4.7 Article

Comparison of spectral clustering, K-clustering and hierarchical clustering on e-nose datasets: Application to the recognition of material freshness, adulteration levels and pretreatment approaches for tomato juices

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2014.01.017

关键词

Spectral clustering; K-clustering; Hierarchical cluster analysis; Cluster validation; Electronic nose; Tomato juice

资金

  1. National Key Technology RD Program [2012BAD29B02-4]
  2. Chinese National Foundation of Nature and Science [31071548]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various clustering algorithms have been developed since conventional hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and partitioning clustering algorithms have their own limitations and scopes of applications. However, in the area of e-nose where clustering is applied, the conventional algorithms (mostly HCA) still play a dominant role. In addition, comparison among different clustering methods or validation of clustering results was seldom mentioned. In this paper, we present a state-of-the-art clustering method - spectral clustering - and compare it with six conventional clustering methods: K-clustering (ISODATA, FCM and k-means) and HCA (single linkage, complete linkage and Ward's). Three external validation criteria - mutual information criteria (MI), precision and rand index (RI) - were used to evaluate clustering performances on three independent e-nose datasets. The spectral clustering outperforms with statistical significance (alpha = 0.05) the performance of other methods, and the single linkage presents the worst (unacceptable) clustering result. In addition, the proposed approach - cluster validation criteria in combination with majority voting - in a way makes clustering a semi-supervised classification technique. Using this approach it is possible to compare clustering based semi-supervised methods with classification methods to find which method is better for discrimination of a certain e-nose dataset. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据