent (when the sample size grows to infinity). I am always puzzled by this problem, as estimating the number of clusters sounds like an ill-posed problem, since it is growing with the number of observations, by definition of the Dirichlet process. For instance, the current paper establishes that the number of clusters intersecting a given compact set remains bounded. (The setup is one of a Normal Dirichlet process mixture with constant and known covariance matrix.)

Since the posterior probability of a given partition of {1,2,…,n} can be (formally) computed, the MAP estimate can be (formally) derived. I inserted *formally* in the previous sentence as the derivation of the exact MAP is an NP hard problem in the number n of observations. As an aside, I have trouble with the author’s argument that the convex hulls of the clusters should be disjoin: I do not see why they should when the mixture components are overlapping. (More generally, I fail to relate to notions like “bad clusters” or “overestimation of the number of clusters” or a “sensible choice” of the covariance matrix.) More globally, I am somewhat perplexed by the purpose of the paper and the relevance of the MAP estimate, even putting aside my generic criticisms of the MAP approach. No uncertainty is attached to the estimator, which thus appears as a form of penalised likelihood strategy rather than a genuinely Bayesian (Analysis) solution.

The first example in the paper is using data from a Uniform over (-1,1), concluding at a “misleading” partition by the MAP since it produces more than one cluster. I find this statement flabbergasting as the generative model is not the estimated model. To wit, the case of an exponential Exp(1) sample that cannot reach a maximum of the target function with a finite number of sample. Which brings me back full-circle to my general unease about clustering in that much more seems to be assumed about this notion than what the statistical model delivers.