Linear, Deterministic, and Order-Invariant Initialization Methods for the K-Means Clustering Algorithm

Over the past five decades, k-means has become the clustering algorithm of choice in many application domains primarily due to its simplicity, time/space efficiency, and invariance to the ordering of the data points. Unfortunately, the algorithm's sensitivity to the initial selection of the cluster centers remains to be its most serious drawback. Numerous initialization methods have been proposed to address this drawback. Many of these methods, however, have time complexity superlinear in the number of data points, which makes them impractical for large data sets. On the other hand, linear methods are often random and/or sensitive to the ordering of the data points. These methods are generally unreliable in that the quality of their results is unpredictable. Therefore, it is common practice to perform multiple runs of such methods and take the output of the run that produces the best results. Such a practice, however, greatly increases the computational requirements of the otherwise highly efficient k-means algorithm. In this chapter, we investigate the empirical performance of six linear, deterministic (non-random), and order-invariant k-means initialization methods on a large and diverse collection of data sets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. The results demonstrate that two relatively unknown hierarchical initialization methods due to Su and Dy outperform the remaining four methods with respect to two objective effectiveness criteria. In addition, a recent method due to Erisoglu et al. performs surprisingly poorly.Comment: 21 pages, 2 figures, 5 tables, Partitional Clustering Algorithms (Springer, 2014). arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1304.7465, arXiv:1209.196

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

A Comparative Study of Efficient Initialization Methods for the K-Means Clustering Algorithm

K-means is undoubtedly the most widely used partitional clustering algorithm. Unfortunately, due to its gradient descent nature, this algorithm is highly sensitive to the initial placement of the cluster centers. Numerous initialization methods have been proposed to address this problem. In this paper, we first present an overview of these methods with an emphasis on their computational efficiency. We then compare eight commonly used linear time complexity initialization methods on a large and diverse collection of data sets using various performance criteria. Finally, we analyze the experimental results using non-parametric statistical tests and provide recommendations for practitioners. We demonstrate that popular initialization methods often perform poorly and that there are in fact strong alternatives to these methods.Comment: 17 pages, 1 figure, 7 table