Skip to main content

Comparison of the Performance of Center-Based Clustering Algorithms

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2637))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Center-based clustering algorithms like K-means, and EM are one of the most popular classes of clustering algorithms in use today. The author developed another variation in this family — K-Harmonic Means (KHM). It has been demonstrated using a small number of “benchmark” datasets that KHM is more robust than K-means and EM. In this paper, we compare their performance statistically. We run K-means, K-Harmonic Means and EM on each of 3600 pairs of (dataset, initialization) to compare the statistical average and variation of the performance of these algorithms. The results are that, for low dimensional datasets, KHM performs consistently better than KM, and KM performs consistently better than EM over a large variation of clustered-ness of the datasets and a large variation of initializations. Some of the reasons that contributed to this difference are explained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradley, P., Fayyad, U. M., C.A., “Refining Initial Points for KM Clustering”, MS Technical Report MSR-TR-98-36, May (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Duda, R., Hart, P., “Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis”, John Wiley & Sons, (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N.M., and Rubin, D.B., “Miximum Likelyhood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1):1–38, (1977)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. Smyth, P. and Uthurusamy, R., “Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining”, AAAI Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fink, L.J., Fung, M., McGuire, K.L., Gribskov, M, “Elucidation of Genes Involved in HTLV-I-induced Transformation Using the K-Harmonic Means Algorithm to Cluster Microarray Data”, follow the link http://www.ismb02.org/posterlist.htm to find an extended abstract. Software tools at http://array.sdsc.edu/. (2002)

  6. Gersho & Gray, “Vector Quantization and Signal Compression”, KAP, (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P. J., “Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis”, John Wiley & Sons, (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  8. MacQueen, J., “Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations”. Pp. 281–297 in: L. M. Le Cam & J. Neyman [eds.] Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, Vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley. xvii + 666 p, (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  9. McKenzie, P. and Alder, M., “Initializing the EM Algorithm for Use in Gaussian Mixture Modeling”, The Univ. of Western Australia, Center for Information Processing Systems, Manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  10. McLachlan, G. J. and Krishnan, T., “The EM Algorithm and Extensions.”, John Wiley & Sons, (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Meila, M., Heckerman, D., “An Experimental Comparison of Model-based Clustering Methods”, Machine Learning, 42, 9–29, (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Pena, J., Lozano, J., Larranaga, P., “An Empirical Comparison of Four Initialization Methods for the K-means Algorithm”, Pattern Recognition Letters, 20, 1027–1040, (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rendner, R.A. and Walker, H.F., “Mixture Densities, Maximum Likelihood and The EM Algorithm”, SIAM Review, vol. 26 # 2, (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., and Hastie, T., “Estimating the Number of Clusters in a Dataset via the Gap Statistic”, Available at http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~tibs/research.html. March, (2000)

  15. Zhang, B., Hsu, M., Dayal, U., “K-Harmonic Means”, Intl. Workshop on Temporal, Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Data Mining, Lyon, France Sept. 12, (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang, B., “Generalized K-Harmonic Means — Dynamic Weighting of Data in Unsupervised Learning,”, the First SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM’2001), Chicago, USA, April 5–7, (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhang, B. (2003). Comparison of the Performance of Center-Based Clustering Algorithms. In: Whang, KY., Jeon, J., Shim, K., Srivastava, J. (eds) Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. PAKDD 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2637. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36175-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36175-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-04760-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36175-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics