I am trying to apply k-means (or other algorithms) clustering on some data. I want the silhouette score of the clustering results become good and at the same time, I prefer to less number of clusters. So I am wondering how can I jointly evaluate the number of clusters with silhouette score (or other metrics).
For example, the clustering model got these results below:
size = 2: score = 0.534
size = 7: score = 0.617
size = 20: score = 0.689
I think that the model with clustering size of 7 is the best comparing with others. Although the score of the last model is the best, the number of clusters is too many. I had try to divide the silhouette score with cluster size but it seems too trivial.
Don't hack. Do it properly.
That means defining mathematically what is "good" in your personal opinion (and of course why the proposed equations capture this well). Then use this evaluation measure, but be prepared that others may disagree on your take that many clusters are bad.
Yes. Silhouette divided by the number of clusters is not a good idea. In particular, it is not a very theoretically well founded model, is it?
Related
I am working on a project where I have to create a k-means model based on some training observations. I have 380 observations ( with 700 features). I am using the K-means algorithm from Spark MlLib. When I chose a k (number of clusters) greater than 10, some of my clusters only get 1 point assigned to them ( for example at 25, 6 of them get only 1 point). First I thought that some points have a big distance from the others, but the problem is that there are not always the same points that are assigned to there own cluster.
Is that an expected behavior? If it is a problem how big it is?
This is typical for k-means.
In particular if you have many more features than data points, and if you have non-continuous features. It is a kind of overfitting - because of the high dimensionality, many points are "unique" in one sense or another.
Since k-means involves random, you don't get the same result every time.
You need to explore more advanced algorithms - k-means is really old and limited. Spark may not be the best tool for you, because it has so few algorithms to offer.
I'm working on a problem that necessitates running KMeans separately on ~125 different datasets. Therefore, I'm looking to mathematically calculate the 'optimal' K for each respective dataset. However, the evaluation metric continues decreasing with higher K values.
For a sample dataset, there are 50K rows and 8 columns. Using sklearn's calinski-harabaz score, I'm iterating through different K values to find the optimum / minimum score. However, my code reached k=5,600 and the calinski-harabaz score was still decreasing!
Something weird seems to be happening. Does the metric not work well? Could my data be flawed (see my question about normalizing rows after PCA)? Is there another/better way to mathematically converge on the 'optimal' K? Or should I force myself to manually pick a constant K across all datasets?
Any additional perspectives would be helpful. Thanks!
I don't know anything about the calinski-harabaz score but some score metrics will be monotone increasing/decreasing with respect to increasing K. For instance the mean squared error for linear regression will always decrease each time a new feature is added to the model so other scores that add penalties for increasing number of features have been developed.
There is a very good answer here that covers CH scores well. A simple method that generally works well for these monotone scoring metrics is to plot K vs the score and choose the K where the score is no longer improving 'much'. This is very subjective but can still give good results.
SUMMARY
The metric decreases with each increase of K; this strongly suggests that you do not have a natural clustering upon the data set.
DISCUSSION
CH scores depend on the ratio between intra- and inter-cluster densities. For a relatively smooth distribution of points, each increase in K will give you clusters that are slightly more dense, with slightly lower density between them. Try a lattice of points: vary the radius and do the computations by hand; you'll see how that works. At the extreme end, K = n: each point is its own cluster, with infinite density, and 0 density between clusters.
OTHER METRICS
Perhaps the simplest metric is sum-of-squares, which is already part of the clustering computations. Sum the squares of distances from the centroid, divide by n-1 (n=cluster population), and then add/average those over all clusters.
I'm looking for a particular paper that discusses metrics for this very problem; if I can find the reference, I'll update this answer.
N.B. With any metric you choose (as with CH), a failure to find a local minimum suggests that the data really don't have a natural clustering.
WHAT TO DO NEXT?
Render your data in some form you can visualize. If you see a natural clustering, look at the characteristics; how is it that you can see it, but the algebra (metrics) cannot? Formulate a metric that highlights the differences you perceive.
I know, this is an effort similar to the problem you're trying to automate. Welcome to research. :-)
The problem with my question is that the 'best' Calinski-Harabaz score is the maximum, whereas my question assumed the 'best' was the minimum. It is computed by analyzing the ratio of between-cluster dispersion vs. within-cluster dispersion, the former/numerator you want to maximize, the latter/denominator you want to minimize. As it turned out, in this dataset, the 'best' CH score was with 2 clusters (the minimum available for comparison). I actually ran with K=1, and this produced good results as well. As Prune suggested, there appears to be no natural grouping within the dataset.
There is a very expensive computation I must make frequently.
The computation takes a small array of numbers (with about 20 entries) that sums to 1 (i.e. the histogram) and outputs something that I can store pretty easily.
I have 2 things going for me:
I can accept approximate answers
The "answers" change slowly. For example: [.1 .1 .8 0] and [.1
.1 .75 .05] will yield similar results.
Consequently, I want to build a look-up table of answers off-line. Then, when the system is running, I can look-up an approximate answer based on the "shape" of the input histogram.
To be precise, I plan to look-up the precomputed answer that corresponds to the histogram with the minimum Earth-Mover-Distance to the actual input histogram.
I can only afford to store about 80 to 100 precomputed (histogram , computation result) pairs in my look up table.
So, how do I "spread out" my precomputed histograms so that, no matter what the input histogram is, I'll always have a precomputed result that is "close"?
Finding N points in M-space that are a best spread-out set is more-or-less equivalent to hypersphere packing (1,2) and in general answers are not known for M>10. While a fair amount of research has been done to develop faster methods for hypersphere packings or approximations, it is still regarded as a hard problem.
It probably would be better to apply a technique like principal component analysis or factor analysis to as large a set of histograms as you can conveniently generate. The results of either analysis will be a set of M numbers such that linear combinations of histogram data elements weighted by those numbers will predict some objective function. That function could be the “something that you can store pretty easily” numbers, or could be case numbers. Also consider developing and training a neural net or using other predictive modeling techniques to predict the objective function.
Building on #jwpat7's answer, I would apply k-means clustering to a huge set of randomly generated (and hopefully representative) histograms. This would ensure that your space was spanned with whatever number of exemplars (precomputed results) you can support, with roughly equal weighting for each cluster.
The trick, of course, will be generating representative data to cluster in the first place. If you can recompute from time to time, you can recluster based on the actual data in the system so that your clusters might get better over time.
I second jwpat7's answer, but my very naive approach was to consider the count of items in each histogram bin as a y value, to consider the x values as just 0..1 in 20 steps, and then to obtain parameters a,b,c that describe x vs y as a cubic function.
To get a "covering" of the histograms I just iterated through "possible" values for each parameter.
e.g. to get 27 histograms to cover the "shape space" of my cubic histogram model I iterated the parameters through -1 .. 1, choosing 3 values linearly spaced.
Now, you could change the histogram model to be quartic if you think your data will often be represented that way, or whatever model you think is most descriptive, as well as generate however many histograms to cover. I used 27 because three partitions per parameter for three parameters is 3*3*3=27.
For a more comprehensive covering, like 100, you would have to more carefully choose your ranges for each parameter. 100**.3 isn't an integer, so the simple num_covers**(1/num_params) solution wouldn't work, but for 3 parameters 4*5*5 would.
Since the actual values of the parameters could vary greatly and still achieve the same shape it would probably be best to store ratios of them for comparison instead, e.g. for my 3 parmeters b/a and b/c.
Here is an 81 histogram "covering" using a quartic model, again with parameters chosen from linspace(-1,1,3):
edit: Since you said your histograms were described by arrays that were ~20 elements, I figured fitting parameters would be very fast.
edit2 on second thought I think using a constant in the model is pointless, all that matters is the shape.
I have a huge journal with actions done by users (like, for example, moderating contents).
I would like to find the 'mass' actions, meaning the actions that are too dense (the user probably made those actions without thinking it too much :) ).
That would translate to clustering the actions by date (in a linear space), and to marking the clusters that are too dense.
I am no expert in clustering algorithms and methods, but I think the k-means clustering would not do the trick, since I don't know the number of clusters.
Also, ideally, I would also like to 'fine tune' the algorithm.
What would you advice?
P.S. Here are some resources that I found (in Ruby):
hierclust - a simple hierarchical clustering library for spatial data
AI4R - library that implements some clustering algorithms
K-means would probably do a good job as long as you're interested in an a priori known number of clusters. Since you don't you might consider reading about the LBG algorithm, which is based on k-means and is used in data compression for vector quantisation. It's basically iterative k-means which splits centroids after they converge and keeps splitting until you achieve an acceptable number of clusters.
On the other hand, since your data is one-dimensional, you could do something completely different.
Assume that you've got actions which took place at 5 points in time: (8, 11, 15, 16, 17). Let's plot a Gaussian for each of these actions with μ equal to the time and σ = 3.
Now let's see how a sum of values of these Gaussians looks like.
It shows a density of actions with a peak around 16.
Based on this observation I propose a following simple algorithm.
Create a vector of zeroes for the time range of interest.
For each action calculate the Gaussian and add it to the vector.
Scan the vector looking for values which are greater than the maximum value in the vector multiplied by α.
Note that for each action only a small section of the vector needs updates because values of a Gaussian converge to zero very quickly.
You can tune the algorithm by adjusting values of
α ∈ [0,1], which indicates how significant a peak of activity has to be to be noted,
σ, which affects the distance of actions which are considered close to each other, and
time periods per vector's element (minutes, seconds, etc.).
Notice that the algorithm is linear with regard to the number of actions. Moreover, it shouldn't be difficult to parallelise: split your data across multiple processes summing Gaussians and then sum generated vectors.
Have a look at density based clustering. E.g. DBSCAN and OPTICS.
This sounds like exactly what you want.
I have need to do some cluster analysis on a set of 2 dimensional data (I may add extra dimensions along the way).
The analysis itself will form part of the data being fed into a visualisation, rather than the inputs into another process (e.g. Radial Basis Function Networks).
To this end, I'd like to find a set of clusters which primarily "looks right", rather than elucidating some hidden patterns.
My intuition is that k-means would be a good starting place for this, but that finding the right number of clusters to run the algorithm with would be problematic.
The problem I'm coming to is this:
How to determine the 'best' value for k such that the clusters formed are stable and visually verifiable?
Questions:
Assuming that this isn't NP-complete, what is the time complexity for finding a good k. (probably reported in number of times to run the k-means algorithm).
is k-means a good starting point for this type of problem? If so, what other approaches would you recommend. A specific example, backed by an anecdote/experience would be maxi-bon.
what short cuts/approximations would you recommend to increase the performance.
For problems with an unknown number of clusters, agglomerative hierarchical clustering is often a better route than k-means.
Agglomerative clustering produces a tree structure, where the closer you are to the trunk, the fewer the number of clusters, so it's easy to scan through all numbers of clusters. The algorithm starts by assigning each point to its own cluster, and then repeatedly groups the two closest centroids. Keeping track of the grouping sequence allows an instant snapshot for any number of possible clusters. Therefore, it's often preferable to use this technique over k-means when you don't know how many groups you'll want.
There are other hierarchical clustering methods (see the paper suggested in Imran's comments). The primary advantage of an agglomerative approach is that there are many implementations out there, ready-made for your use.
In order to use k-means, you should know how many cluster there is. You can't try a naive meta-optimisation, since the more cluster you'll add (up to 1 cluster for each data point), the more it will brought you to over-fitting. You may look for some cluster validation methods and optimize the k hyperparameter with it but from my experience, it rarely work well. It's very costly too.
If I were you, I would do a PCA, eventually on polynomial space (take care of your available time) depending on what you know of your input, and cluster along the most representatives components.
More infos on your data set would be very helpful for a more precise answer.
Here's my approximate solution:
Start with k=2.
For a number of tries:
Run the k-means algorithm to find k clusters.
Find the mean square distance from the origin to the cluster centroids.
Repeat the 2-3, to find a standard deviation of the distances. This is a proxy for the stability of the clusters.
If stability of clusters for k < stability of clusters for k - 1 then return k - 1
Increment k by 1.
The thesis behind this algorithm is that the number of sets of k clusters is small for "good" values of k.
If we can find a local optimum for this stability, or an optimal delta for the stability, then we can find a good set of clusters which cannot be improved by adding more clusters.
In a previous answer, I explained how Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) can be used in visual clustering.
Otherwise, there exist a variation of the K-Means algorithm called X-Means which is able to find the number of clusters by optimizing the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), in addition to solving the problem of scalability by using KD-trees.
Weka includes an implementation of X-Means along with many other clustering algorithm, all in an easy to use GUI tool.
Finally you might to refer to this page which discusses the Elbow Method among other techniques for determining the number of clusters in a dataset.
You might look at papers on cluster validation. Here's one that is cited in papers that involve microarray analysis, which involves clustering genes with related expression levels.
One such technique is the Silhouette measure that evaluates how closely a labeled point is to its centroid. The general idea is that, if a point is assigned to one centroid but is still close to others, perhaps it was assigned to the wrong centroid. By counting these events across training sets and looking across various k-means clusterings, one looks for the k such that the labeled points overall fall into the "best" or minimally ambiguous arrangement.
It should be said that clustering is more of a data visualization and exploration technique. It can be difficult to elucidate with certainty that one clustering explains the data correctly, above all others. It's best to merge your clusterings with other relevant information. Is there something functional or otherwise informative about your data, such that you know some clusterings are impossible? This can reduce your solution space considerably.
From your wikipedia link:
Regarding computational complexity,
the k-means clustering problem is:
NP-hard in general Euclidean
space d even for 2 clusters
NP-hard for a general number of
clusters k even in the plane
If k and d are fixed, the problem can be
exactly solved in time O(ndk+1 log n),
where n is the number of entities to
be clustered
Thus, a variety of heuristic
algorithms are generally used.
That said, finding a good value of k is usually a heuristic process (i.e. you try a few and select the best).
I think k-means is a good starting point, it is simple and easy to implement (or copy). Only look further if you have serious performance problems.
If the set of points you want to cluster is exceptionally large a first order optimisation would be to randomly select a small subset, use that set to find your k-means.
Choosing the best K can be seen as a Model Selection problem. One possible approach is Minimum Description Length, which in this context means: You could store a table with all the points (in which case K=N). At the other extreme, you have K=1, and all the points are stored as their distances from a single centroid. This Section from Introduction to Information Retrieval by Manning and Schutze suggest minimising the Akaike Information Criterion as a heuristic for an optimal K.
This problematic belongs to the "internal evaluation" class of "clustering optimisation problems" which curent state of the art solution seems to use the **Silhouette* coeficient* as stated here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis#Applications
and here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silhouette_(clustering) :
"silhouette plots and averages may be used to determine the natural number of clusters within a dataset"
scikit-learn provides a sample usage implementation of the methodology here
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/auto_examples/cluster/plot_kmeans_silhouette_analysis.html