There are few well known measures like silhouette width (SW), the Davies- Bouldin index (DB), the Calinski-Harabasz index (CH), and the Dunn index .
How can we say that a clustering quality measure is good?
Is there some kind of metric for the clustering quality measure to be good?
Also ,
"algorithms that produce clusters with high Dunn index are more desirable" -Wikipedia
"Objects with a high silhouette value are considered well clustered" -Wikipedia
"clustering algorithm that produces a collection of clusters with the smallest Davies–Bouldin index is considered the best algorithm" -Wikipedia
How high or low these values should be ?Is there a metric number ?
Can any one provide me a small example using a clustering quality measure on a dataset or IRIS dataset to say that the particular clustering quality measure is good?
Maybe a simple starting point would be:
"Are the elements within a cluster alike and are they different from
elements in a different cluster".
There are obviously a variety of metrics to quantify similarity vs difference - as well as considerations like density vs distance.
The Stanford NLP project has a useful reference that is approachable: http://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/evaluation-of-clustering-1.html
Related
K-means clustering in sklearn, number of clusters is known in advance (it is 2).
There are multiple features. Feature values are initially without any weight assigned, i.e. they are treated equally weighted. However, task is to assign custom weights to each feature, in order to get best possible clusters separation.
How to determine optimum sample weights (sample_weight) for each feature, in order to get best possible separation of the two clusters?
If this is not possible for k-means, or for sklearn, I am interested in any alternative clustering solution, the point is that I need method of automatic determination of appropriate weights for multivariate features, in order to maximize clusters separation.
In meantime, I have implemented following: clustering by each component separately, then calculating silhouette score, calinski harabasz score, dunn score and inverse davies bouldin score for each component (feature) separately. Then scaling those scores to same magnitude, then PCA them to 1 feature. This produced weights for each component. It seems this approach produces reasonable results. I suppose better approach would be full factorial experiment (DOE), but it seems that this simple approach produces satisfactory results as well.
In a lot of articles in my field, this sentence has been repeated: " The 2 matrices has been normalized to have the same average sum-of-squares (computed across all subjects and all voxels for each modality)". Suppose that we have two matrices that the rows define different subjects and the columns are features (voxels). In these articles, no much explanation can be found for normalization method. Does anybody knows how I should normalize data to have "same average sum-of-squares"? I don't understand it at all. Thanks
For a start normalization in this context is also known as features scaling, which pretty much sums it up. You scale your features, your data to get rid of variances and range of values which would disturb your algorithm and your results in the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_scaling
In data processing, normalization is quite useful (depending on the application). E.g. in distance based machine learning algorithms you should normalize your features in order to get a proportional contribution to the outcome of your algorithm, independent of the range of value the features comprise.
To do so, you can use different statistical measurements, like the
Sum of squares:
SUM_i(Xi-Xbar)²
Other than that you could use the variance or the standard deviation of your data.
https://www.westgard.com/lesson35.htm#4
Those statistical terms can then be used to normalize your data, to improve e.g. the clustering quality of your algorithm. Which term to use and which method highly depends on the algorithms and data you're using and what you're aiming at.
Here is a paper which compares some of the approaches you could choose from for clustering:
http://maxwellsci.com/print/rjaset/v6-3299-3303.pdf
I hope this can help you a little.
I trying to self-learn ML and came across this problem. Help from more experienced people in the field would be much appreciated!
Suppose i have three vectors with areas for house compartments such as bathroom, living room and kitchen. The data consists of about 70,000 houses. A histogram of each individual vector clearly has evidence for a bimodal distribution, say a two-component gaussian mixture. I now wanted some sort of ML algorithm, preferably unsupervised, that would classify houses according to these attributes. Say: large bathroom, small kitchen, large living-room.
More specifically, i would like an algorithm to choose the best possible separation threshold for each bimodal distribution vector, say large/small kitchen (this can be binary as there we assume evidence for a bimodality), do the same for others and cluster the data. Ideally this would come with some confidence measure so that i could check houses in the intermediate regimes... for instance, a house with clearly a large kitchen, but whose bathroom would fall close to a threshold area/ boundary for large/small bathroom would be put for example on the bottom of a list with "large kitchens and large bathrooms". Because of this reason, first deciding on a threshold (fitting the gausssians with less possible FDR), collapsing the data and then clustering would Not be desirable.
Any advice on how to proceed? I know R and python.
Many thanks!!
What you're looking for is a clustering method: this is basically unsupervised classification. A simple method is k-means, which has many implementations (k-means can be viewed as the limit of a multi-variate Gaussian mixture as the variance tends to zero). This would naturally give you a confidence measure, which would be related to the distance metric (Euclidean distance) between the point in question and the centroids.
One final note: I don't know about clustering each attribute in turn, and then making composites from the independent attributes: why not let the algorithm find the clusters in multi-dimensional space? Depending on the choice of algorithm, this will take into account covariance in the features (big kitchen increases the probability of big bedroom) and produce natural groupings you might not consider in isolation.
Sounds like you want EM clustering with a mixture of Gaussians model.
Should be in the mclust package in R.
In addition to what the others have suggested, it is indeed possible to cluster (maybe even density-based clustering methods such as DBSCAN) on the individual dimensions, forming one-dimensional clusters (intervals) and working from there, possibly combining them into multi-dimensional, rectangular-shaped clusters.
I am doing a project involving exactly this. It turns out there are a few advantages to running density-based methods in one dimension, including the fact that you can do what you are saying about classifying objects on the border of one attribute according to their other attributes.
I 've used a part of reuters 21578 dataset and mahout k-means for clustering.To be more specific I extracted only the texts that has a unique value for category 'topics'.So I ve been left with 9494 texts that belong to one among 66 categories. I ve used seqdirectory to create sequence files from texts and then seq2sparse to crate the vectors. Then I run k-means with cosine distance measure (I ve tried tanimoto and euclidean too, with no better luck), cd=0.1 and k=66 (same as the number of categories). So I tried to evaluate the results with silhouette measure using custom Java code and the matlab implementation of silhouette (just to be sure that there is no error in my code) and I get that the average silhouette of the clustering is 0.0405. Knowing that the best clustering could give an average silhouette value close to 1, I see that the clustering result I get is no good at all.
So is this due to Mahout or the quality of catgorization on reuters dataset is low?
PS: I m using Mahout 0.7
PS2: Sorry for my bad English..
I've never actually worked with Mahout, so I cannot say what it does by default, but you might consider checking what sort of distance metric it uses by default. For example, if the metric is Euclidean distance on unnormalized document word counts, you can expect very poor quality cluster quality, as document length will dominate any meaningful comparison between documents. On the other hand, something like cosine distance on normalized, or tf-idf weighted word counts can do much better.
One other thing to look at is the distribution of topics in the Reuters 21578. It is very skewed towards a few topics such as "acq" or "earn", while others are used only handfuls of times. This can it difficult to achieve good external clustering metrics.
I have been given 2 data sets and want to perform cluster analysis for the sets using KNIME.
Once I have completed the clustering, I wish to carry out a performance comparison of 2 different clustering algorithms.
With regard to performance analysis of clustering algorithms, would this be a measure of time (algorithm time complexity and the time taken to perform the clustering of the data etc) or the validity of the output of the clusters? (or both)
Is there any other angle one look at to identify the performance (or lack of) for a clustering algorithm?
Many thanks in advance,
T
It depends a lot on what data you have available.
A common way of measuring the performance is with respect to existing ("external") labels (albeit that would make more sense for classification than for clustering). There are around two dozen measures you can use for this.
When using an "internal" quality measure, make sure that it is independent of the algorithms. For example, k-means optimizes such a measure, and will always come out best when evaluating with respect to this measure.
There are two categories of clustering evaluation methods and the choice depends
on whether a ground truth is available. The first category is the extrinsic methods which require the existence of a ground truth and the other category is the intrinsic methods. In general, extrinsic methods try to assign a score to a clustering, given the ground truth, whereas intrinsic methods evaluate clustering by examining how well the clusters are separated and how compact they are.
For extrinsic methods (remember you need to have a ground available) one option is to use the BCubed precision and recall metrics. The BCubed precion and recall metrics differ from the traditional precision and recall in the sense that clustering is an unsupervised learning technique and therefore we do not know the labels of the clusters beforehand. For this reason BCubed metrics evaluate the precion and recall for evry object in a clustering on a given dataset according to the ground truth. The precision of an example is an indication of how many other examples in the same cluster belong to the same category as the example. The recall of an example reflects how many examples of the same category are assigned to the same cluster. Finally, we can combine these two metrics in one using the F2 metric.
Sources:
Data Mining Concepts and Techniques by Jiawei Han, Micheline, Kamber and Jian Pei
http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~qitian/seminar/Spring11/03_11_11/IR2009.pdf
My own experience in evaluating the performance of clustering
A simple approach for the extrinsic methods where there is a ground truth available is to use a distance metric between clusterings; the ground truth is simply considered to be a clustering. Two good measures to use are the Variation of Information by Meila and, in my humble opinion, the split join distance by myself also discussed by Meila. I do not recommend the Mirkin index or the Rand index - I've written more about it here on stackexchange.
These metrics can be split into two constituent parts, each representing the distance of one of the clusterings to the largest common subclustering. It is worthwhile to consider both parts; if the ground truth part (to common subclustering) is very small, it means that the tested clustering is close to a superclustering; if the other part is small it means that the tested clustering is close to the common subclustering and hence close to a subclustering of the ground truth. In both cases the clustering can be said to be compatible with the ground truth. For more information see the link above.
There are several benchmarks for the clustering algorithms evaluation with extrinsic quality measures (accuracy) and intrinsic measures (some internal statistics of the formed clusters):
Clubmark demonstrated in ICDM'18
WebOCD, see description in the paper
Circulo
ParallelComMetric
CluSim
CoDAR (the sources might be acquired from the paper authors)
Selection of the appropriate benchmark depends on the kind of the clustering algorithm (hard or soft clustering), kind (pairwise relations, attributed datasets or mixed) and size of the clustering data, required evaluation metrics and the admissible amount of the supervision. The Clubmark paper describes evaluation criteria in details.
The Clubmark is developed for the fully automatic parallel evaluation of many clustering algorithms (processing input data specified by the pairwise relations) on many large datasets (millions and billions of clustering elements) and evaluated mostly by accuracy metrics tracing resource consumption (processing and execution time, peak resident memory consumption, etc.).
But for a couple of algorithms on a couple of datasets even the manual evaluation is appropriate.