I am using the python package networkx but any answer, programmatic or theoretical, is welcome.
I am thinking of two ways, both may be wrong:
create M small-worlds and connect them in a ring topology by choosing a random element from each small-world for inter-module connections
keep creating a single small-world until its modularity has the desired value (in this case I do not know how you compute the desired modularity based on the number of nodes and M)
Related
I have used the ELKI implementation of DBSCAN to identify fire hot spot clusters from a fire data set and the results look quite good. The data set is spatial and the clusters are based on latitude, longitude. Basically, the DBSCAN parameters identify hot spot regions where there is a high concentration of fire points (defined by density). These are the fire hot spot regions.
My question is, after experimenting with several different parameters and finding a pair that gives a reasonable clustering result, how does one validate the clusters?
Is there a suitable formal validation method for my use case? Or is this subjective depending on the application domain?
ELKI contains a number of evaluation functions for clusterings.
Use the -evaluator parameter to enable them, from the evaluation.clustering.internal package.
Some of them will not automatically run because they have quadratic runtime cost - probably more than your clustering algorithm.
I do not trust these measures. They are designed for particular clustering algorithms; and are mostly useful for deciding the k parameter of k-means; not much more than that. If you blindly go by these measures, you end up with useless results most of the time. Also, these measures do not work with noise, with either of the strategies we tried.
The cheapest are the label-based evaluators. These will automatically run, but apparently your data does not have labels (or they are numeric, in which case you need to set the -parser.labelindex parameter accordingly). Personally, I prefer the Adjusted Rand Index to compare the similarity of two clusterings. All of these indexes are sensitive to noise so they don't work too well with DBSCAN, unless your reference has the same concept of noise as DBSCAN.
If you can afford it, a "subjective" evaluation is always best.
You want to solve a problem, not a number. That is the whole point of "data science", being problem oriented and solving the problem, not obsessed with minimizing some random quality number. If the results don't work in reality, you failed.
There are different methods to validate a DBSCAN clustering output. Generally we can distinguish between internal and external indices, depending if you have labeled data available or not. For DBSCAN there is a great internal validation indice called DBCV.
External Indices:
If you have some labeled data, external indices are great and can demonstrate how well the cluster did vs. the labeled data. One example indice is the RAND indice.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_index
Internal Indices:
If you don't have labeled data, then internal indices can be used to give the clustering result a score. In general the indices calculate the distance of points within the cluster and to other clusters and try to give you a score based on the compactness (how close are the points to each other in a cluster?) and
separability (how much distance is between the clusters?).
For DBSCAN, there is one great internal validation indice called DBCV by Moulavi et al. Paper is available here: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611973440.96
Python package: https://github.com/christopherjenness/DBCV
I have test classification datasets from UCI Machine Learning repository which are labelled.
I am stripping of the labels and using the data to benchmark a few clustering algorithm and then I am planning to use external validation methods. I will run the algorithm with different initial configurations, for say, 50 times and then take the mean value. For 50 iterations the algorithm labels the data points of one single cluster with different numbers. Because in each run the cluster labels can change, also because each iteration might have slightly different cluster assignments, how to somehow remap each of the clusters to one uniform numbering.
Primary idea is to remap by checking how many of the points in the class labels intersect the maximum in the actual labels and then making a remap based on that, but this can get incorrect remappings because when the classes will have more or less equal number of points, this will not work.
Another idea is to keep the labels while clustering, but make the clustering algorithm ignore it. This way all the cluster data will have the label tags. This is doable but I have already have a benchmarked cluster assignment data to be processed therefore I am trying to avoid modifying and re-benchmarking my implementation (which will take quite some time and cpu) of the cluster analysis algorithms and include the label tag to the vectors and then ignore it.
Is there any way that I can compute average accuracy from the cluster assignments I have right now?
EDIT:
The domain in which I am studying (metaheuristic clustering algorithms) I could not find a paper comparing these indexes. The paper which compares seems to be incorrect in their values. Can anyone point me to a paper where clustering results are compared using any of these indexes?
What do you do when the number of clusters doesn't agree?
Do not try to map clusters.
Instead, use the proper external validation measures for clustering, which do not require a 1:1 correspondence of clusters. There are plenty, for details see Wikipedia.
I have a dataset consists of (700 data points x 400 dimensions) which belong to 10 classes. I did cluster this data to see how data points will fit into clusters similar to their class. I performed two clustering experiments, one using basic k-means (euclidean) and another using Affinity Propagation. I noticed that the results using k-means are better and faster!! than the Affinity Propagation.
I could not understand the reason behind this. Can any of you help in giving explanation why I got such results (I thought Affinity Propagation is better than k-means)?
It could be a matter of granularity - the APC result could be close to a subclustering or superclustering of the class labels. There is a parameter that affects APC granularity (check yourself).
Another consideration is how you prepare the network that you give to APC (or any other network clustering algorithm). Ideally it should not be too dense. As a rough guideline, make sure that the distribution of { number of neighbours per node | all nodes } does not stray far outside [0.5 * sqrt(N) - 2.0 * sqrt(N)]. Especially try to avoid hubs, that is, nodes that have many more neighbours than that upper bound.
As a sanity check, are the values that you give to APC similarities? They should similarities be of course, not distances. You have a choice how the similarity is computed. The standard way to restrain the number of neighbours is to use a cut-off. Experiment with the combination of these. Finally you may also want to try MCL, an algorithm that precedes APC and uses conceptually similar principles but is a bit cleaner in its formulation (alternation of simple matrix operations). It is probably faster.
I am interested in detecting clusters in areas with varying-density, such as user-generated data in cities, and for that I adopted the OPTICS algorithm.
Unlike DBSCAN, the OPTICS algorithm does not produce a strict cluster partition, but an augmented ordering of the database. To produce the cluster partition, I use OPTICSxi, which is another algorithm that produces a classification based on the output of OPTICS. There are few libraries capable of extracting a cluster partition from the output of OPTICS, and ELKI’s OPTICSxi implementation is one of them.
It is very clear to me, how-to interpret the results of DBSCAN (although it is not that easy, to set “meaningful” global parameters); DBSCAN detects a “prototype” of a cluster, characterized by a density, expressed as a number of points per area (minpts/epsilon). The results of OPTICSxi seem a bit more difficult to interpret.
There are two phenomena that I sometimes detect in the outputs of OPTICSxi, and that I am not able to explain. One is the appearance of “spike” clusters, that link parts of the map. I cannot explain them, because they seem to be made of very few points and I don’t understand how the algorithm decides to group them in the same cluster. Do they really represent a “corridor” of density variation? looking at the underlying data, it does not look like that. You can see these “spikes” in the image bellow.
The other phenomenon that I cannot explain is the fact that sometimes there are "overlapping" clusters of the same hierarchical level. OPTICSxi is based on the OPTICS ordering of the database (e.g. dendrogram) and there are no repeated points in that diagram.
Since this is a hierarchical clustering, we consider that clusters of a lower level contain clusters of a higher level, and that idea is enforced when building the convex hulls. However, I don’t see any justification for having clusters that intersect other clusters on the same hierarchical level, which in practice would mean that some points would have a double cluster “membership”. On the image bellow, we can see some intersecting clusters with the same hierarchical level (0).
Finally the most important thought/question that I want to leave you with, is: what do we expect to see in an OPTICSxi clustering classification? This question is closely linked to the task of parametrizing OPTICSxi.
Since I see hardly any studies with runs of OPTICSxi for a particular cluster problem, I struggle to find what is an optimal clustering classification would be; i.e.: one that can provide some meaningful/useful results, and add some value to the DBSCAN clustering. To help me answering that question, I performed many runs of OPTICSxi, with different combinations of parameters, and I selected three that I will discuss bellow.
On this run I used a large value of epsilon (2Km); the meaning of that value is that we accept large clusters (up to 2Km); since the algorithm “merges” clusters, we will end up with some very large clusters, that will have almost certainly a low density. I like this output, because it exposes the hierarchical structure of the classification, and it actually reminds me of several runs DBSCAN with a different combination of parameters (for different densities), which is the advertised “strength” of OPTICS. As it was mentioned before, smaller clusters correspond to higher levels in the hierarchical scale, and higher densities.
On this run we see a large number of clusters, even if the “contrast” parameter is the same from the previous run. That is mostly because I chosen a low number of minpts, which established that we accept clusters with a low number of points. Since the epsilon in this case is shorter, we don’t see these large clusters occupying a large part of the map. I find this output less interesting than the previous one, mostly because, even if we have an hierarchical structure there are many clusters at the same level, and many of them intersect. In terms of interpretation, I can see an overall “shape” that is similar to the previous one, but it is actually discretized in lots of small clusters that are easily overlooked as “noise”.
This run has a parameter choice that is similar to the previous one, except that the minpts is larger; the consequences is that not only we find less clusters and they overlap less, but also that they are mostly at the same level.
In a perspective of adding value to DBSCAN, I would opt for the first combination of parameters, since it provides a hierarchical picture of the data, exposing clearly which areas are more dense. IMHO the last combination of parameters, fails to provide an idea of the global distribution of density, since it is finding similar clusters all over the study area. I am interested to read other opinions.
The problem with extracting clusters from the OPTICS plot is the first and last elements of a clsuter. Just from the plot, you cannot (to my understanding) decide whether the last element should belong to the previous cluster or not.
Consider a plot like this
*
* *
* *
* **
**************
A B C D EF G H
This can be a cluster where A is right in the middle, B-E nearby, and F is the nearest element in a completely different cluster. For example, the data set might look like this:
* D *
B A E F G
* C H *
Or, A is at the rim of the first cluster, B-D are part of the cluster, whereas E is an outlier element bridging the gap to the cluster F-H.
A data set that causes such an effect could look like this:
D * *
* C B A E F G
E * H *
OpticsXi operates visually. F is the "steeper" point to split, so E will in each case be part of the first cluster. It is literally the best guess OpticsXi can do without looking at the data points.
This is likely the effect causing the spikes you have been observing.
I see four options:
improve OpticsXi yourself. If you are interested, we can discuss some heuristics possible to distinguish these two cases above.
implement one of the other extraction methods, such as inflexion points (but they may suffer from the same effects, als they are in the plot AFAICT)
use HDBSCAN (sorry, not yet included in ELKI, although we have a version that appears to be working) - probably in 0.7.0
Apply post-processing to the clusters. In particular, test the first and last few points by cluster order, if you want to include them in the cluster, move them to the next, or move them to the parent cluster. Maybe simply by average distance from the cluster...
I am trying to differentiate two populations. Each population is an NxM matrix in which N is fixed between the two and M is variable in length (N=column specific attributes of each run, M=run number). I have looked at PCA and K-means for differentiating the two, but I was curious of the best practice.
To my knowledge, in K-means, there is no initial 'calibration' in which the clusters are chosen such that known bimodal populations can be differentiated. It simply minimizes the distance and assigns the data to an arbitrary number of populations. I would like to tell the clustering algorithm that I want the best fit in which the two populations are separated. I can then use the fit I get from the initial clustering on future datasets. Any help, example code, or reading material would be appreciated.
-R
K-means and PCA are typically used in unsupervised learning problems, i.e. problems where you have a single batch of data and want to find some easier way to describe it. In principle, you could run K-means (with K=2) on your data, and then evaluate the degree to which your two classes of data match up with the data clusters found by this algorithm (note: you may want multiple starts).
It sounds to like you have a supervised learning problem: you have a training data set which has already been partitioned into two classes. In this case k-nearest neighbors (as mentioned by #amas) is probably the approach most like k-means; however Support Vector Machines can also be an attractive approach.
I frequently refer to The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition (Springer Series in Statistics) by Trevor Hastie (Author), Robert Tibshirani (Author), Jerome Friedman (Author).
It really depends on the data. But just to let you know K-means does get stuck at local minima so if you wanna use it try running it from different random starting points. PCA's might also be useful how ever like any other spectral clustering method you have much less control over the clustering procedure. I recommend that you cluster the data using k-means with multiple random starting points and c how it works then you can predict and learn for each the new samples with K-NN (I don't know if it is useful for your case).
Check Lazy learners and K-NN for prediction.