4.6 Article

Towards understanding hierarchical clustering: A data distribution perspective

Journal

NEUROCOMPUTING
Volume 72, Issue 10-12, Pages 2319-2330

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2008.12.011

Keywords

Hierarchical clustering; F-measure; Measure normalization; Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA); Coefficient of variation (CV)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [70621061, 70890082]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A very important category of clustering methods is hierarchical clustering. There are considerable research efforts which have been focused on algorithm-level improvements of the hierarchical clustering process. In this paper, our goal is to provide a systematic understanding of hierarchical clustering from a data distribution perspective. Specifically, we investigate the issues about how the true cluster distribution can make impact on the clustering performance, and what is the relationship between hierarchical clustering schemes and validation measures with respect to different data distributions. To this end, we provide an organized study to illustrate these issues. Indeed, one of our key findings reveals that hierarchical clustering tends to produce clusters with high variation on cluster sizes regardless of true cluster distributions. Also, our results show that F-measure, an external clustering validation measure, has bias towards hierarchical clustering algorithms which tend to increase the variation on cluster sizes. Viewed in light of this, we propose F-norm. the normalized version of the F-measure, to solve the cluster validation problem for hierarchical clustering. Experimental results show that F-norm is indeed more suitable than the unnormalized F-measure in evaluating the hierarchical clustering results across data sets with different data distributions. (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available