Learning Order Forest for Qualitative-Attribute Data Clustering
Authors: Mingjie Zhao, Sen Feng, Yiqun Zhang, Mengke Li, Yang Lu, Yiu-ming Cheung
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China · Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China · Guangdong Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy (SZ), Shenzhen, China · School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · Fujian Key Laboratory of Sensing and Computing for Smart City, School of Informatics, Xiamen University, China · Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, Xiamen University, China
Clustering is a fundamental approach to understanding data patterns, wherein the intuitive Euclidean distance space is commonly adopted. However, this is not the case for implicit cluster distributions reflected by qualitative attribute values, e.g., the nominal values of attributes like symptoms, marital status, etc. This paper, therefore, discovered a tree-like distance structure to flexibly represent the local order relationship among intra-attribute qualitative values. That is, treating a value as the vertex of the tree allows to capture rich order relationships among the vertex value and the others. To obtain the trees in a clustering-friendly form, a joint learning mechanism is proposed to iteratively obtain more appropriate tree structures and clusters. It turns out that the latent distance space of the whole dataset can be well-represented by a forest consisting of the learned trees. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the joint learning adapts the forest to the clustering task to yield accurate results. Comparisons of 10 counterparts on 12 real benchmark datasets with significance tests verify the superiority of the proposed method.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An intuitive comparison of clustering performance by adopting different types of distance structures. (a) and (b) demonstrate the typical line graph and fully connected graph. (c) demonstrates the k -modes [ 16 ] clustering performance with the following distance structures: 1) Randomly Generated Graphs (RGGs, not necessarily fully connected but ensure all attribute values are connected), 2) Fully Connected Graphs (FCGs), 3) Randomly Generated Line Graphs (RGLGs), and 4) Semantic Line Graphs (SLGs, arrange possible values in the graph according to their semantic order). The RGGs and RGLGs involving randomization are implemented 50 times, and the clustering accuracy is sorted for better visualization.
Figure 2: Process of order tree construction. (a) A fully connected graph Gr is prepared with a distance matrix reflecting the edge weights. (b) Prim or Kruskal algorithm is implemented to generate an order tree with a unique order trace between each pair of nodes, which is defined in Definition 1 .
No.
Counterpart
Year
Type
1
KMD [ 16 ]
1998
Separate
2
LSM [ 27 ]
1998
Separate
3
JDM [ 19 ]
2016
Separate
4
CBDM [ 17 ]
2012
Separate
5
OCIL [ 9 ]
2013
Joint
6
UDMC [ 36 ]
2022
Separate
Table 1: Information of the 10 counterparts. “Type” indicates whether a method separates or jointly learns the distance definition and clustering.
No.
Dataset
Abbrev.
l
n
k∗
1
Hayes-Roth
HR
4
132
3
2
Car Evaluation
CE
6
1728
4
3
Australia Credit
AC
8
690
2
4
Congressional Voting
VT
16
435
2
5
Caesarian Section
CS
4
80
2
6
Soybean (small)
SB
35
47
4
Table 2: Statistics of the 12 datasets. l and n are the numbers of attributes and samples, respectively. k∗ is the true number of clusters.
Data
KMD
LSM
JDM
CBDM
OCIL
UDMC
DLC
H2H
HDC
ADC
COForest (ours)
HR
0.3795 ± 0.02
0.3826 ± 0.03
0.3841 ± 0.03
0.4083 ± 0.06
0.3621 ± 0.05
0.3886 ± 0.01
0.3659 ± 0.03
0.3333 ± 0.00
0.3758 ± 0.02
0.3970 ± 0.05
0.4530 ± 0.07
CE
0.3730 ± 0.04
0.3587 ± 0.04
0.3597 ± 0.04
-
0.3659 ± 0.05
0.3505 ± 0.03
0.3746 ± 0.04
0.3354 ± 0.06
0.3730 ± 0.04
0.3730 ± 0.04
0.4261 ± 0.06
AC
0.7494 ± 0.05
0.7823 ± 0.04
0.6858 ± 0.12
0.7417 ± 0.08
0.7781 ± 0.10
0.7674 ± 0.08
0.7499 ± 0.14
0.7942 ± 0.00
0.7484 ± 0.09
0.7709 ± 0.09
0.8307 ± 0.05
VT
0.8621 ± 0.01
0.8662 ± 0.00
0.8662 ± 0.00
0.8749 ± 0.00
0.8763 ± 0.00
0.8639 ± 0.00
0.8540 ± 0.08
0.8736 ± 0.00
0.8736 ± 0.00
0.8713 ± 0.00
0.8761 ± 0.00
CS
0.5475 ± 0.02
0.5425 ± 0.05
0.5475 ± 0.05
0.5787 ± 0.03
0.5037 ± 0.18
0.5788 ± 0.03
0.6013 ± 0.04
0.6050 ± 0.02
0.5862 ± 0.03
0.5875 ± 0.02
0.6450 ± 0.02
SB
0.8191 ± 0.18
0.8553 ± 0.19
0.7830 ± 0.16
0.8213 ± 0.15
0.7936 ± 0.33
0.8426 ± 0.17
0.8723 ± 0.17
0.9511 ± 0.10
0.8128 ± 0.13
0.8191 ± 0.16
0.9723 ± 0.09
Table 3: Clustering performance evaluated by CA. “ AR ” row reports the average performance rankings.
Data
KMD
LSM
JDM
CBDM
OCIL
UDMC
DLC
H2H
HDC
ADC
COForest (ours)
HR
-0.0064 ± 0.01
-0.0051 ± 0.01
-0.0048 ± 0.01
0.0127 ± 0.03
-0.0073 ± 0.02
-0.0037 ± 0.00
-0.0068 ± 0.01
-0.0149 ± 0.00
-0.0056 ± 0.01
0.0043 ± 0.03
0.0429 ± 0.04
CE
0.0229 ± 0.03
0.0314 ± 0.02
0.0321 ± 0.02
-
0.0501 ± 0.06
0.0289 ± 0.02
0.0676 ± 0.03
0.0140 ± 0.03
0.0229 ± 0.03
0.0229 ± 0.03
0.1016 ± 0.07
AC
0.2575 ± 0.10
0.3228 ± 0.07
0.1892 ± 0.17
0.2569 ± 0.11
0.3421 ± 0.15
0.3107 ± 0.11
0.3178 ± 0.22
0.3453 ± 0.00
0.2714 ± 0.12
0.3225 ± 0.12
0.4462 ± 0.12
VT
0.5233 ± 0.02
0.5354 ± 0.01
0.5354 ± 0.01
0.5613 ± 0.01
0.5655 ± 0.01
0.5287 ± 0.01
0.5208 ± 0.18
0.5572 ± 0.00
0.5572 ± 0.00
0.5503 ± 0.00
0.5647 ± 0.00
CS
-0.0033 ± 0.01
0.0017 ± 0.03
0.0038 ± 0.03
0.0137 ± 0.01
0.0070 ± 0.03
0.0140 ± 0.02
0.0342 ± 0.03
0.0319 ± 0.02
0.0191 ± 0.02
0.0190 ± 0.01
0.0732 ± 0.02
SB
0.7657 ± 0.20
0.8164 ± 0.24
0.6826 ± 0.22
0.7652 ± 0.21
0.7902 ± 0.33
0.8232 ± 0.19
0.8500 ± 0.20
0.9271 ± 0.16
0.7595 ± 0.18
0.7863 ± 0.19
0.9562 ± 0.14
Table 4: Clustering performance evaluated by ARI. “ AR ” row reports the average performance rankings.
Figure 3: CA performance of different ablated COForest versions.
Figure 4: Convergence curves of COForest on different datasets. L represents the value of the objective function.
The success of categorical data clustering generally much relies on the distance metric that measures the dissimilarity degree between two objects. However, most of the existing clustering methods treat the two categorical subtypes, i.e. nominal and ordinal attributes, in the same way when calculating the dissimilarity without considering the relative order information of the ordinal values. Moreover, there would exist interdependence among the nominal and ordinal attributes, which is worth exploring for indicating the dissimilarity. This paper will therefore study the intrinsic difference and connection of nominal and ordinal attribute values from a perspective akin to the graph. Accordingly, we propose a novel distance metric to measure the intra-attribute distances of nominal and ordinal attributes in a unified way, meanwhile preserving the order relationship among ordinal values. Subsequently, we propose a new clustering algorithm to make the learning of intra-attribute distance weights and partitions of data objects into a single learning paradigm rather than two separate steps, whereby circumventing a suboptimal solution. Experiments show the efficacy of the proposed algorithm in comparison with the existing counterparts.
Datasets composed of numerical and categorical attributes (also called mixed data hereinafter) are common in real clustering tasks. Differing from numerical attributes that indicate tendencies between two concepts (e.g., high and low temperature) with their values in well-defined Euclidean distance space, categorical attribute values are different concepts (e.g., different occupations) embedded in an implicit space. Simultaneously exploiting these two very different types of information is an unavoidable but challenging problem, and most advanced attempts either encode the heterogeneous numerical and categorical attributes into one type, or define a unified metric for them for mixed data clustering, leaving their inherent connection unrevealed. This paper, therefore, studies the connection among any-type of attributes and proposes a novel Heterogeneous Attribute Reconstruction and Representation (HARR) learning paradigm accordingly for cluster analysis. The paradigm transforms heterogeneous attributes into a homogeneous status for distance metric learning, and integrates the learning with clustering to automatically adapt the metric to different clustering tasks. Differing from most existing works that directly adopt defined distance metrics or learn attribute weights to search clusters in a subspace. We propose to project the values of each attribute into unified learnable multiple spaces to more finely represent and learn the distance metric for categorical data. HARR is parameter-free, convergence-guaranteed, and can more effectively self-adapt to different sought number of clusters k. Extensive experiments illustrate its superiority in terms of accuracy and efficiency.
Yiqun Zhang, Mingjie Zhao, Yizhou Chen +2
School of Computer Science and Technology, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong, China · Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361102, Fujian, China · Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China
We introduce Lumbermark, a robust divisive clustering algorithm capable of detecting clusters of varying sizes, densities, and shapes. Lumbermark iteratively chops off large limbs connected by protruding segments of a dataset's mutual reachability minimum spanning tree. The use of mutual reachability distances smoothens the data distribution and decreases the influence of low-density objects, such as noise points between clusters or outliers at their peripheries. The algorithm can be viewed as an alternative to HDBSCAN that produces partitions with user-specified sizes. A fast, easy-to-use implementation of the new method is available in the open-source 'lumbermark' package for Python and R. We show that Lumbermark performs well on benchmark data and hope it will prove useful to data scientists and practitioners across different fields.
Marek Gagolewski
Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, ul. Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland · Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland