Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.

Many real-world systems can be studied in terms of pattern recognition tasks, so that proper use (and understanding) of machine learning methods in practical applications becomes essential. While many classification methods have been proposed, there is no consensus on which methods are more suitable...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mayra Z Rodriguez, Cesar H Comin, Dalcimar Casanova, Odemir M Bruno, Diego R Amancio, Luciano da F Costa, Francisco A Rodrigues
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210236
id doaj-5f718bfdd11d4d6eb66192da1e5788bc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5f718bfdd11d4d6eb66192da1e5788bc2021-03-03T20:58:05ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01141e021023610.1371/journal.pone.0210236Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.Mayra Z RodriguezCesar H CominDalcimar CasanovaOdemir M BrunoDiego R AmancioLuciano da F CostaFrancisco A RodriguesMany real-world systems can be studied in terms of pattern recognition tasks, so that proper use (and understanding) of machine learning methods in practical applications becomes essential. While many classification methods have been proposed, there is no consensus on which methods are more suitable for a given dataset. As a consequence, it is important to comprehensively compare methods in many possible scenarios. In this context, we performed a systematic comparison of 9 well-known clustering methods available in the R language assuming normally distributed data. In order to account for the many possible variations of data, we considered artificial datasets with several tunable properties (number of classes, separation between classes, etc). In addition, we also evaluated the sensitivity of the clustering methods with regard to their parameters configuration. The results revealed that, when considering the default configurations of the adopted methods, the spectral approach tended to present particularly good performance. We also found that the default configuration of the adopted implementations was not always accurate. In these cases, a simple approach based on random selection of parameters values proved to be a good alternative to improve the performance. All in all, the reported approach provides subsidies guiding the choice of clustering algorithms.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210236
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mayra Z Rodriguez
Cesar H Comin
Dalcimar Casanova
Odemir M Bruno
Diego R Amancio
Luciano da F Costa
Francisco A Rodrigues
spellingShingle Mayra Z Rodriguez
Cesar H Comin
Dalcimar Casanova
Odemir M Bruno
Diego R Amancio
Luciano da F Costa
Francisco A Rodrigues
Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Mayra Z Rodriguez
Cesar H Comin
Dalcimar Casanova
Odemir M Bruno
Diego R Amancio
Luciano da F Costa
Francisco A Rodrigues
author_sort Mayra Z Rodriguez
title Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.
title_short Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.
title_full Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.
title_fullStr Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.
title_full_unstemmed Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach.
title_sort clustering algorithms: a comparative approach.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Many real-world systems can be studied in terms of pattern recognition tasks, so that proper use (and understanding) of machine learning methods in practical applications becomes essential. While many classification methods have been proposed, there is no consensus on which methods are more suitable for a given dataset. As a consequence, it is important to comprehensively compare methods in many possible scenarios. In this context, we performed a systematic comparison of 9 well-known clustering methods available in the R language assuming normally distributed data. In order to account for the many possible variations of data, we considered artificial datasets with several tunable properties (number of classes, separation between classes, etc). In addition, we also evaluated the sensitivity of the clustering methods with regard to their parameters configuration. The results revealed that, when considering the default configurations of the adopted methods, the spectral approach tended to present particularly good performance. We also found that the default configuration of the adopted implementations was not always accurate. In these cases, a simple approach based on random selection of parameters values proved to be a good alternative to improve the performance. All in all, the reported approach provides subsidies guiding the choice of clustering algorithms.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210236
work_keys_str_mv AT mayrazrodriguez clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
AT cesarhcomin clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
AT dalcimarcasanova clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
AT odemirmbruno clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
AT diegoramancio clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
AT lucianodafcosta clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
AT franciscoarodrigues clusteringalgorithmsacomparativeapproach
_version_ 1714819518079959040