Element-centric clustering comparison unifies overlaps and hierarchy

Clustering is one of the most universal approaches for understanding complex data. A pivotal aspect of clustering analysis is quantitatively comparing clusterings; clustering comparison is the basis for many tasks such as clustering evaluation, consensus clustering, and tracking the temporal evolution of clusters. In particular, the extrinsic evaluation of clustering methods requires comparing the uncovered clusterings to planted clusterings or known metadata. Yet, as we demonstrate, existing clustering comparison measures have critical biases which undermine their usefulness, and no measure accommodates both overlapping and hierarchical clusterings. Here we unify the comparison of disjoint, overlapping, and hierarchically structured clusterings by proposing a new element-centric framework: elements are compared based on the relationships induced by the cluster structure, as opposed to the traditional cluster-centric philosophy. We demonstrate that, in contrast to standard clustering similarity measures, our framework does not suffer from critical biases and naturally provides unique insights into how the clusterings differ. We illustrate the strengths of our framework by revealing new insights into the organization of clusters in two applications: the improved classification of schizophrenia based on the overlapping and hierarchical community structure of fMRI brain networks, and the disentanglement of various social homophily factors in Facebook social networks. The universality of clustering suggests far-reaching impact of our framework throughout all areas of science

Cluster validation by measurement of clustering characteristics relevant to the user

There are many cluster analysis methods that can produce quite different clusterings on the same dataset. Cluster validation is about the evaluation of the quality of a clustering; "relative cluster validation" is about using such criteria to compare clusterings. This can be used to select one of a set of clusterings from different methods, or from the same method ran with different parameters such as different numbers of clusters. There are many cluster validation indexes in the literature. Most of them attempt to measure the overall quality of a clustering by a single number, but this can be inappropriate. There are various different characteristics of a clustering that can be relevant in practice, depending on the aim of clustering, such as low within-cluster distances and high between-cluster separation. In this paper, a number of validation criteria will be introduced that refer to different desirable characteristics of a clustering, and that characterise a clustering in a multidimensional way. In specific applications the user may be interested in some of these criteria rather than others. A focus of the paper is on methodology to standardise the different characteristics so that users can aggregate them in a suitable way specifying weights for the various criteria that are relevant in the clustering application at hand.Comment: 20 pages 2 figure

Comparing clusterings and numbers of clusters by aggregation of calibrated clustering validity indexes

A key issue in cluster analysis is the choice of an appropriate clustering method and the determination of the best number of clusters. Different clusterings are optimal on the same data set according to different criteria, and the choice of such criteria depends on the context and aim of clustering. Therefore, researchers need to consider what data analytic characteristics the clusters they are aiming at are supposed to have, among others within-cluster homogeneity, between-clusters separation, and stability. Here, a set of internal clustering validity indexes measuring different aspects of clustering quality is proposed, including some indexes from the literature. Users can choose the indexes that are relevant in the application at hand. In order to measure the overall quality of a clustering (for comparing clusterings from different methods and/or different numbers of clusters), the index values are calibrated for aggregation. Calibration is relative to a set of random clusterings on the same data. Two specific aggregated indexes are proposed and compared with existing indexes on simulated and real data.Comment: 42 pages, 11 figure