New ToolsNew Toolsfor Evaluating the Resultsfor Evaluating the Results
of Cluster Analysesof Cluster Analyses
Hilde SchaeperHilde SchaeperHigher Education Information System (HIS), Hannover/GermanyHigher Education Information System (HIS), Hannover/Germany
[email protected]@his.de
Fourth German Stata Users Group Meeting
Mannheim, March 31st, 2006
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 2
Main features of cluster analysis
Basic idea to form groups of similar objects (observations or variables) such that the classification objects are homogeneous within groups/clusters and heterogeneous between clusters
Type of analysis heuristic tool of discovery lacking an underlying coherent body of statistical theory
Range of methods cluster analysis is a family of more or less closely related techniques
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 3
Steps and decisions in cluster analysis
I Selection of a sample (outliers may influence the results)
II Selection and transformation of variables (irrelevant and correlated variables can bias the classification; cluster analysis requires the variables to have equal scales)
III Choice of the basic approach (in particular: agglomerative hierarchical vs. partitioning cluster analysis)
V Selection of a dissimilarity or similarity measure (depends partly on the mea-surement level of the variables and the clustering technique chosen)
IV Choice of a particular clustering technique
VI Choice of the initial partition in case of partition methods
VII Evaluation and validation (number of clusters, interpretation, stability, validity)
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 4
Criteria for a good classification
Internal validity (internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity)
Objects that belong to the same cluster should be similar.
Objects of different clusters should be different. The clusters should be well isolated from each other.
The classification should fit to the data and should be able to explain the variation in the data.
Interpretability
Clusters should be substantively interpretable.
Stability
Small modifications in data and methods should not change the results.
Reasonable number and size of clusters (additional)
The number of clusters should be as small as possible. The size of the clusters should not be too small.
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 5
Criteria for a good classification (cont.)
Relative validity
The classification should be better than the null model which assumes that no clusters are present.
The classification should be better than other classifications.
External validity
Clusters should correlate with external variables that are known to be correlated with the classification and that are not used for clustering.
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 6
Tools for decision making and evaluation
Tools for determining the number of clusters
( Tools for assessing the internal validity of a classification)
Tools for testing the stability of a classification
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 7
Determining the number of clusters: hierarchical methods
(Visual) inspection of the fusion/agglomeration levels
dendrogram (official Stata program)
scree diagram (easy to produce)
agglomeration schedule (new program)
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 8
Determining the number of clusters: agglomeration schedule
cluster stop [clname], rule(schedule) [laststeps(#)]
Syntax
Descriptioncluster stop, rule(schedule) displays the agglomeration schedule for hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis und computes the differences between the stages of the clustering process.
Additional optionslaststeps(#) specifies the number of steps to be displayed.
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 9
Determining the number of clusters: agglomeration schedule
Example: Cluster analysis of 799 observations, using Ward’s linkage and squared Euclidean distances
cluster stop ward, rule(schedule) last(15) Number FusionStage clusters value Increase-------------------------------------------------- 798 1 1529,7205 834,5939 797 2 695,1265 15,2987 796 3 679,8278 414,1430 795 4 265,6848 60,3970 794 5 205,2878 32,0320 793 6 173,2559 12,1593 792 7 161,0966 22,5605 791 8 138,5361 29,6152 790 9 108,9209 3,4233 789 10 105,4976 14,2701 788 11 91,2275 6,7869 787 12 84,4405 2,2950 786 13 82,1455 1,5409 785 14 80,6046 14,8871 784 15 65,7175 3,2681
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 10
Determining the number of clusters: dendrogram
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 11
Determining the number of clusters: hierarchical methods
(Visual) inspection of the fusion/agglomeration levels
dendrogram (official Stata program)
scree diagram (easy to produce)
agglomeration schedule (new program)
Statistical measures/tests for the number of clusters
Duda’s and Hart’s stopping rule/Caliński’s and Harabasz’s stopping rule (official Stata program)
Mojena’s stopping rules (new program)
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 12
Determining the number of clusters: Stata’s stopping rules
+---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 2 | 277,39 || 3 | 239,32 || 4 | 254,86 || 5 | 228,46 || 6 | 210,01 || 7 | 197,16 || 8 | 189,27 || 9 | 183,03 || 10 | 176,34 || 11 | 171,95 || 12 | 167,85 || 13 | 164,64 || 14 | 162,64 || 15 | 161,78 |+---------------------------+
The Caliński and Harabasz index +--------------------------------------+| Number | Duda/Hart || of | | pseudo || clusters | Je(2)/Je(1) | T-squared ||----------+-------------+-------------|| 1 | 0,7418 | 277,39 || 2 | 0,7094 | 192,14 || 3 | 0,6606 | 167,46 || 4 | 0,6393 | 91,42 || 5 | 0,7744 | 76,93 || 6 | 0,7798 | 57,31 || 7 | 0,7183 | 72,95 || 8 | 0,7640 | 50,05 || 9 | 0,5660 | 81,29 || 10 | 0,7380 | 42,61 || 11 | 0,5678 | 61,64 || 12 | 0,7669 | 42,26 || 13 | 0,6579 | 41,09 || 14 | 0,7274 | 36,73 || 15 | 0,5697 | 46,82 |+--------------------------------------+
The Duda and Hart index
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 13
Determining the number of clusters: Mojena’s stopping rules
Model I
assumes that the agglomeration levels are normally distributed with a particular mean and standard deviation
tests at level k whether level k+1 comes from the aforementioned distribution
suggests the choice of the k-cluster solution when the null hypothesis has to be reject-ed for the first time (i. e. when a sharp increase/decrease of the fusion levels occurs)
Model I modified
assumes that the agglomeration levels up to level k are normally distributed
Model II
assumes that the agglomeration levels up to step k can be described by a linear re-gression line
tests at level k whether the fusion value of level k+1 equals the predicted value
suggests to set the number of clusters equal to k when the null hypothesis has to be rejected for the first time
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 14
Determining the number of clusters: Mojena’s stopping rules
cluster stop [clname], rule(mojena) [laststeps(#) m1only]
Syntax
Descriptioncluster stop, rule(mojena) calculates Mojena’s test statistics (Mojena I, Mojena I modified, and Mojena II) for determining the number of clusters of hierarchical agglomerative clustering methods and the corresponding signifi-cance levels.
Additional optionslaststeps(#) specifies the number of steps to be displayed.
m1only is used to suppress the calculation of Mojena I modified and Mojena II.
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 15
Determining the number of clusters: Mojena’s stopping rules
No. of Mojena I Mojena I mod. Mojena IIStage clusters t p t p t p------------------------------------------------------------------------- 798 1 . . . . . . 797 2 22,9003 0,0000 39,2306 0,0000 38,8261 0,0000 796 3 10,3453 0,0000 22,8581 0,0000 22,4229 0,0000 795 4 10,1152 0,0000 36,7300 0,0000 36,1526 0,0000 794 5 3,8851 0,0001 16,4988 0,0000 15,8908 0,0000 793 6 2,9765 0,0015 14,2385 0,0000 13,6099 0,0000 792 7 2,4946 0,0064 13,2516 0,0000 12,6058 0,0000 791 8 2,3117 0,0105 13,6952 0,0000 13,0275 0,0000 790 9 1,9723 0,0245 12,9355 0,0000 12,2483 0,0000 789 10 1,5268 0,0636 10,8525 0,0000 10,1556 0,0000 788 11 1,4753 0,0703 11,3345 0,0000 10,6247 0,0000 787 12 1,2607 0,1039 10,4254 0,0000 9,7065 0,0000 786 13 1,1586 0,1235 10,2615 0,0000 9,5338 0,0000 785 14 1,1240 0,1307 10,6825 0,0000 9,9431 0,0000 784 15 1,1009 0,1356 11,3061 0,0000 10,5505 0,0000
cluster stop ward, rule(mojena) last(15)
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 16
Determining the number of clusters: partitioning methods
Explained variance (Eta2): specifies to which extent a particular solution improves the solution with one cluster
Proportional reduction of errors (PRE): compares a k-cluster solution with the previous (k–1) solution
F-max statistic: corrects for the fact that more clusters automatically result in a higher explained variance
Beale’s F statistic: tests the null hypothesis that a solution with k clusters is not improved by a solution with more clusters (conservative test, provides only convincing results if the clusters are well separated)
new program
Measures using the error sum of squares
Caliński’s and Harabasz’s stopping rule official Stata program
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 17
Determining the number of clusters: Stata’s stopping rule
Example: Cluster analysis of 799 observations, using the kmeans partition method and squared Euclidean distances
+---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 3 | 322,13 |+---------------------------++---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 4 | 274,31 |+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 7 | 228,73 |+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 6 | 252,44 |+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 5 | 279,87 |+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+| | Calinski/ || Number of | Harabasz || clusters | pseudo-F ||-------------+-------------|| 8 | 210,20 |+---------------------------+
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 18
Determining the number of clusters: Eta2, PRE, F-max, Beale’s F
clnumber varlist, maxclus(#)[kmeans_options]
Syntax
Optionsmaxclus(#) is required and specifies the maximum number of clusters for which
cluster analyses are performed. maxclus(4), for example, requests cluster analyses for two, three, and four clusters.
kmeans_options specifiy options allowed with kmeans cluster analysis except for k(#) and start(group(varname)).
Descriptionclnumber performs kmeans cluster analyses with the variables specified in var-list and computes Eta2, the PRE coefficient, the F-max statistic, Beale’s F va-lues and the corresponding p-values.
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 19
Determining the number of clusters: Eta2, PRE, F-max, Beale’s F
clnumber v1–v7, max(8) start(prandom(154698))
Eta square, PRE coefficient, F-max value A[8,3] Eta2 Pre F-maxcl_1 0 . .cl_2 ,27878797 ,27878797 308,08417cl_3 ,44732155 ,23368104 322,12939cl_4 ,50863156 ,11093251 274,31017cl_5 ,58504803 ,15551767 279,86862cl_6 ,61414929 ,07013162 252,4398cl_7 ,63407795 ,05164863 228,73256cl_8 ,65036945 ,04452178 210,1983
First part of the output
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 20
Determining the number of clusters: Eta2, PRE, F-max, Beale’s F
Second part of the outputUpper triangle: Beale‘s F statistic; lower triangle: probability B[8,8] c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7r1 0 1,7527399 2,1746911 2,1056324 2,3824281 2,3440412 2,2895238r2 ,09228984 0 2,454542 2,1062746 2,4264587 2,3137652 2,2097109r3 ,0067297 ,01637451 0 1,4336405 2,0737441 1,9334281 1,8205698r4 ,00225687 ,00910208 ,18682639 0 2,7415018 2,1763191 1,9278474r5 ,00005713 ,00028111 ,01048918 ,00768272 0 1,3762712 1,2922468r6 ,00001341 ,00010317 ,00641878 ,00668153 ,21053567 0 1,1750857r7 4,554e-06 ,00005409 ,00517453 ,00663361 ,20309237 ,3133238 0r8 1,600e-06 ,00002861 ,00408524 ,00598863 ,18868905 ,28969417 ,32290457 c8r1 2,2479901r2 2,1372527r3 1,7502537r4 1,8003233r5 1,261865r6 1,1717306r7 1,1590454r8 0
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 21
Determining the number of clusters: Eta2, PRE, F-max, Beale’s F
Second part of the outputUpper triangle: Beale‘s F statistic; lower triangle: probability B[8,8] c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7r1 0 1,7527399 2,1746911 2,1056324 2,3824281 2,3440412 2,2895238r2 ,09228984 0 2,454542 2,1062746 2,4264587 2,3137652 2,2097109r3 ,0067297 ,01637451 0 1,4336405 2,0737441 1,9334281 1,8205698r4 ,00225687 ,00910208 ,18682639 0 2,7415018 2,1763191 1,9278474r5 ,00005713 ,00028111 ,01048918 ,00768272 0 1,3762712 1,2922468r6 ,00001341 ,00010317 ,00641878 ,00668153 ,21053567 0 1,1750857r7 4,554e-06 ,00005409 ,00517453 ,00663361 ,20309237 ,3133238 0r8 1,600e-06 ,00002861 ,00408524 ,00598863 ,18868905 ,28969417 ,32290457 c8r1 2,2479901r2 2,1372527r3 1,7502537r4 1,8003233r5 1,261865r6 1,1717306r7 1,1590454r8 0
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 22
Testing the stability of a classification
is a precondition of validity
refers to the property of a cluster solution that it is not affected by small modi-fications of data and methods
Stability
can be measured by comparing two classifications and computing the propor-tion of consistent allocations
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 23
Testing the stability of a classification: the Rand index
Original Rand index (Rand 1971)
ranges between 0 and 1 with 1 = perfect agreement
values greater than 0.7 are considered as sufficient
Adjusted Rand index (Hubert & Arabie 1985)
accounts for chance agreement
offers a solution for the problem that the expected value of the Rand index does not take a constant value
maximum value of 1; expected value of zero, if the classifications are select-ed randomly
usually yields much smaller values than the Rand index
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 24
Testing the stability of a classification: the Rand index
Syntax
Descriptionclrand compares two classifications with respect to the (in)consistency of as-signments of the classification objects to clusters and computes the Rand index and the adjusted Rand index proposed by Hubert & Arabie. The command re-quires the specification of two grouping variables obtained from previous cluster analyses.
clrand groupvar1 groupvar2
Output clrand groupvar1 groupvar2
Comparison of two classificationsGrouping variables: "groupvar1" and "groupvar2“
Rand index: 0,9695Adjusted Rand index (Hubert & Arabie): 0,9320
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 25
Testing the stability of a classification: the Rand index
Comparisons of the 3-cluster solutions using different start options (adj. Rand)
Start option Start option prandom krandom firstk lastk random everykth
krandom 0.9320
firstk 0.4234 0.3888
lastk 0.4234 0.3888 1.0000
random 0.9320 1.0000 0.3888 0.3888
everykth 0.9320 1.0000 0.3888 0.3888 1.0000
segment 0.9895 0.9222 0.4290 0.4290 0.9222 0.9222
average adjusted
Rand index: 0,6948
Comparisons of the 5-cluster solutions using different start options (adj. Rand)Start option
Start option prandom krandom firstk lastk random everykth
krandom 0.7160
firstk 0.9815 0.7064
lastk 0.9442 0.7182 0.9266
random 0.7056 0.7896 0.7108 0.6896
everykth 0.8606 0.7788 0.8445 0.8347 0.7540
segment 0.9164 0.7534 0.9000 0.9483 0.6962 0.8800
average adjusted
Rand index: 0,8122
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 26
Outlook
speeding up the program for calculating Mojena’s stopping rules
improvement of clnumber
improvement of clrand
new program for checking whether a local minimum is found with kmeans or kmedians cluster analysis
new programs for calculating additional statistics (e. g. homogeneity mea-sures, measures for the fit of a dendrogram)
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 27
Basic idea: examples
Finding groups of observations Finding groups of variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
var 1
var 2
var 3
var 4
var 5
var 6
cases
vari-able 2
variable 1
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 28
Consequences of decision making: example
Starting centres: means of four randomly selected partitions
Starting centres obtained from the „quick clustering algorithm“ (SPSS) Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Total
Cluster 1 1,144 137 9 434 1,724
Cluster 2 2 1,629 296 6 1,933
Cluster 3 1 5 757 827 1,590
Cluster 4 848 142 198 88 1,276
Total 1,995 1,913 1,260 1,355 6,523
Comparison of two kmeans cluster analysesusing different initial group centres
New Tools for Evaluating the Results of Cluster Analyses 29
Determining the number of clusters: inverse scree test