4.5 Article

Generalized external indexes for comparing data partitions with overlapping categories

Journal

PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS
Volume 31, Issue 9, Pages 966-975

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.patrec.2010.01.002

Keywords

Clustering; Overlapping; Partitions; Validity; Indexes

Funding

  1. Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq)
  2. Research Foundation of the State of Sao Paulo (Fapesp) [06/50231-5, 301063/2007-9]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is a family of well-known external clustering validity indexes to measure the degree of compatibility or similarity between two hard partitions of a given data set, including partitions with different numbers of categories. A unified, fully equivalent set-theoretic formulation for an important class of such indexes was derived and extended to the fuzzy domain in a previous work by the author [Campello, R.J.G.B., 2007. A fuzzy extension of the Rand index and other related indexes for clustering and classification assessment. Pattern Recognition Lett., 28, 833-841]. However, the proposed fuzzy set-theoretic formulation is not valid as a general approach for comparing two fuzzy partitions of data. Instead, it is an approach for comparing a fuzzy partition against a hard referential partition of the data into mutually disjoint categories. In this paper, generalized external indexes for comparing two data partitions with overlapping categories are introduced. These indexes can be used as general measures for comparing two partitions of the same data set into overlapping categories. An important issue that is seldom touched in the literature is also addressed in the paper, namely, how to compare two partitions of different subsamples of data. A number of pedagogical examples and three simulation experiments are presented and analyzed in details. A review of recent related work compiled from the literature is also provided. (c) 2010 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available