I need to run clustering on the correlations of data row vectors, that is, instead of using individual variables as clustering predictor variables, I intend to use the correlations between the vector of variables between data rows.
Is there a function in R that does vector-based clustering. If not and I need to do it manually, what is the right data format to feed in a function such as cmeans or kmeans?
Say, I have m variables and n data rows, the m variables constitute one vector for each data row. so I have a n X n matrix for correlation or cosine. Can this matrix be plugged in the clustering function directly or certain processing is required?
Many thanks.
You can transform your correlation matrix into a dissimilarity matrix,
for instance 1-cor(x) (or 2-cor(x) or 1-abs(cor(x))).
# Sample data
n <- 200
k <- 10
x <- matrix( rnorm(n*k), nr=k )
x <- x * row(x) # 10 dimensions, with less information in some of them
# Clustering
library(cluster)
r <- pam(1-cor(x), diss=TRUE, k=5)
# Check the results
plot(prcomp(t(x))$x[,1:2], col=r$clustering, pch=16, cex=3)
R clustering is often a bit limited. This is a design limitation of R, since it heavily relies on low-level C code for performance. The fast kmeans implementation included with R is an example of such a low-level code, that in turn is tied to using Euclidean distance.
There are a dozen of extensions and alternatives available in the community around R. There are PAM, CLARA and CLARANS for example. They aren't exactly k-means, but closely related. There should be a "spherical k-means" somewhere, that is sensible for cosine distance. There is the whole family of hierarchical clusterings (which scale rather badly - usually O(n^3), with O(n^2) in a few exceptions - but are very easy to understand conceptually).
If you want to explore some more clustering options, have a look at ELKI, it should allow clustering (with various methods, including k-means) by correlation based distances (and it also includes such distance functions). It's not R, though, but Java. So if you are bound to using R, it won't work for you.
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 trying to write a low-pass filter in R, to clean a "dirty" data matrix.
I did a google search, came up with a dazzling range of packages. Some apply to 1D signals (time series mostly, e.g. How do I run a high pass or low pass filter on data points in R? ); some apply to images. However I'm trying to filter a plain R data matrix. The image filters are the closest equivalent, but I'm a bit reluctant to go this way as they typically involve (i) installation of more or less complex/heavy solutions (imageMagick...), and/or (ii) conversion from matrix to image.
Here is sample data:
r<-seq(0:360)/360*(2*pi)
x<-cos(r)
y<-sin(r)
z<-outer(x,y,"*")
noise<-0.3*matrix(runif(length(x)*length(y)),nrow=length(x))
zz<-z+noise
image(zz)
What I'm looking for is a filter that will return a "cleaned" matrix (i.e. something close to z, in this case).
I'm aware this is a rather open-ended question, and I'm also happy with pointers ("have you looked at package so-and-so"), although of course I'd value sample code from users with experience on signal processing !
Thanks.
One option may be using a non-linear prediction method and getting the fitted values from the model.
For example by using a polynomial regression, we can predict the original data as the purple one,
By following the same logic, you can do the same thing to all columns of the zz matrix as,
predictions <- matrix(, nrow = 361, ncol = 0)
for(i in 1:ncol(zz)) {
pred <- as.matrix(fitted(lm(zz[,i]~poly(1:nrow(zz),2,raw=TRUE))))
predictions <- cbind(predictions,pred)
}
Then you can plot the predictions,
par(mfrow=c(1,3))
image(z,main="Original")
image(zz,main="Noisy")
image(predictions,main="Predicted")
Note that, I used a polynomial regression with degree 2, you can change the degree for a better fitting across the columns. Or maybe, you can use some other powerful non-linear prediction methods (maybe SVM, ANN etc.) to get a more accurate model.
I have a list that looks like this, it is a measure of dispersion for each sample.
1 2 3 4 5
0.11829384 0.24987017 0.08082147 0.13355495 0.12933790
To further analyze this I need it to be a distance structure, the -vegan- package need it as a 'dist' object.
I found some solutions that applies to matrices > dist, but how could I change this current data into a dist object?
I am using the FD package, at the manual I found,
Still, one potential advantage of FDis over Rao’s Q is that in the unweighted case
(i.e. with presence-absence data), it opens possibilities for formal statistical tests for differences in
FD between two or more communities through a distance-based test for homogeneity of multivariate
dispersions (Anderson 2006); see betadisper for more details
I wanted to use vegan betadisper function to test if there are differences among different regions (I provided this using element "region" with column "region" too)
functional <- FD(trait, comun)
mod <- betadisper(functional$FDis, region$region)
using gowdis or fdisp from FD didn't work too.
distancias <- gowdis(rasgo)
mod <- betadisper(distancias, region$region)
dispersion <- fdisp(distancias, presence)
mod <- betadisper(dispersion, region$region)
I tried this but I need a list object. I thought I could pass those results to betadisper.
You cannot do this: FD::fdisp() does not return dissimilarities. It returns a list of three elements: the dispersions FDis for each sampling unit (SU), and the results of the eigen decomposition of input dissimilarities (eig for eigenvalues, vectors for orthonormal eigenvectors). The FDis values are summarized for each original SU, but there is no information on the differences among SUs. The eigen decomposition can be used to reconstruct the original input dissimilarities (your distancias from FD::gowdis()), but you can directly use the input dissimilarities. Function FD::gowdis() returns a regular "dist" structure that you can directly use in vegan::betadisper() if that gives you a meaningful analysis. For this, your grouping variable must be based on the same units as your distancias. In typical application of fdisp, the units are species (taxa), but it seems you want to get analysis for communities/sites/whatever. This will not be possible with these tools.
I am a new user of R and I try to do PCA on my data set using R. The dimension of data is 20x10000, i.e. # of features is 10000 and # of individuals is 20. It seems that prcomp() cannot handle the data exactly, because the dimension of calculated eigenvectors and new data is 20x20 and 10000x20 instead of 10000x10000 and 20x10000. I tried FactoMineR library also, but the results looked like that it looses some dimension, too. Is there any way to doing PCA on the data like this? :(
By reading the manual, it looks like no components are omitted by default but check the tol argument. The problem is with negative eigenvalues that may bet there (and often are) when you have less cases than individuals. (I think with 10000 cases and 20 individuals you will always have many negative eigenvalues.) See a simplified version of PCA I'm sometimes using that computes "PC loadings" the way they're usually used in psychology.
PCA <- function(X, cut=NULL, USE="complete.obs") {
if(is.null(cut)) cut<- ncol(X)
E<-eigen(cor(X,use=USE))
vec<-E$vectors
val<-E$values
P<-sweep(vec,2,sqrt(val),"*")[,1:cut]
P
}
The "loadings" are, basically, eigenvectors multiplied by the square root of eigenvalues -- but there's a problem here if you have negative eigenvalues. Something similar may happen with prcomp.
If you just want to reconstruct your data matrix exactly (for whatever reason), you can easily use svd or eigen directly. /My example used correlation matrix but the logic is not confined to this case./
In R you can use all sorts of metrics to build a distance matrix prior to clustering, e.g. binary distance, Manhattan distance, etc...
However, when it comes to choosing a linkage method (complete, average, single, etc...), these linkage all use euclidean distance. This does not seem particularly appropriate if you rely on a difference metric to build the distance matrix.
Is there a way (or a library...) to apply other distances to linkage methods when building a clustering tree?
Thanks!
I don't really get your question. For example, suppose I have the following data:
x <- matrix(rnorm(100), nrow=5)
then I can build a distance matrix using dist
##Changing the distance measure
d_e = dist(x, method="euclidean")
d_m = dist(x, method="maximum")
I can then cluster in however I want:
##Changing the clustering method
hclust(d_m, method="median")
If you have constructed a matrix that already represents the pairwise distances, use e.g.
hclust(as.dist(mx), method="single")
You might want to try using agnes, rather than hclust, and hand it a distance matrix. There's a nice tutorial on this here:
http://strata.uga.edu/software/pdf/clusterTutorial.pdf
From the tutorial, here's how you would generate and use a distance matrix for clustering:
> library(vegan)
# load library for distance functions
> mydata.bray <- vegdist(mydata, method="bray")
# calculates bray (=Sørenson) distances among samples
> mydata.bray.agnes <- agnes(mydata.bray)
# run the cluster analysis
I myself use Prof. Daniel Müllner's fastcluster library, which has exactly the same API as agnes but is orders of magnitude faster for large data sets.