Exposing and fixing causes of inconsistency and nondeterminism in clustering implementations

Cluster analysis aka Clustering is used in myriad applications, including high-stakes domains, by millions of users. Clustering users should be able to assume that clustering implementations are correct, reliable, and for a given algorithm, interchangeable. Based on observations in a wide-range of real-world clustering implementations, this dissertation challenges the aforementioned assumptions. This dissertation introduces an approach named SmokeOut that uses differential clustering to show that clustering implementations suffer from nondeterminism and inconsistency: on a given input dataset and using a given clustering algorithm, clustering outcomes and accuracy vary widely between (1) successive runs of the same toolkit, i.e., nondeterminism, and (2) different toolkits, i.e, inconsistency. Using a statistical approach, this dissertation quantifies and exposes statistically significant differences across runs and toolkits. This dissertation exposes the diverse root causes of nondeterminism or inconsistency, such as default parameter settings, noise insertion, distance metrics, termination criteria. Based on these findings, this dissertation introduces an automatic approach for locating the root causes of nondeterminism and inconsistency. This dissertation makes several contributions: (1) quantifying clustering outcomes across different algorithms, toolkits, and multiple runs; (2) using a statistical rigorous approach for testing clustering implementations; (3) exposing root causes of nondeterminism and inconsistency; and (4) automatically finding nondeterminism and inconsistency’s root causes

An Efficient Rigorous Approach for Identifying Statistically Significant Frequent Itemsets

As advances in technology allow for the collection, storage, and analysis of vast amounts of data, the task of screening and assessing the significance of discovered patterns is becoming a major challenge in data mining applications. In this work, we address significance in the context of frequent itemset mining. Specifically, we develop a novel methodology to identify a meaningful support threshold s* for a dataset, such that the number of itemsets with support at least s* represents a substantial deviation from what would be expected in a random dataset with the same number of transactions and the same individual item frequencies. These itemsets can then be flagged as statistically significant with a small false discovery rate. We present extensive experimental results to substantiate the effectiveness of our methodology.Comment: A preliminary version of this work was presented in ACM PODS 2009. 20 pages, 0 figure

Laplacian Mixture Modeling for Network Analysis and Unsupervised Learning on Graphs

Laplacian mixture models identify overlapping regions of influence in unlabeled graph and network data in a scalable and computationally efficient way, yielding useful low-dimensional representations. By combining Laplacian eigenspace and finite mixture modeling methods, they provide probabilistic or fuzzy dimensionality reductions or domain decompositions for a variety of input data types, including mixture distributions, feature vectors, and graphs or networks. Provable optimal recovery using the algorithm is analytically shown for a nontrivial class of cluster graphs. Heuristic approximations for scalable high-performance implementations are described and empirically tested. Connections to PageRank and community detection in network analysis demonstrate the wide applicability of this approach. The origins of fuzzy spectral methods, beginning with generalized heat or diffusion equations in physics, are reviewed and summarized. Comparisons to other dimensionality reduction and clustering methods for challenging unsupervised machine learning problems are also discussed.Comment: 13 figures, 35 reference

Evaluating Overfit and Underfit in Models of Network Community Structure

A common data mining task on networks is community detection, which seeks an unsupervised decomposition of a network into structural groups based on statistical regularities in the network's connectivity. Although many methods exist, the No Free Lunch theorem for community detection implies that each makes some kind of tradeoff, and no algorithm can be optimal on all inputs. Thus, different algorithms will over or underfit on different inputs, finding more, fewer, or just different communities than is optimal, and evaluation methods that use a metadata partition as a ground truth will produce misleading conclusions about general accuracy. Here, we present a broad evaluation of over and underfitting in community detection, comparing the behavior of 16 state-of-the-art community detection algorithms on a novel and structurally diverse corpus of 406 real-world networks. We find that (i) algorithms vary widely both in the number of communities they find and in their corresponding composition, given the same input, (ii) algorithms can be clustered into distinct high-level groups based on similarities of their outputs on real-world networks, and (iii) these differences induce wide variation in accuracy on link prediction and link description tasks. We introduce a new diagnostic for evaluating overfitting and underfitting in practice, and use it to roughly divide community detection methods into general and specialized learning algorithms. Across methods and inputs, Bayesian techniques based on the stochastic block model and a minimum description length approach to regularization represent the best general learning approach, but can be outperformed under specific circumstances. These results introduce both a theoretically principled approach to evaluate over and underfitting in models of network community structure and a realistic benchmark by which new methods may be evaluated and compared.Comment: 22 pages, 13 figures, 3 table

Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking

In computational biology and other sciences, researchers are frequently faced with a choice between several computational methods for performing data analyses. Benchmarking studies aim to rigorously compare the performance of different methods using well-characterized benchmark datasets, to determine the strengths of each method or to provide recommendations regarding suitable choices of methods for an analysis. However, benchmarking studies must be carefully designed and implemented to provide accurate, unbiased, and informative results. Here, we summarize key practical guidelines and recommendations for performing high-quality benchmarking analyses, based on our experiences in computational biology.Comment: Minor update

Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking

In computational biology and other sciences, researchers are frequently faced with a choice between several computational methods for performing data analyses. Benchmarking studies aim to rigorously compare the performance of different methods using well-characterized benchmark datasets, to determine the strengths of each method or to provide recommendations regarding suitable choices of methods for an analysis. However, benchmarking studies must be carefully designed and implemented to provide accurate, unbiased, and informative results. Here, we summarize key practical guidelines and recommendations for performing high-quality benchmarking analyses, based on our experiences in computational biology

Dismantling the Mantel tests

The simple and partial Mantel tests are routinely used in many areas of evolutionary biology to assess the significance of the association between two or more matrices of distances relative to the same pairs of individuals or demes. Partial Mantel tests rather than simple Mantel tests are widely used to assess the relationship between two variables displaying some form of structure. We show that contrarily to a widely shared belief, partial Mantel tests are not valid in this case, and their bias remains close to that of the simple Mantel test. We confirm that strong biases are expected under a sampling design and spatial correlation parameter drawn from an actual study. The Mantel tests should not be used in case auto-correlation is suspected in both variables compared under the null hypothesis. We outline alternative strategies. The R code used for our computer simulations is distributed as supporting material