I'm trying to conduct a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis in R by using the Weighted Cluster package. Before doing so, I calculated the distances between state sequences by leveraging the TraMineR package (see pp. 4-6 here).
Following the vignette hyperlinked above, I fed my distance matrix into hclust while adding a vector of weights as follows (datadist is the distance matrix; dataframe is my data frame featuring time series data; and weight is an all-waves longitudinal survey weight):
Cluster <- hclust(as.dist(datadist), method = "ward", members = dataframe$weight)
Then, after arriving at a specific cluster solution (four subgroups), I used the cutree function to determine the relative frequency of each cluster and assign cases:
subgroups <- cutree(Cluster, k = 4)
However, I somehow generated more than four groups after executing the code above (over 30, in fact). When I removed the vector of weights, I was able to produce frequencies for four clusters, but unweighted results are sub-optimal.
If anyone out there can help me understand what's going on (and how I can address or treat the problem), it would be greatly appreciated.
Related
I'm performing hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method on a dataset containing 1000 observations and 37 variables (all are 5-point likert-scales).
First, I ran the analysis in SPSS via
CLUSTER Var01 to Var37
/METHOD WARD
/MEASURE=SEUCLID
/ID=ID
/PRINT CLUSTER(2,10) SCHEDULE
/PLOT DENDROGRAM
/SAVE CLUSTER(2,10).
FREQUENCIES CLU2_1.
I additionaly performed the analysis in R:
datA <- subset(dat, select = Var01:Var37)
dist <- dist(datA, method = "euclidean")
hc <- hclust(d = dist, method = "ward.D2")
table(cutree(hc, k = 2))
The resulting cluster sizes are:
1 2
SPSS 712 288
R 610 390
These results are obviously confusing to me, as they differ substentially (which becomes highly visible when observing the dendrograms; also applies for the 3-10 clusters solutions). "ward.D2" takes into account the squared distance, if I'm not mistaken, so I included the simple distance matrix here. However, I tried several (combinations) of distance and clustering methods, e.g. EUCLID instead of SEUCLID, squaring the distance matrix in R, applying "ward.D" method,.... I also looked at the distance matrices generated by SPSS and R, which are identical (when applying the same method). Ultimately, I excluded duplicate cases (N=29) from my data, guessing that those might have caused differences when being allocated (randomly) at a certain point. All this did not result in matching outputs in R and SPSS.
I tried running the analysis with the agnes() function from the cluster package, which resulted in - again - different results compared to SPSS and even hclust() (But that's a topic for another post, I guess).
Are the underlying clustering procedures that different between the programs/packages? Or did I overlook a crucial detail? Is there a "correct" procedure that replicates the results yielded in SPSS?
If the distance matrices are identical and the merging methods are identical, the only thing that should create different outcomes is having tied distances handled differently in two algorithms. Tied distances might be present with the original full distance matrix, or might occur during the joining process. If one program searches the matrix and finds two or more distances tied at the minimum value at that step, and it selects the first one, while another program selects the last one, or one or both select one at random from among the ties, different results could occur.
I'd suggest starting with a small example with some data with randomness added to values to make tied distances unlikely and see if the two programs produce matching results on those data. If not, there's a deeper problem. If so, then tie handling might be the issue.
I'm using hierarchical clustering to pull out a set number of clusters from a dataset. My objective is to test how robust the clustering solution is when I reduce the amount of data used (and potentially the variables included). I think this means subsampling the data, and then making a new distance matrix, and a new dendrogram each time I adjust something. One way I can think to measure sensitivity of the clustering solution is to compare the cluster centroids made with full data to those made with a subset of the data, I could do this by projecting them in PCoA space and calculating distance between cluster centroids (in PCoA space). This is close to what the betadisper function from package vegan does (apart from it calculates distance of points in the cluster to the centroid). However, my problem is that if I have created different distance matrices when subsampling, then the PCoA space will be different between subsample runs, and therefore non-comparable. Is it possible to simply standardise the PCoA space from different subsample runs to make them comparable?
Any pointers or alternative approaches would be greatly appreciated,
Mark
library(vegan)
# my data has categorial variables so I'll use gower with the iris dataset for example
mydist<-dist(iris[,1:4])
# Pull, out 3 clusters
hc_av<-hclust(d=mydist, method='average')
my_cut<-cutree(hc_av, 3)
# calc distance to cluster centre
mod<-betadisper(mydist, my_cut)
mod
plot(mod)
# randomly remove 5% of data and recalc as above - this would be bootstrapped
mydist2<-dist(iris[sort(sample(1:150, 145)),1:4])
# Pull, out 3 clusters
hc_av2<-hclust(d=mydist2, method='average')
my_cut2<-cutree(hc_av2, 3)
# calc distance to cluster centre
mod2<-betadisper(mydist2, my_cut2)
mod2
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
plot(mod, main='full model'); plot(mod2, main='subset')
# How can I to calculate the distance each cluster centroid has moved when
subsampling the data relative to the full model?
I have a large matrix of 500K observations to cluster using hierarchical clustering. Due to the large size, i do not have the computing power to calculate the distance matrix.
To overcome this problem I chose to aggregate my matrix to merge those observations which were identical to reduce my matrix to about 10K observations. I have the frequency for each of the rows in this aggregated matrix. I now need to incorporate this frequency as a weight in my hierarchical clustering.
The data is a mixture of numerical and categorical variables for the 500K observations so i have used the daisy package to calculate the gower dissimilarity for my aggregated dataset. I want to use hclust in the stats package for the aggregated dataset however i want to take into account the frequency of each observation. From the help information for hclust the arguments are as follows:
hclust(d, method = "complete", members = NULL)
The information for the members argument is:, NULL or a vector with length size of d. See the ‘Details’ section. When you look at the details section you get: If members != NULL, then d is taken to be a dissimilarity matrix between clusters instead of dissimilarities between singletons and members gives the number of observations per cluster. This way the hierarchical cluster algorithm can be ‘started in the middle of the dendrogram’, e.g., in order to reconstruct the part of the tree above a cut (see examples). Dissimilarities between clusters can be efficiently computed (i.e., without hclust itself) only for a limited number of distance/linkage combinations, the simplest one being squared Euclidean distance and centroid linkage. In this case the dissimilarities between the clusters are the squared Euclidean distances between cluster means.
From the above description, i am unsure if i can assign my frequency weights to the members arguments as it is not clear if this is the purpose of this argument. I would like to use it like this:
hclust(d, method = "complete", members = df$freq)
Where df$freq is the frequency of each row in the aggregated matrix. So if a row is duplicated 10 times this value would be 10.
If anyone can help me that would be great,
Thanks
Yes, this should work fine for most linkages, in particular single, group average and complete linkage. For ward etc. you need to correctly take the weights into account yourself.
But even that part is not hard. Just make sure to use the cluster sizes, because you need to pass the distance of two clusters, not two points. So the matrix should contain the distance of n1 points at location x and n2 points at location y. For min/max/mean this n disappears or cancels out. For ward, you should get a SSQ like formula.
I am clustering timeseries data using appropriate distance measures and clustering algorithms for longitudinal data. My goal is to validate the optimal number of clusters for this dataset, through cluster result statistics. I read a number of articles and posts on stackoverflow on this subject, particularly: Determining the Optimal Number of Clusters. Visual inspection is only possible on a subset of my data; I cannot rely on it to be representative of my whole dataset since I am dealing with big data.
My approach is the following:
1. I cluster several times using different numbers of clusters and calculate the cluster statistics for each of these options
2. I calculate the cluster statistic metrics using FPC's cluster.stats R package: Cluster.Stats from FPC Cran Package. I plot these and decide for each metric which is the best cluster number (see my code below).
My problem is that these metrics each evaluate a different aspect of the clustering "goodness", and the best number of clusters for one metric may not coincide with the best number of clusters of a different metric. For example, Dunn's index may point towards using 3 clusters, while the within-sum of squares may indicate that 75 clusters is a better choice.
I understand the basics: that distances between points within a cluster should be small, that clusters should have a good separation from each other, that the sum of squares should be minimized, that observations which are in different clusters should have a large dissimilarity / different clusters should ideally have a strong dissimilarity. However, I do not know which of these metrics is most important to consider in evaluating cluster quality.
How do I approach this problem, keeping in mind the nature of my data (timeseries) and the goal to cluster identical series / series with strongly similar pattern regions together?
Am I approaching the clustering problem the right way, or am I missing a crucial step? Or am I misunderstanding how to use these statistics?
Here is how I am deciding the best number of clusters using the statistics:
cs_metrics is my dataframe which contains the statistics.
Average.within.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.min(cs_metrics$average.within)]
Average.between.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.max(cs_metrics$average.between)]
Avg.silwidth.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.max(cs_metrics$avg.silwidth)]
Calinsky.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.max(cs_metrics$ch)]
Dunn.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.max(cs_metrics$dunn)]
Dunn2.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.max(cs_metrics$dunn2)]
Entropy.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.min(cs_metrics$entropy)]
Pearsongamma.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.max(cs_metrics$pearsongamma)]
Within.SS.best <- cs_metrics$cluster.number[which.min(cs_metrics$within.cluster.ss)]
Here is the result:
Here are the plots that compare the cluster statistics for the different numbers of clusters:
my aim is to cluster 126 time-series concerning 26 weeks (so each time-series has 26 observation). I used pam{cluster} = partitioning around medoids to cluster these time-series.
Before clustering I wanted to compare which distance measure is the most appropriate: euclidean, manhattan or dynamic time warping. I used each distance to cluster and compare by silhouette plot. Is there any way I can compare different distance measure?
For example I know that procedure clValid {clValid} to validate cluster results, however I cannot implement dtw to calculate indexes.
So how can I compare different distance metrics (not only by silhouette)?
Additional question: is GAP statistic enough to decide how many clusters choose? Or should I evaluate number of clusters with different methods or compare two or three ways how to do it?
I would be grateful for any suggestions.
I have just read the book "cluster analysis, fifth edition" by Brian S. Everitt, etc. And currently, I adopt the following strategy to select method to calculate distance matrix, clustering and validation:
for distance: using cmdscale{stats} function to calculate multidimentional scaling, and plot the scatterplot of the two scaling dimensions with density information. As expected, if there is distinct clusters or nested clusters, the scatterplot will give some hints.
for clustering: for every clustering method, calculate cophenetic correlation between clustering results and the distance, this can be calculated using cophenetic{stats} function. The best clustering method will give higher correlation. However, this is only working for hierarchical clustering. I haven't idea for other clustering methods, like pam, or kmeans.
for partition evaluation: package {clusterSim} give several function to calculate the index to evaluate the clustering quality. Another package {NbClust} also calculate so many as 30 index to evaluate the combination of "distance", "clustering" and "number of clusters". However, this package partition the hierarchical tree using {cutree}, which is not suitable for nested clustering structure. Another method provided by {dynamicTreeCut} give reasonable results.
for cluster number determination: will added later.
Cluster data for which you have class labels, and use the RAND index to measure cluster quality.
50 such datasets are at the UCR time series archive
This paper does something similar
http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/ClusteringTimeSeriesUsingUnsupervised-Shapelets.pdf