My research question is about elderly people and I have to find out underlying groups. The data comes from a questionnaire. I have thought about cluster analysis, but the thing is that I would like to search perceived health and which things affect on the perceived health, e.g. what kind of groups of elderly rank their health as bad.
I have some 30 questions I would like to check with the analysis, to see if for example widows have better or worse health than the average. I also have weights in my data so I need to use complex samples.
How can I use an already existing function, or what analysis should I use?
The key challenge you have to solve first is to specify a similarity measure. Once you can measure similarity, various clustering algorithms become available.
But questionnaire data doesn't make a very good vector space, so you can't just use Euclidean distance.
If you want to generate clusters using SPSS, standard options include: k-means, hierarhical cluster analysis, or 2-step. I have some general notes on cluster analysis in SPSS here. See from slide 34.
If you want to see if widows differ in their health, then you need to form a measure of health and compare means on that measure between widows and non-widows (presumably using a between groups t-test). If you have 30 questions related to health, then you may want to do a factor analysis to see how the items group together.
If you are trying to develop a general model of whats predicts perceived health then there are a wide range of modelling options available. Multiple regression would be an obvious starting point. If you have many potential predictors then you have a lot of choices regarding whether you are going to be testing particular models or doing a more data driven model building approach.
More generally, it sounds like you need to clarify the aims of your analyses and the particular hypotheses that you want to test.
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
What kind of knowledge/ inference can be made from k means clustering analysis of KDDcup99 dataset?
We ploted some graphs using matlab they looks like this:::
Experiment 1: Plot of dst_host_count vs serror_rate
Experiment 2: Plot of srv_count vs srv_serror_rate
Experiment 3: Plot of count vs serror_rate
I just extracted saome features from kddcup data set and ploted them.....
The main problem am facing is due to lack of domain knowledge I cant determine what inference can be drawn form this graphs another one is if I have chosen wrong axis then what should be the correct chosen feature?
I got very less time to complete this thing so I don't understand the backgrounds very well
Any help telling the interpretation of these graphs would be helpful
What kind of unsupervised learning can be made using this data and plots?
Just to give you some domain knowledge: the KDD cup data set contains information about different aspects of network connections. Each sample contains 'connection duration', 'protocol used', 'source/destination byte size' and many other features that describes one connection connection. Now, some of these connections are malicious. The malicious samples have their unique 'fingerprint' (unique combination of different feature values) that separates them from good ones.
What kind of knowledge/ inference can be made from k means clustering analysis of KDDcup99 dataset?
You can try k-means clustering to initially cluster the normal and bad connections. Also, the bad connections falls into 4 main categories themselves. So, you can try k = 5, where one cluster will capture the good ones and other 4 the 4 malicious ones. Look at the first section of the tasks page for details.
You can also check if some dimensions in your data set have high correlation. If so, then you can use something like PCA to reduce some dimensions. Look at the full list of features. After PCA, your data will have a simpler representation (with less number of dimensions) and might give better performance.
What should be the correct chosen feature?
This is hard to tell. Currently data is very high dimensional, so I don't think trying to visualize 2/3 of the dimensions in a graph will give you a good heuristics on what dimensions to choose. I would suggest
Use all the dimensions for for training and testing the model. This will give you a measure of the best performance.
Then try removing one dimension at a time to see how much the performance is affected. For example, you remove the dimension 'srv_serror_rate' from your data and the model performance comes out to be almost the same. Then you know this dimension is not giving you any important info about the problem at hand.
Repeat step two until you can't find any dimension that can be removed without hurting performance.
Iam writting my thesis and using software called Wingen3 and I am facing problem in determing How many replication should I put when using the program to generate Data?
Some says 5, some says 10,000 but is there a rule or a formula to determine how many replication?
Nobody can give you more than a hand-waving guess without knowing more about your specific case. Note: I know absolutely nothing about "Wingen3", but sample size questions are (or at least ought to be) a function of the statistical properties of your estimators, not of the software.
In general you replicate simulations when they are stochastic to estimate the distributional behavior of the output measures. How many replications depends entirely on what type of measure you're trying to determine and what margin of error you're willing to tolerate in the estimates. One fairly common technique is to make a small initial run and estimate the sample variability of your performance measure. Then project how large a sample will get you down to the desired margin of error. This works fairly well if you're estimating means, medians, or quartiles, but not at all well for estimating quantiles in the tail of your distribution. For instance, if you want to determine the 99.9%-ile, you're seeking extremes that happen one time in a thousand on average and you may need tens or even hundreds of thousands of replications to accurately assess such rare events.
I'm using WEKA for my thesis and have over 1000 lines of data. The database includes demographical information (Age, Location, status etc.) followed by name of products (valued 1 or 0). The end results is a recommender system.
I used two methods of clustering, K-Means and DBScan.
When using K-means I tried 3 different number of cluster, while using DBscan I chose 3 different epsilons (Epsilon 3 = 48 clusters with ignored 17% of data, Epsilone 2.5 = 19 clusters while cluster 0 holds 229 items with ignored 6%.) Meaning i have 6 different clustering results for same data.
How do I choose what's best suits my data ?
What is "best"?
As some smart people noticed:
the validity of a clustering is often in the eye of the beholder
There is no objectively "better" for clustering, or you are not doing cluster analysis.
Even when a result actually is "better" on some mathematical measure such as separation, silhouette or even when using a supervised evaluation using labels - its still only better at optimizing towards some mathematical goal, not to your use case.
K-means finds a local optimal sum-of-squares assignment for a given k. (And if you increase k, there exists a better assignment!) DBSCAN (it's actually correctly spelled all uppercase) always finds the optimal density-connected components for the given MinPts/Epsilon combination. Yet, both just optimize with respect to some mathematical criterion. Unless this critertion aligns with your requirements, it is worthless. So there is no best, until you know what you need. But if you know what you need, you would not need to do cluster analysis.
So what to do?
Try different algorithms and different parameters and analyze the output with your domain knowledge, if they help you with the problem you are trying to solve. If they help you solving your problem, then they are good. If they do not help, try again.
Over time, you will collect some experience. For example, if the sum-of-squares is meaningless for your domain, don't use k-means. If your data does not have meaningful density, don't use density based clustering such as DBSCAN. It's not that these algorithms fail. They just don't solve your problem, they solve a different problem that you are not interested in. And they might be really good at solving this other problem...
I'm having issue with using OPTICS implementation in ELKI environment. I have used the same data for DBSCAN implementation and it worked like a charm. Probably I'm missing something with parameters but I can't figure it out, everything seems to be right.
Data is a simple 300х2 matrix, consists of 3 clusters with 100 points in each.
DBSCAN result:
Clustering result of DBSCAN
MinPts = 10, Eps = 1
OPTICS result:
Clustering result of OPTICS
MinPts = 10
You apparently already found the solution yourself, but here is the long story:
The OPTICS class in ELKI only computes the cluster order / reachability diagram.
In order to extract clusters, you have different choices, one of which (the one from the original OPTICS publication) is available in ELKI.
So in order to extract clusters in ELKI, you need to use the OPTICSXi algorithm, which will in turn use either OPTICS or the index based DeLiClu to compute the cluster order.
The reason why this is split into two parts in ELKI probably is so that you can on one hand implement another logic for extracting the clusters, and on the other hand implement different methods like DeLiClu for computing the cluster order. That would align well with the modular architecture of ELKI.
IIRC there is at least one more method (apparently not yet in ELKI) that extracts clusters by looking for local maxima, then extending them horizontally until they hit the end of the valley. And there was a different one that used "inflexion points" of the plot.
#AnonyMousse pretty much put it right. I just can't upvote or comment yet.
We hope to have some students contribute the other cluster extraction methods as small student projects over time. They are not essential for our research, but they are good tasks for students that want to learn about ELKI to get started.
ELKI is a fast moving project, and it lives from community contributions. We would be happy to see you contribute some code to it. We know that the codebase is not easy to get started with - it is fairly large, and the generality of the implementation and the support for index structures make it a bit hard to get started. We try to add Tutorials to help you to get started. And once you are used to it, you will actually benefit from the architecture: your algorithms get the benfits of indexing and arbitrary distance functions, while if you would implement from scratch, you would likely only support Euclidean distance, and no index acceleration.
Seeing that you struggled with OPTICS, I will try to write an OPTICS tutorial in the new year. In particular, OPTICS can benefit a lot from using an appropriate index structure.