In my clustering problem, not only the points can come and go but also the features can be removed or added. Is there any clustering algorithm for my problem.
Specifically I am looking for an agglomerative hierarchical clustering version of these kind of clustering algorithms.
You can use hierarchical clustering (except it scales really bad) or any other distance based clustering. Just k-means is a bit tricky because how do you compute the mean when the value is not present?
You only need to define an appropriate distance function first.
Clustering is usually done based on similarity, so: first find out what "similar" means for you. This is very data set and use case specific, although many people can use some kind of distance function. There is no "one size fits all" solution.
Related
I am new to machine learning and now I am interested in document clustering (short texts with different lengths) according to their semantic similarity (I just want to go beyond the standard TF/IDF approach). I read the paper http://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/kusnerb15.pdf where the Word Mover's distance for word embeddings is explained. In the paper they used it for classification. My question is now - can I use it for clustering? If so, is there a paper where this kind of usage is discribed?
P.S.: I am basically interested in clustering which takes into account the semantic similarity, so even a word2vec or doc2vec approach will do the job - I just couldn't find any papers where they are used in a clustering problem.
If you could afford to compute an entire distance matrix, then you could do hierarchical clustering, for example.
It's easy today find other clusterings that accept any distance and use a threshold. These could even use the bounds for performance. But it's not obvious that they will work on such data.
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
Can we use Hierarchical agglomerative clustering for clustering data in this format ?
"beirut,proff,email1"
"beirut,proff,email2"
"swiss,aproff,email1"
"france,instrc,email2"
"swiss,instrc,email2"
"beirut,proff,email1"
"swiss,instrc,email2"
"france,aproff,email2"
If not, what is the compatible clustering algorithm to cluster data with string values ?
Thank you for your help!
Any type of clustering requires a distance metric. If all you're willing to do with your strings is treat them as equal to each other or not equal to each other, the best you can really do is the field-wise Hamming distance... that is, the distance between "abc,def,ghi" and "uvw,xyz,ghi" is 2, and the distance between "abw,dez,ghi" is also 2. If you want to cluster similar strings within a particular field -- say clustering "Slovakia" and "Slovenia" because of the name similarity, or "Poland" and "Ukraine" because they border each other, you'll use more complex metrics. Given a distance metric, hierarchical agglomerative clustering should work fine.
All this assumes, however, that clustering is what you actually want to do. Your dataset seems like sort of an odd use-case for clustering.
Hierarchical clustering is a rather flexible clustering algorithm. Except for some linkages (Ward?) it does not have any requirement on the "distance" - it could be a similarity as well, usually negative values will work just as well, you don't need triangle inequality etc.
Other algorithms - such as k-means - are much more limited. K-means minimizes variance; so it can only handle (squared) Euclidean distance; and it needs to be able to compute means, thus the data needs to be in a continuous, fixed dimensionality vector space; and sparsity may be an issue.
One algorithm that probably is even more flexible is Generalized DBSCAN. Essentially, it needs a binary decision "x is a neighbor of y" (e.g. distance less than epsilon), and a predicate to measure "core point" (e.g. density). You can come up with arbitary complex such predicates, that may no longer be a single "distance" anymore.
Either way: If you can measure similarity of these records, hiearchical clustering should work. The question is, if you can get enough similarity out of that data, and not just 3 bit: "has the same email", "has the same name", "has the same location" -- 3 bit will not provide a very interesting hierarchy.
I've been looking around scipy and sklearn for clustering algorithms for a particular problem I have. I need some way of characterizing a population of N particles into k groups, where k is not necessarily know, and in addition to this, no a priori linking lengths are known (similar to this question).
I've tried kmeans, which works well if you know how many clusters you want. I've tried dbscan, which does poorly unless you tell it a characteristic length scale on which to stop looking (or start looking) for clusters. The problem is, I have potentially thousands of these clusters of particles, and I cannot spend the time to tell kmeans/dbscan algorithms what they should go off of.
Here is an example of what dbscan find:
You can see that there really are two separate populations here, though adjusting the epsilon factor (the max. distance between neighboring clusters parameter), I simply cannot get it to see those two populations of particles.
Is there any other algorithms which would work here? I'm looking for minimal information upfront - in other words, I'd like the algorithm to be able to make "smart" decisions about what could constitute a separate cluster.
I've found one that requires NO a priori information/guesses and does very well for what I'm asking it to do. It's called Mean Shift and is located in SciKit-Learn. It's also relatively quick (compared to other algorithms like Affinity Propagation).
Here's an example of what it gives:
I also want to point out that in the documentation is states that it may not scale well.
When using DBSCAN it can be helpful to scale/normalize data or
distances beforehand, so that estimation of epsilon will be relative.
There is a implementation of DBSCAN - I think its the one
Anony-Mousse somewhere denoted as 'floating around' - , which comes
with a epsilon estimator function. It works, as long as its not fed
with large datasets.
There are several incomplete versions of OPTICS at github. Maybe
you can find one to adapt it for your purpose. Still
trying to figure out myself, which effect minPts has, using one and
the same extraction method.
You can try a minimum spanning tree (zahn algorithm) and then remove the longest edge similar to alpha shapes. I used it with a delaunay triangulation and a concave hull:http://www.phpdevpad.de/geofence. You can also try a hierarchical cluster for example clusterfck.
Your plot indicates that you chose the minPts parameter way too small.
Have a look at OPTICS, which does no longer need the epsilon parameter of DBSCAN.
What is the most popular text clustering algorithm which deals with large dimensions and huge dataset and is fast?
I am getting confused after reading so many papers and so many approaches..now just want to know which one is used most, to have a good starting point for writing a clustering application for documents.
To deal with the curse of dimensionality you can try to determine the blind sources (ie topics) that generated your dataset. You could use Principal Component Analysis or Factor Analysis to reduce the dimensionality of your feature set and to compute useful indexes.
PCA is what is used in Latent Semantic Indexing, since SVD can be demonstrated to be PCA : )
Remember that you can lose interpretation when you obtain the principal components of your dataset or its factors, so you maybe wanna go the Non-Negative Matrix Factorization route. (And here is the punch! K-Means is a particular NNMF!) In NNMF the dataset can be explained just by its additive, non-negative components.
There is no one size fits all approach. Hierarchical clustering is an option always. If you want to have distinct groups formed out of the data, you can go with K-means clustering (it is also supposedly computationally less intensive).
The two most popular document clustering approaches, are hierarchical clustering and k-means. k-means is faster as it is linear in the number of documents, as opposed to hierarchical, which is quadratic, but is generally believed to give better results. Each document in the dataset is usually represented as an n-dimensional vector (n is the number of words), with the magnitude of the dimension corresponding to each word equal to its term frequency-inverse document frequency score. The tf-idf score reduces the importance of high-frequency words in similarity calculation. The cosine similarity is often used as a similarity measure.
A paper comparing experimental results between hierarchical and bisecting k-means, a cousin algorithm to k-means, can be found here.
The simplest approaches to dimensionality reduction in document clustering are: a) throw out all rare and highly frequent words (say occuring in less than 1% and more than 60% of documents: this is somewhat arbitrary, you need to try different ranges for each dataset to see impact on results), b) stopping: throw out all words in a stop list of common english words: lists can be found online, and c) stemming, or removing suffixes to leave only word roots. The most common stemmer is a stemmer designed by Martin Porter. Implementations in many languages can be found here. Usually, this will reduce the number of unique words in a dataset to a few hundred or low thousands, and further dimensionality reduction may not be required. Otherwise, techniques like PCA could be used.
I will stick with kmedoids, since you can compute the distance from any point to anypoint at the beggining of the algorithm, You only need to do this one time, and it saves you time, specially if there are many dimensions. This algorithm works by choosing as a center of a cluster the point that is nearer to it, not a centroid calculated in base of the averages of the points belonging to that cluster. Therefore you have all possible distance calculations already done for you in this algorithm.
In the case where you aren't looking for semantic text clustering (I can't tell if this is a requirement or not from your original question), try using Levenshtein distance and building a similarity matrix with it. From this, you can use k-medoids to cluster and subsequently validate your clustering through use of silhouette coefficients. Unfortunately, Levensthein can be quite slow, but there are ways to speed it up through uses of thresholds and other methods.
Another way to deal with the curse of dimensionality would be to find 'contrasting sets,', conjunctions of attribute-value pairs that are more prominent in one group than in the rest. You can then use those contrasting sets as dimensions either in lieu of the original attributes or with a restricted number of attributes.