4.7 Article

Density peak clustering based on relative density relationship

Journal

PATTERN RECOGNITION
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2020.107554

Keywords

Density based clustering; Density peak; Cluster center; Relative density relationship

Funding

  1. NSFC [61473045]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province [20170540013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The density peak clustering algorithm treats local density peaks as cluster centers, and groups non-center data points by assuming that one data point and its nearest higher-density neighbor are in the same cluster. While this algorithm is shown to be promising in some applications, its clustering results are found to be sensitive to density kernels, and large density differences across clusters tend to result in wrong cluster centers. In this paper we attribute these problems to the inconsistency between the assumption and implementation adopted in this algorithm. While the assumption is based totally on relative density relationship, this algorithm adopts absolute density as one criterion to identify cluster centers. This observation prompts us to present a cluster center identification criterion based only on relative density relationship. Specifically, we define the concept of subordinate to describe the relative density relationship, and use the number of subordinates as a criterion to identify cluster centers. Our approach makes use of only relative density relationship and is less influenced by density kernels and density differences across clusters. In addition, we discuss the problems of two existing density kernels, and present an average distance based kernel. In data clustering experiments we validate the new criterion and density kernel respectively, and then test the whole algorithm and compare with some other clustering algorithms. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available