I have time-series data of 12 consumers. The data corresponding to 12 consumers (named as a ... l) is
I want to cluster these consumers so that I may know which of the consumers have utmost similar consumption behavior. Accordingly, I found clustering method pamk, which automatically calculates the number of clusters in input data.
I assume that I have only two options to calculate the distance between any two time-series, i.e., Euclidean, and DTW. I tried both of them and I do get different clusters. Now the question is which one should I rely upon? and why?
When I use Eulidean distance I got following clusters:
and using DTW distance I got
Conclusion:
How will you decide which clustering approach is the best in this case?
Note: I have asked the same question on Cross-Validated also.
none of the timeseries above look similar to me. Do you see any pattern? Maybe there is no pattern?
the clustering visualizations indicate that there are no clusters, too. b and l appear to be the most unusual outliers; followed by d,e,h; but there are no clusters there.
Also try hierarchical clustering. The dendrogram may be more understandable.
But in either way, there may be no clusters. You need to be prepared for this outcome, and consider it a valid hypothesis. Double-check any result. As you have seen, pam will always return a result, and you have absolutely no means to decide which result is more "correct" than the other (most likely, neither is correct, and you should rely on neither, to answer your question).
Related
I could use some advice on methods in R to determine the optimal number of clusters and later on describe the clusters with different statistical criteria. I’m new to R with basic knowledge about the statistical foundations of cluster analysis.
Methods to determine the number of clusters: In the literature one common method to do so is the so called "Elbow-criterion" which compares the Sum of Squared Differences (SSD) for different cluster solutions. Therefore the SSD is plotted against the numbers of Cluster in the analysis and an optimal number of clusters is determined by identifying the “elbow” in the plot (e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DataClustering_ElbowCriterion.JPG)
This method is a first approach to get a subjective impression. Therefore I’d like to implement it in R. The information on the internet on this is sparse. There is one good example here: http://www.mattpeeples.net/kmeans.html where the author also did an interesting iterative approach to see if the elbow is somehow stable after several repetitions of the clustering process (nevertheless it is for partitioning cluster methods not for hierarchical).
Other methods in Literature comprise the so called “stopping rules”. MILLIGAN & COOPER compared 30 of these stopping rules in their paper “An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set” (available here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02294245) finding that the Stopping Rule from Calinski and Harabasz provided the best results in a Monte Carlo evaluation. Information on implementing this in R is even sparser.
So if anyone has ever implemented this or another Stopping rule (or other method) some advice would be very helpful.
Statistically describe the clusters:For describing the clusters I thought of using the mean and some sort of Variance Criterion. My data is on agricultural land-use and shows the production numbers of different crops per Municipality. My aim is to find similar patterns of land-use in my dataset.
I produced a script for a subset of objects to do a first test-run. It looks like this (explanations on the steps within the script, sources below).
#Clusteranalysis agriculture
#Load data
agriculture <-read.table ("C:\\Users\\etc...", header=T,sep=";")
attach(agriculture)
#Define Dataframe to work with
df<-data.frame(agriculture)
#Define a Subset of objects to first test the script
a<-df[1,]
b<-df[2,]
c<-df[3,]
d<-df[4,]
e<-df[5,]
f<-df[6,]
g<-df[7,]
h<-df[8,]
i<-df[9,]
j<-df[10,]
k<-df[11,]
#Bind the objects
aTOk<-rbind(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k)
#Calculate euclidian distances including only the columns 4 to 24
dist.euklid<-dist(aTOk[,4:24],method="euclidean",diag=TRUE,upper=FALSE, p=2)
print(dist.euklid)
#Cluster with Ward
cluster.ward<-hclust(dist.euklid,method="ward")
#Plot the dendogramm. define Labels with labels=df$Geocode didn't work
plot(cluster.ward, hang = -0.01, cex = 0.7)
#here are missing methods to determine the optimal number of clusters
#Calculate different solutions with different number of clusters
n.cluster<-sapply(2:5, function(n.cluster)table(cutree(cluster.ward,n.cluster)))
n.cluster
#Show the objects within clusters for the three cluster solution
three.cluster<-cutree(cluster.ward,3)
sapply(unique(three.cluster), function(g)aTOk$Geocode[three.cluster==g])
#Calculate some statistics to describe the clusters
three.cluster.median<-aggregate(aTOk[,4:24],list(three.cluster),median)
three.cluster.median
three.cluster.min<-aggregate(aTOk[,4:24],list(three.cluster),min)
three.cluster.min
three.cluster.max<-aggregate(aTOk[,4:24],list(three.cluster),max)
three.cluster.max
#Summary statistics for one variable
three.cluster.summary<-aggregate(aTOk[,4],list(three.cluster),summary)
three.cluster.summary
detach(agriculture)
Sources:
http://www.r-tutor.com/gpu-computing/clustering/distance-matrix
How to apply a hierarchical or k-means cluster analysis using R?
http://statistics.berkeley.edu/classes/s133/Cluster2a.html
The elbow criterion as your links indicated is for k-means. Also the cluster mean is obviously related to k-means, and is not appropriate for linkage clustering (in particular not for single-linkage, see single-link-effect).
Your question title however mentions hierarchical clustering, and so does your code?
Note that the elbow criterion does not choose the optimal number of clusters. It chooses the optimal number of k-means clusters. If you use a different clustering method, it may need a different number of clusters.
There is no such thing as the objectively best clustering. Thus, there also is no objectively best number of clusters. There is a rule of thumb for k-means that chooses a (maybe best) tradeoff between number of clusters and minimizing the target function (because increasing the number of clusters always can improve the target function); but that is mostly to counter a deficit of k-means. It is by no means objective.
Cluster analysis in itself is not an objective task. A clustering may be mathematically good, but useless. A clustering may score much worse mathematically, but it may provide you insight to your data that cannot be measured mathematically.
This is a very late answer and probably not useful for the asker anymore - but maybe for others. Check out the package NbClust. It contains 26 indices that give you a recommended number of clusters (and you can also choose your type of clustering). You can run it in such a way that you get the results for all the indices and then you can basically go with the number of clusters recommended by most indices. And yes, I think the basic statistics are the best way to describe clusters.
You can also try the R-NN Curves method.
http://rguha.net/writing/pres/rnn.pdf
K means Clustering is highly sensitive to the scale of data e.g. for a person's age and salary, if not normalized, K means would consider salary more important variable for clustering rather than age, which you do not want. So before applying the Clustering Algorithm, it is always a good practice to normalize the scale of data, bring them to the same level and then apply the CA.
I´ve a question regarding k-means clustering. We have a dataset with 120,000 observations and need to compute a k-means cluster solution with R. The problem is that k-means usually use Euclidean Distance. Our dataset consists of 3 continous variables, 11 ordinal (Likert 0-5) (i think it would be okay to handle them like continous) and 5 binary variables. Do you have any suggestion for a distance measure that we can use for our k-means approach with regards to the "large" dataset? We stick to k-means, so I really hope one of you has a good idea.
Cheers,
Martin
One approach would be to normalize the features and then just use the 11-dimensional
Euclidean Distance. Cast the binary values to 0/1 (Well, it's R, so it does that anyway) and go from there.
I don't see an immediate problem with this method other than k-means in 11 dimensions will definitely be hard to interpret. You could try to use a dimensionality reduction technique and hopefully make the k-means output easier to read, but you know way more about the data set than we ever could, so our ability to help you is limited.
You can certainly encode there binary variables as 0,1 too.
It is a best practise in statistics to not treat likert scale variables as numeric, because of that uneven distribution.
But I don't you will get meaningful k-means clusters. That algorithm is all about computing means. That makes sense on continuous variables. Discrete variables usually lack "resolution" for this to work well. Three mean then degrades to a "frequency" and then the data should be handled very differently.
Do not choose the problem by the hammer. Maybe your data is not a nail; and even if you'd like to make it with kmeans, it won't solve your problem... Instead, formulate your problem, then choose the right tool. So given your data, what is a good cluster? Until you have an equation that measures this, handing the data won't solve anything.
Encoding the variables to binary will not solve the underlying problem. Rather, it will only aid in increasing the data dimensionality, an added burden. It's best practice in statistics to not alter the original data to any other form like continuous to categorical or vice versa. However, if you are doing so, i.e. the data conversion then it must be in sync with the question to solve as well as you must provide valid justification.
Continuing further, as others have stated, try to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset first. Check for issues like, missing values, outliers, zero variance, principal component analysis (continuous variables), correspondence analysis (for categorical variables) etc. This can help you reduce the dimensionality. After all, data preprocessing tasks constitute 80% of analysis.
Regarding the distance measure for mixed data type, you do understand the mean in k will work only for continuous variable. So, I do not understand the logic of using the algorithm k-means for mixed datatypes?
Consider choosing other algorithm like k-modes. k-modes is an extension of k-means. Instead of distances it uses dissimilarities (that is, quantification of the total mismatches between two objects: the smaller this number, the more similar the two objects). And instead of means, it uses modes. A mode is a vector of elements that minimizes the dissimilarities between the vector itself and each object of the data.
Mixture models can be used to cluster mixed data.
You can use the R package VarSelLCM which models, within each cluster, the continuous variables by Gaussian distributions and the ordinal/binary variables.
Moreover, missing values can be managed by the model at hand.
A tutorial is available at: http://varsellcm.r-forge.r-project.org/
The problem
I have a set of locations on a plane (actually they are pins in a KML file) and I want to partition this graph into subgraphs. Connectivity is pretty good - as with all real world road networks - so I assume that if two locations are close they have some kind of connection. The resulting set of subgraphs should adhere to these constraints:
Every node has to be covered by a subgraph
Every node should be in exactly 1 subgraph
Every node within a subgraph should be close to each other (L2 norm distances)
Every subgraph should contain at least 5 locations
The amount of subgraphs should be minimal
Right now the amount of locations is no more than 100 so I thought about brute forcing through every possibility but this obviously won't scale well.
I thought about using some k-Nearest-Neighbors algorithm (e.g. using QuickGraph) but I can't get my head around where to start and how to extend/shrink the subgraphs on the way. Maybe it's possible to map this problem to another problem that can easily be solved with some numerical procedure (e.g. Simplex) ...
Maybe someone has experience in this kind of optimization problems and is willing to help me find a solution? I don't have access to Mathematica/Matlab or the like ... but sufficient .NET programming skills and hmm Excel :-)
Thanks a lot!
As soon as there are multiple criteria that need to be appeased in the best possible way simultanously, it is usually starting to get difficult.
A numerical solution could work as follows: You could define yourself a utility function, that maps partitionings of your locations to positive real values, describing how "good" a partition is by assigning it a "rating" (good could be high "bad" could be near zero).
Once you have such a function assigning partitions their according "values", you simply need to optimize it and then you hopefully obtain a good solution if you defined your utility function reasonably. Evolutionary algorithms are good at that task since your utility function is probably analytically too complex to solve due to its discrete nature.
The problem is then only how you assign "values" to partitions via this utility function. This is then your task. It can be done for example by weighing each criterion with a factor and summing the results up, or even more complex functions (least squares etc.). The factors you use in the definition of the utility function are tuning parameters and can be varied until the result seems to be good.
Some CA software wold help a lot for testing if you can get your hands on one, bit I guess to obtain a black box solver for your partitioning problem, you need to implement the complete procedure yourself using a language of your choice.
I could use some advice on methods in R to determine the optimal number of clusters and later on describe the clusters with different statistical criteria. I’m new to R with basic knowledge about the statistical foundations of cluster analysis.
Methods to determine the number of clusters: In the literature one common method to do so is the so called "Elbow-criterion" which compares the Sum of Squared Differences (SSD) for different cluster solutions. Therefore the SSD is plotted against the numbers of Cluster in the analysis and an optimal number of clusters is determined by identifying the “elbow” in the plot (e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DataClustering_ElbowCriterion.JPG)
This method is a first approach to get a subjective impression. Therefore I’d like to implement it in R. The information on the internet on this is sparse. There is one good example here: http://www.mattpeeples.net/kmeans.html where the author also did an interesting iterative approach to see if the elbow is somehow stable after several repetitions of the clustering process (nevertheless it is for partitioning cluster methods not for hierarchical).
Other methods in Literature comprise the so called “stopping rules”. MILLIGAN & COOPER compared 30 of these stopping rules in their paper “An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set” (available here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02294245) finding that the Stopping Rule from Calinski and Harabasz provided the best results in a Monte Carlo evaluation. Information on implementing this in R is even sparser.
So if anyone has ever implemented this or another Stopping rule (or other method) some advice would be very helpful.
Statistically describe the clusters:For describing the clusters I thought of using the mean and some sort of Variance Criterion. My data is on agricultural land-use and shows the production numbers of different crops per Municipality. My aim is to find similar patterns of land-use in my dataset.
I produced a script for a subset of objects to do a first test-run. It looks like this (explanations on the steps within the script, sources below).
#Clusteranalysis agriculture
#Load data
agriculture <-read.table ("C:\\Users\\etc...", header=T,sep=";")
attach(agriculture)
#Define Dataframe to work with
df<-data.frame(agriculture)
#Define a Subset of objects to first test the script
a<-df[1,]
b<-df[2,]
c<-df[3,]
d<-df[4,]
e<-df[5,]
f<-df[6,]
g<-df[7,]
h<-df[8,]
i<-df[9,]
j<-df[10,]
k<-df[11,]
#Bind the objects
aTOk<-rbind(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k)
#Calculate euclidian distances including only the columns 4 to 24
dist.euklid<-dist(aTOk[,4:24],method="euclidean",diag=TRUE,upper=FALSE, p=2)
print(dist.euklid)
#Cluster with Ward
cluster.ward<-hclust(dist.euklid,method="ward")
#Plot the dendogramm. define Labels with labels=df$Geocode didn't work
plot(cluster.ward, hang = -0.01, cex = 0.7)
#here are missing methods to determine the optimal number of clusters
#Calculate different solutions with different number of clusters
n.cluster<-sapply(2:5, function(n.cluster)table(cutree(cluster.ward,n.cluster)))
n.cluster
#Show the objects within clusters for the three cluster solution
three.cluster<-cutree(cluster.ward,3)
sapply(unique(three.cluster), function(g)aTOk$Geocode[three.cluster==g])
#Calculate some statistics to describe the clusters
three.cluster.median<-aggregate(aTOk[,4:24],list(three.cluster),median)
three.cluster.median
three.cluster.min<-aggregate(aTOk[,4:24],list(three.cluster),min)
three.cluster.min
three.cluster.max<-aggregate(aTOk[,4:24],list(three.cluster),max)
three.cluster.max
#Summary statistics for one variable
three.cluster.summary<-aggregate(aTOk[,4],list(three.cluster),summary)
three.cluster.summary
detach(agriculture)
Sources:
http://www.r-tutor.com/gpu-computing/clustering/distance-matrix
How to apply a hierarchical or k-means cluster analysis using R?
http://statistics.berkeley.edu/classes/s133/Cluster2a.html
The elbow criterion as your links indicated is for k-means. Also the cluster mean is obviously related to k-means, and is not appropriate for linkage clustering (in particular not for single-linkage, see single-link-effect).
Your question title however mentions hierarchical clustering, and so does your code?
Note that the elbow criterion does not choose the optimal number of clusters. It chooses the optimal number of k-means clusters. If you use a different clustering method, it may need a different number of clusters.
There is no such thing as the objectively best clustering. Thus, there also is no objectively best number of clusters. There is a rule of thumb for k-means that chooses a (maybe best) tradeoff between number of clusters and minimizing the target function (because increasing the number of clusters always can improve the target function); but that is mostly to counter a deficit of k-means. It is by no means objective.
Cluster analysis in itself is not an objective task. A clustering may be mathematically good, but useless. A clustering may score much worse mathematically, but it may provide you insight to your data that cannot be measured mathematically.
This is a very late answer and probably not useful for the asker anymore - but maybe for others. Check out the package NbClust. It contains 26 indices that give you a recommended number of clusters (and you can also choose your type of clustering). You can run it in such a way that you get the results for all the indices and then you can basically go with the number of clusters recommended by most indices. And yes, I think the basic statistics are the best way to describe clusters.
You can also try the R-NN Curves method.
http://rguha.net/writing/pres/rnn.pdf
K means Clustering is highly sensitive to the scale of data e.g. for a person's age and salary, if not normalized, K means would consider salary more important variable for clustering rather than age, which you do not want. So before applying the Clustering Algorithm, it is always a good practice to normalize the scale of data, bring them to the same level and then apply the CA.
I have ran clv package which consists of S_Dbw and SD validity indexes for clustering purposes in R commander. (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/clv/index.html)
I evaluated my clustering results from DBSCAN, K-Means, Kohonen algorithms with S_Dbw index. but for all these three algorithms S_Dbw is "Inf".
Is it "Infinite" meaning? Why did i confront with "Inf". Is there any problem in my clustering results?
In general, when is S_Dbw index result "Inf"?
Be careful when comparing different algorithms with such an index.
The reason is that the index is pretty much an algorithm in itself. One particular clustering will necessarily be the "best" for each index. The main difference between an index and an actual clustering algorithm is that the index doesn't tell you how to find the "best" solution.
Some examples: k-means minimizes the distances from cluster members to cluster centers. Single-link hierarchical clustering will find the partition with the optimal minimum distance between partitions. Well, DBSCAN will find the partitioning of the dataset, where all density-connected points are in the same partition. As such, DBSCAN is optimal - if you use the appropriate measure.
Seriously. Do not assume that because one algorithm scores higher than another in a particular measure means that the algorithm works better. All that you find out this way is that a particular algorithm is more (cor-)related to a particular measure. Think of it as a kind of correlation between the measure and the algorithm, on a conceptual level.
Using a measure for comparing different results of the same algorithm is different. Then obviously there shouldn't be a benefit from one algorithm over itself. There might still be a similar effect with respect to parameters. For example the in-cluster distances in k-means obviously should go down when you increase k.
In fact, many of the measures are not even well-defined on DBSCAN results. Because DBSCAN has the concept of noise points, which the indexes do not AFAIK.
Do not assume that the measure will either give you an indication of what is "true" or "correct". And even less, what is useful or new. Because you should be using cluster analysis not to find a mathematical optimum of a particular measure, but to learn something new and useful about your data. Which probably is not some measure number.
Back to the indices. They usually are totally designed around k-means. From a short look at S_Dbw I have the impression that the moment one "cluster" consists of a single object (e.g. a noise object in DBSCAN), the value will become infinity - aka: undefined. It seems as if the authors of that index did not consider this corner case, but only used it on toy data sets where such situations did not arise. The R implementation can't fix this, without diverting from the original index and instead turning it into yet another index. Handling noise objects and singletons is far from trivial. I have not yet seen an index that doesn't fail in one way or another - typically, a solution such as "all objects are noise" will either score perfect, or every clustering can trivially be improved by putting each noise object to the nearest non-singleton cluster. If you want your algorithm to be able to say "this object doesn't belong to any cluster" then I do not know any appropriate index.
The IEEE floating point standard defines Inf and -Inf as positive and negative infinity respectively. It means your result was too large to represent in the given number of bits.