Kinger, S., Dyballa, L., Zucker, S., 2026. arXiv preprint

The manifold hypothesis suggests a natural criterion for clustering: partition data according to the manifold component from which each point is drawn. Whether two components are separable depends on a geometric tradeoff: the ambient separation between components versus the largest gap in sampling. In practice, this tradeoff is rarely assessed explicitly, leading standard methods to over-commit to a single clustering assignment even when the data do not support a unique answer. We formalize this tradeoff by combining intrinsic manifold geometry (volume growth and reach) with sample-level quantities (fill distance and density), yielding a threshold phenomenon for mutual-$k$-nearest-neighbor graphs: when the offset-to-fill ratio exceeds a conservative upper threshold, component separation is preserved; below a lower threshold, components fuse. The gap between these thresholds defines a geometric uncertainty zone in which the number of clusters is not identifiable from the data. Nevertheless, conventional approaches still seek one: sweeping parameters (an engineering approach) or fitting a generative mixture model (a model-based approach). Rather than forcing a single estimate of the number of clusters, we propose Manifold-Based Clustering (MBC), which returns an explicit bracket interval to quantify the underlying data uncertainty. This bracket acts as an empirically calibrated diagnostic: it narrows when a single resolution is supported, widens when multiple resolutions coexist, and collapses to one when no separated structure is detectable. Empirically, we find that many real datasets lie within the uncertainty zone rather than admitting one clear answer. Our results suggest that ambiguity in cluster number is often intrinsic, and should be quantified rather than resolved.