Abstract
This study considers the problem of clustering spatially located observations, which arises in various fields like unsupervised image segmentation, quantitative biogeography, or mapping of soil properties. In those applications, it is often reasonable to assume that the partition changes slowly in the geographic space. This assumption is taken into account in a recently proposed fuzzy clustering method, the so-called Neighbourhood EM algorithm (Ambroise, 1996; Ambroise et al., 1997) : this method optimizes a criterion containing on the one hand the fuzzy sum of within-cluster inertia exhibited by Hathaway (1986), and on the other hand a spatial smoothing function of the classification. At each iteration of the resulting algorithm, the class memberships of the observations are updated based both on their fitness to the class parameters and on the class of the neighbours. This procedure is interpretable as an application of the Expectation-Maximization (EM) principle to a hidden Markov random field (Dang & Govaert, 1998) . Alternatively, prior to applying traditional clustering techniques, the data may be preprocessed by filtering techniques in order to reduce the noise (Cocquerez et al., 1995) . Post-smoothing of the classification is also tested as an alternative approach to take into account the assumption of spatial regularity of the partition.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ambroise, C. (1996). Approche probabiliste en classification automatique et contraintes de voisinage. PhD thesis, Université de Technologie de Cormpiègne.
Ambroise, C., Dang, M. & Govaert, G. (1997). Clustering of spatial data by the EM algorithm. In: geoENV I — Geostatistics for Environmental Applications (ed. A. Soares, J. Gómez-Hernandez & R. Froidevaux), 493–504. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Besag, J. (1986). Spatial analysis of dirty pictures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 48, 259–302.
Cressie, N. A. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data. New York: Wiley.
Celeux, G. & Govaert, G. (1995). Gaussian parsimonious clustering models. Pattern Recognition, 28, 781–793.
Cocquerez, J., Philipp, S. & coll. (1995). Analyse d’images: filtrage et segmentation. Paris: Masson.
Dang, M. & Govaert, G. (1998). Spatial fuzzy clustering by EM and Markov random fields. International Journal of Systems Research and Information Science, in press.
Dempster, A., Laird, N. & Rubin, D. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 39, 1–38.
Hathaway, R. (1986). Another interpretation of the EM algorithm for mixture distributions. Journal of Statistics & Probability Letters, 4, 53–56.
Symons, M.J. (1981). Clustering criteria and multivariate normal mixtures, Biometrics. 37, 35–43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dang, M., Govaert, G. (1998). Spatial Clustering Techniques: An Experimental Comparison. In: Payne, R., Green, P. (eds) COMPSTAT. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-01131-7_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-01131-7_30
Publisher Name: Physica, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-1131-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-01131-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive