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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |