On clustering stability

JEL Classification: C100; C150; C380This work is dedicated to the evaluation of the stability of clustering solutions, namely the stability of crisp clusterings or partitions. We specifically refer to stability as the concordance of clusterings across several samples. In order to evaluate stability, we use a weighted cross-validation procedure, the result of which is summarized by simple and paired agreement indices values. To exclude the amount of agreement by chance of these values, we propose a new method – IADJUST – that resorts to simulated crossclassification tables. This contribution makes viable the correction of any index of agreement. Experiments on stability rely on 540 simulated data sets, design factors being the number of clusters, their balance and overlap. Six real data with a priori known clusters are also considered. The experiments conducted enable to illustrate the precision and pertinence of the IADJUST procedure and allow to know the distribution of indices under the hypothesis of agreement by chance. Therefore, we recommend the use of adjusted indices to be common practice when addressing stability. We then compare the stability of two clustering algorithms and conclude that Expectation-Maximization (EM) results are more stable when referring to unbalanced data sets than K means results. Finally, we explore the relationship between stability and external validity of a clustering solution. When all experimental scenarios’ results are considered there is a strong correlation between stability and external validity. However, within a specific experimental scenario (when a practical clustering task is considered), we find no relationship between stability and agreement with ground truth.Este trabalho é dedicado à avaliação da estabilidade de agrupamentos, nomeadamente de partições. Consideramos a estabilidade como sendo a concordância dos agrupamentos obtidos sobre diversas amostras. Para avaliar a estabilidade, usamos um procedimento de validação cruzada ponderada, cujo resultado é resumido pelos valores de índices de concordância simples e pareados. Para excluir, destes valores, a parcela de concordância por acaso, propomos um novo método - IADJUST - que recorre à simulação de tabelas cruzadas de classificação. Essa contribuição torna viável a correção de qualquer índice de concordância. A análise experimental da estabilidade baseia-se em 540 conjuntos de dados simulados, controlando os números de grupos, dimensões relativas e graus de sobreposição dos grupos. Também consideramos seis conjuntos de dados reais com classes a priori conhecidas. As experiências realizadas permitem ilustrar a precisão e pertinência do procedimento IADJUST e conhecer a distribuição dos índices sob a hipótese de concordância por acaso. Assim sendo, recomendamos a utilização de índices ajustados como prática comum ao abordar a estabilidade. Comparamos, então, a estabilidade de dois algoritmos de agrupamento e concluímos que as soluções do algoritmo Expectation Maximization são mais estáveis que as do K-médias em conjuntos de dados não balanceados. Finalmente, estudamos a relação entre a estabilidade e validade externa de um agrupamento. Agregando os resultados dos cenários experimentais obtemos uma forte correlação entre estabilidade e validade externa. No entanto, num cenário experimental particular (para uma tarefa prática de agrupamento), não encontramos relação entre estabilidade e a concordância com a verdadeira estrutura dos dados

Paired indices for clustering evaluation correction for agreement by chance

In the present paper we focus on the performance of clustering algorithms using indices of paired agreement to measure the accordance between clusters and an a priori known structure. We specifically propose a method to correct all indices considered for agreement by chance - the adjusted indices are meant to provide a realistic measure of clustering performance. The proposed method enables the correction of virtually any index - overcoming previous limitations known in the literature - and provides very precise results. We use simulated datasets under diverse scenarios and discuss the pertinence of our proposal which is particularly relevant when poorly separated clusters are considered. Finally we compare the performance of EM and KMeans algorithms, within each of the simulated scenarios and generally conclude that EM generally yields best results

Comparing clustering solutions: the use of adjusted paired indices

In the present paper we compare clustering solutions using indices of paired agreement. We propose a new method - IADJUST - to correct indices of paired agreement, excluding agreement by chance. This new method overcomes previous limitations known in the literature as it permits the correction of any index. We illustrate its use in external clustering validation, to measure the accordance between clusters and an a priori known structure. The adjusted indices are intended to provide a realistic measure of clustering performance that excludes agreement by chance with ground truth. We use simulated data sets, under a range of scenarios - considering diverse numbers of clusters, clusters overlaps and balances - to discuss the pertinence and the precision of our proposal. Precision is established based on comparisons with the analytical approach for correction specific indices that can be corrected in this way are used for this purpose. The pertinence of the proposed correction is discussed when making a detailed comparison between the performance of two classical clustering approaches, namely Expectation-Maximization (EM) and K-Means (KM) algorithms. Eight indices of paired agreement are studied and new corrected indices are obtained

Enhancing the selection of a model-based clustering with external categorical variables

In cluster analysis, it can be useful to interpret the partition built from the data in the light of external categorical variables which are not directly involved to cluster the data. An approach is proposed in the model-based clustering context to select a number of clusters which both fits the data well and takes advantage of the potential illustrative ability of the external variables. This approach makes use of the integrated joint likelihood of the data and the partitions at hand, namely the model-based partition and the partitions associated to the external variables. It is noteworthy that each mixture model is fitted by the maximum likelihood methodology to the data, excluding the external variables which are used to select a relevant mixture model only. Numerical experiments illustrate the promising behaviour of the derived criterion

NEOTROPICAL ALIEN MAMMALS: a data set of occurrence and abundance of alien mammals in the Neotropics

Biological invasion is one of the main threats to native biodiversity. For a species to become invasive, it must be voluntarily or involuntarily introduced by humans into a nonnative habitat. Mammals were among first taxa to be introduced worldwide for game, meat, and labor, yet the number of species introduced in the Neotropics remains unknown. In this data set, we make available occurrence and abundance data on mammal species that (1) transposed a geographical barrier and (2) were voluntarily or involuntarily introduced by humans into the Neotropics. Our data set is composed of 73,738 historical and current georeferenced records on alien mammal species of which around 96% correspond to occurrence data on 77 species belonging to eight orders and 26 families. Data cover 26 continental countries in the Neotropics, ranging from Mexico and its frontier regions (southern Florida and coastal-central Florida in the southeast United States) to Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay, and the 13 countries of Caribbean islands. Our data set also includes neotropical species (e.g., Callithrix sp., Myocastor coypus, Nasua nasua) considered alien in particular areas of Neotropics. The most numerous species in terms of records are from Bos sp. (n = 37,782), Sus scrofa (n = 6,730), and Canis familiaris (n = 10,084); 17 species were represented by only one record (e.g., Syncerus caffer, Cervus timorensis, Cervus unicolor, Canis latrans). Primates have the highest number of species in the data set (n = 20 species), partly because of uncertainties regarding taxonomic identification of the genera Callithrix, which includes the species Callithrix aurita, Callithrix flaviceps, Callithrix geoffroyi, Callithrix jacchus, Callithrix kuhlii, Callithrix penicillata, and their hybrids. This unique data set will be a valuable source of information on invasion risk assessments, biodiversity redistribution and conservation-related research. There are no copyright restrictions. Please cite this data paper when using the data in publications. We also request that researchers and teachers inform us on how they are using the data

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Not availabl