I have to check performance of various clustering algos using different performance operators in rapidminer. For that I want to know the following things:
what does cluster number index value shows which is output of cluster count performance operator?
what does small and large value of avg within cluster distance and avg. within centroid distance mean in terms of good and bad clustering?
I also want to check other indexes value like Dunn index,Jaccard index, Fowlkes–Mallows for various clustering algos. but rapidminer don't have any operator for this, what to do for that. I don't have experience with R.
I have copied part of the answer I gave on the Rapid-I forum
The cluster number index is the count of clusters - pointless you might say but when used with DBSCAN, it can be quite interesting http://rapidminernotes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/counting-clusters.html
The avg within cluster and centroid distances are hard to interpret - one thing to search for is "elbow criterion" in this context. As the number of clusters varies, note how the validity measure changes and look for an "elbow" that marks the point where the natural progression of the measure dominates the structure.
R has many validity measures and it's worth investing some time because you can always call the R process from RapidMiner which makes it easier to work out what is going on.
Related
At the moment, my problem has four metrics. Each of these measures something entirely different (each has different units, a different range, etc.) and each is weighted externally. I am using Drools for scoring.
I only have only one score level (SimpleLongScore) and I have to find a way to appropriately combine the individual scores of these metrics onto one long value
The most significant problem at the moment is that the range of values for the metrics can be wildly different.
So if, for example, after a move the score of a metric with a small possible range improves by, say, 10%, that could be completely dwarfed by an alternate move which improves the metric with a larger range's score by only 1% because OptaPlanner only considers the actual score value rather than the possible range of values and how changes affect them proportionally (to my knowledge).
So, is there a way to handle this cleanly which is already part of OptaPlanner that I cannot find?
Is the only feasible solution to implement Pareto scoring? Because that seems like a hack-y nightmare.
So far I have code/math to compute the best-possible and worst-possible scores for a metric that I access from within the Drools and then I can compute where in that range a move puts us, but this also feel quite hack-y and will cause issues with incremental scoring if we want to scale non-linearly within that range.
I keep coming back to thinking I should just just bite the bullet and implement Pareto scoring.
Thanks!
Take a look at #ConstraintConfiguration and #ConstraintWeight in the docs.
Also take a look at the chapter "explaning the score", which can exactly tell you which constraint had which score impact on the best solution found.
If, however, you need pareto optimization, so you need multiple best solutions that don't dominate each other, then know that OptaPlanner doesn't support that yet, but I know of 2 cases that implemented it in OptaPlanner by hacking BestSolutionRecaller.
That being said, 99% of the cases that think of pareto optimization, are 100% happy with #ConstraintWeight instead, because users don't want multiple best solutions (except during simulations), they just want one in production.
I have a big doubt about the way I should cluster sets using MinHash together with the banding technique.
I assume everyone reading has a good knowledge of MinHash so I won't define most of the terms I'm using.
My goal is to use MinHash to cluster users according to the similarity of their signatures. In a local, non-banded settings this would be trivial: if their signature hash is the same, they go in the same cluster.
If we split signatures in bands and process them indipendently, I can treat a band as I said before and generate a group of clusters for every band. My question is: how should I aggregate these clusters? Just merge them if they have at least an element in common? Or should I do something different?
Thanks
MinHash is not really meant as standalone clustering algorithm. It is meant as a candidate filter for near-duplicate detection.
When looking for similar documents, you compute the minhashes to retrieve candidates. You then still need to check these candidates - they could be false positives!
The more signatures agree, the more likely they really match.
So if you consider the near-duplicate scenario again: if a is a near duplicate of b and b is a near duplicate of c, then a should also be a near duplicate of c. If this holds, you can throw all these matches (after verification) together. If it doesn't consider a hierarchical clustering like strategy to merge (or not merge) candidates.
I'm fairly new to clustering and related topics so please forgive my questions.
I'm trying to get introduced into this area by doing some tests, and as a first experiment I'd like to create clusters on tweets based on content similarity. The basic idea for the experiment would be storing tweets on a database and periodically calculate the clustering (ie. using a cron job). Please note that the database would obtain new tweets from time to time.
Being ignorant in this field, my idea (probably naive) would be to do something like this:
1. For each new tweet in the db, extract N-grams (N=3 for example) into a set
2. Perform Jaccard similarity and compare with each of the existing clusters. If result > threshold then it would be assigned to that cluster
3. Once finished I'd get M clusters containing similar tweets
Now I see some problems with this basic approach. Let's put aside computational cost, how would the comparison between a tweet and a cluster be done? Assuming I have a tweet Tn and a cluster C1 containing T1, T4, T10 which one should I compare it to? Given that we're talking about similarity, it could well happen that sim(Tn,T1) > threshold but sim(Tn,T4) < threshold. My gut feeling tells me that something like an average should be used for the cluster, in order to avoid this problem.
Also, it could happen that sim(Tn, C1) and sim(Tn, C2) are both > threshold but similarity with C1 would be higher. In that case Tn should go to C1. This could be done brute force as well to assign the tweet to the cluster with maximum similarity.
And last of all, it's the computational issue. I've been reading a bit about minhash and it seems to be the answer to this problem, although I need to do some more research on it.
Anyway, my main question would be: could someone with experience in the area recommend me which approach should I aim to? I read some mentions about LSA and other methods, but trying to cope with everything is getting a bit overwhelming, so I'd appreciate some guiding.
From what I'm reading a tool for this would be hierarchical clustering, as it would allow regrouping of clusters whenever new data enters. Is this correct?
Please note that I'm not looking for any complicated case. My use case idea would be being able to cluster similar tweets into groups without any previous information. For example, tweets from Foursquare ("I'm checking in ..." which are similar to each other would be one case, or "My klout score is ..."). Also note that I'd like this to be language independent, so I'm not interested in having to deal with specific language issues.
It looks like to me that you are trying to address two different problems in one, i.e. "syntactic" and "semantic" clustering. They are quite different problems, expecially if you are in the realm of short-text analysis (and Twitter is the king of short-text analysis, of course).
"Syntactic" clustering means aggregating tweets that come, most likely, from the same source. Your example of Foursquare fits perfectly, but it is also common for retweets, people sharing online newspaper articles or blog posts, and many other cases. For this type of problem, using a N-gram model is almost mandatory, as you said (my experience suggests that N=2 is good for tweets, since you can find significant tweets that have as low as 3-4 features). Normalization is also an important factor here, removing RT tag, mentions, hashtags might help.
"Semantic" clustering means aggregating tweets that share the same topic. This is a much more difficult problem, and it won't likely work if you try to aggregate random sample of tweets, due to the fact that they, usually, carry too little information. These techniques might work, though, if you restrict your domain to a specific subset of tweets (i.e. the one matching a keyword, or an hashtag). LSA could be useful here, while it is useless for syntactic clusters.
Based on your observation, I think what you want is syntactic clustering. Your biggest issue, though, is the fact that you need online clustering, and not static clustering. The classical clustering algorithms that would work well in the static case (like hierarchical clustering, or union find) aren't really suited for online clustering , unless you redo the clustering from scratch every time a new tweet gets added to your database. "Averaging" the clusters to add new elements isn't a great solution according to my experience, because you need to retain all the information of every cluster member to update the "average" every time new data gets in. Also, algorithms like hierarchical clustering and union find work well because they can join pre-existant clusters if a link of similarity is found between them, and they don't simply assign a new element to the "closest" cluster, which is what you suggested to do in your post.
Algorithms like MinHash (or SimHash) are indeed more suited to online clustering, because they support the idea of "querying" for similar documents. MinHash is essentially a way to obtain pairs of documents that exceed a certain threshold of similarity (in particular, MinHash can be considered an estimator of Jaccard similarity) without having to rely on a quadratic algorithm like pairwise comparison (it is, in fact, O(nlog(n)) in time). It is, though, quadratic in space, therefore a memory-only implementation of MinHash is useful for small collections only (say 10000 tweets). In your case, though, it can be useful to save "sketches" (i.e., the set of hashes you obtain by min-hashing a tweet) of your tweets in a database to form an "index", and query the new ones against that index. You can then form a similarity graph, by adding edges between vertices (tweets) that matched the similarity query. The connected components of your graph will be your clusters.
This sounds a lot like canopy pre-clustering to me.
Essentially, each cluster is represented by the first object that started the cluster.
Objects within the outer radius join the cluster. Objects that are not within the inner radius of at least one cluster start a new cluster. This way, you get an overlapping (non-disjoint!) quantization of your dataset. Since this can drastically reduce the data size, it can be used to speed up various algorithms.
However don't expect useful results from clustering tweets. Tweet data is just to much noise. Most tweets have just a few words, too little to define a good similarity. On the other hand, you have the various retweets that are near duplicates - but trivial to detect.
So what would be a good cluster of tweets? Can this n-gram similarity actually capture this?
I experience a strange situation when running Mahout K-means:
Using the a pre-selected set of initial centroids, I run K-means on a SequenceFile generated by lucene.vector. The run is for testing purposes, so the file is small (around 10MB~10000 vectors).
When K-means is executed with a single mapper (the default considering the Hadoop split size which in my cluster is 128MB), it reaches a given clustering result in 2 iterations (Case A).
However, I wanted to test if there would be any improvement/deterioration in the algorithm's execution speed by firing more mapping tasks (the Hadoop cluster has in total 6 nodes).
I therefore set the -Dmapred.max.split.size parameter to 5242880 bytes, in order to make mahout fire 2 mapping tasks (Case B).
I indeed succeeded in starting two mappers, but the strange thing was that the job finished after 5 iterations instead of 2, and that even at the first assignment of points to clusters, the mappers made different choices compared to the single-map execution . What I mean is that after close inspection of the clusterDump for the first iteration for both two cases, I found that in case B some points were not assigned to their closest cluster.
Could this behavior be justified by the existing K-means Mahout implementation?
From a quick look at the sources, I see two problems with the Mahout k-means implementation.
First of all, the way the S0, S1, S2 statistics are kept is probably not numerically stable for large data sets. Oh, and since k-means actually does not even use S2, it is also unnecessary slow. I bet a good implementation can beat this version of k-means by a factor of 2-5 at least.
For small data sets split onto multiple machines, there seems to be an error in the way they compute their means. Ouch. This will amplify if the reducer is applied to more than one input, in particular when the partitions are small. To be more verbose, the cluster mean apparently is initialized with the previous mean instead of the 0 vector. Now if you if you reduce 't' copies of it, the resulting vector will be off by 't' times the previous mean.
Initialization of AbstractCluster:
setS1(center.like());
Update of the mean:
getS1().assign(x, Functions.PLUS);
Merge of multiple copies of a cluster:
setS1(getS1().plus(cl.getS1()));
Finalization to new center:
setCenter(getS1().divide(getS0()));
So with this approach, the center will be offset from the proper value by the previous center times t / n where t is the number of splits, and n the number of objects.
To fix the numerical instability (which arises whenever the data set is not centered on the 0 vector), I recommend replacing the S1 statistic by the true mean, not S0*mean. Both S1 and S2 can be incrementally updated at little cost using the incremental mean formula which AFAICT was used in the original "k-means" publication by MacQueen (which actually is an online kmeans, while this is Lloyd style batch iterations). Well, for an incremental k-means you obviously need the updatable mean vector anyway... I believe the formula was also discussed by Knuth in his essential books. I'm surprised that Mahout does not seem to use it. It's fairly cheap (just a few CPU instructions more, no additional data, so it all happens in the CPU cache line) and gives you extra precision when you are dealing with large data sets.
I am clustering a large set of points. Throughout the iterations, I want to avoid re-computing cluster properties if the assigned points are the same as the previous iteration. Each cluster keeps the IDs of its points. I don't want to compare them element wise, comparing the sum of the ID vector is risky (a small ID can be compensated with a large one), may be I should compare the sum of squares? Is there a hashing method in Matlab which I can use with confidence?
Example data:
a=[2,13,14,18,19,21,23,24,25,27]
b=[6,79,82,85,89,111,113,123,127,129]
c=[3,9,59,91,99,101,110,119,120,682]
d=[11,57,74,83,86,90,92,102,103,104]
So the problem is that if I just check the sum, it could be that cluster d for example, looses points 11,103 and gets 9,105. Then I would mistakenly think that there has been no change in the cluster.
This is one of those (very common) situations where the more we know about your data and application the better we are able to help. In the absence of better information than you provide, and in the spirit of exposing the weakness of answers such as this in that absence, here are a couple of suggestions you might reject.
One appropriate data structure for set operations is a bit-set, that is a set of length equal to the cardinality of the underlying universe of things in which each bit is set on or off according to the things membership of the (sub-set). You could implement this in Matlab in at least two ways:
a) (easy, but possibly consuming too much space): define a matrix with as many columns as there are points in your data, and one row for each cluster. Set the (cluster, point) value to true if point is a member of cluster. Set operations are then defined by vector operations. I don't have a clue about the relative (time) efficiency of setdiff versus rowA==rowB.
b) (more difficult): actually represent the clusters by bit sets. You'll have to use Matlab's bit-twiddling capabilities of course, but the pain might be worth the gain. Suppose that your universe comprises 1024 points, then you'll need an array of 16 uint64 values to represent the bit set for each cluster. The presence of, say, point 563 in a cluster requires that you set, for the bit set representing that cluster, bit 563 (which is probably bit 51 in the 9th element of the set) to 1.
And perhaps I should have started by writing that I don't think that this is a hashing sort of a problem, it's a set sort of a problem. Yeah, you could use a hash but then you'll have to program around the limitations of using a screwdriver on a nail (choose your preferred analogy).
If I understand correctly, to hash the ID's I would recommend using the matlab Java interface to use the Java hashing algorithms
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/security/MessageDigest.html
You'll do something like:
hash = java.security.MessageDigest.getInstance('SHA');
Hope this helps.
I found the function
DataHash on FEX it is quiet fast for vectors and the strcmp on the keys is a lot faster than I expected.