BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Christian Hennig

Christian Hennig appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
MethodologyApplicationsstat.OTMachine Learning

Catalog footprint

What is connected

12works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

12 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Clustering of football players based on performance data and aggregated clustering validity indexes

We analyse football (soccer) player performance data with mixed type variables from the 2014-15 season of eight European major leagues. We cluster these data based on a tailor-made dissimilarity measure. In order to decide between the many available clustering methods and to choose an appropriate number of clusters, we use the approach by Akhanli and Hennig (2020). This is based on several validation criteria that refer to different desirable characteristics of a clustering. These characteristics are chosen based on the aim of clustering, and this allows to define a suitable validation index as weighted average of calibrated individual indexes measuring the desirable features. We derive two different clusterings. The first one is a partition of the data set into major groups of essentially different players, which can be used for the analysis of a team's composition. The second one divides the data set into many small clusters (with 10 players on average), which can be used for finding players with a very similar profile to a given player. It is discussed in depth what characteristics are desirable for these clusterings. Weighting the criteria for the second clustering is informed by a survey of football experts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Validation of cluster analysis results on validation data: A systematic framework

Cluster analysis refers to a wide range of data analytic techniques for class discovery and is popular in many application fields. To judge the quality of a clustering result, different cluster validation procedures have been proposed in the literature. While there is extensive work on classical validation techniques, such as internal and external validation, less attention has been given to validating and replicating a clustering result using a validation dataset. Such a dataset may be part of the original dataset, which is separated before analysis begins, or it could be an independently collected dataset. We present a systematic structured framework for validating clustering results on validation data that includes most existing validation approaches. In particular, we review classical validation techniques such as internal and external validation, stability analysis, hypothesis testing, and visual validation, and show how they can be interpreted in terms of our framework. We precisely define and formalise different types of validation of clustering results on a validation dataset and explain how each type can be implemented in practice. Furthermore, we give examples of how clustering studies from the applied literature that used a validation dataset can be classified into the framework.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

An empirical comparison and characterisation of nine popular clustering methods

Nine popular clustering methods are applied to 42 real data sets. The aim is to give a detailed characterisation of the methods by means of several cluster validation indexes that measure various individual aspects of the resulting clusters such as small within-cluster distances, separation of clusters, closeness to a Gaussian distribution etc. as introduced in Hennig (2019). 30 of the data sets come with a "true" clustering. On these data sets the similarity of the clusterings from the nine methods to the "true" clusterings is explored. Furthermore, a mixed effects regression relates the observable individual aspects of the clusters to the similarity with the "true" clusterings, which in real clustering problems is unobservable. The study gives new insight not only into the ability of the methods to discover "true" clusterings, but also into properties of clusterings that can be expected from the methods, which is crucial for the choice of a method in a real situation without a given "true" clustering.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Cluster validation by measurement of clustering characteristics relevant to the user

There are many cluster analysis methods that can produce quite different clusterings on the same dataset. Cluster validation is about the evaluation of the quality of a clustering; "relative cluster validation" is about using such criteria to compare clusterings. This can be used to select one of a set of clusterings from different methods, or from the same method ran with different parameters such as different numbers of clusters. There are many cluster validation indexes in the literature. Most of them attempt to measure the overall quality of a clustering by a single number, but this can be inappropriate. There are various different characteristics of a clustering that can be relevant in practice, depending on the aim of clustering, such as low within-cluster distances and high between-cluster separation. In this paper, a number of validation criteria will be introduced that refer to different desirable characteristics of a clustering, and that characterise a clustering in a multidimensional way. In specific applications the user may be interested in some of these criteria rather than others. A focus of the paper is on methodology to standardise the different characteristics so that users can aggregate them in a suitable way specifying weights for the various criteria that are relevant in the clustering application at hand.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Comparing clusterings and numbers of clusters by aggregation of calibrated clustering validity indexes

A key issue in cluster analysis is the choice of an appropriate clustering method and the determination of the best number of clusters. Different clusterings are optimal on the same data set according to different criteria, and the choice of such criteria depends on the context and aim of clustering. Therefore, researchers need to consider what data analytic characteristics the clusters they are aiming at are supposed to have, among others within-cluster homogeneity, between-clusters separation, and stability. Here, a set of internal clustering validity indexes measuring different aspects of clustering quality is proposed, including some indexes from the literature. Users can choose the indexes that are relevant in the application at hand. In order to measure the overall quality of a clustering (for comparing clusterings from different methods and/or different numbers of clusters), the index values are calibrated for aggregation. Calibration is relative to a set of random clusterings on the same data. Two specific aggregated indexes are proposed and compared with existing indexes on simulated and real data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Minkowski distances and standardisation for clustering and classification of high dimensional data

There are many distance-based methods for classification and clustering, and for data with a high number of dimensions and a lower number of observations, processing distances is computationally advantageous compared to the raw data matrix. Euclidean distances are used as a default for continuous multivariate data, but there are alternatives. Here the so-called Minkowski distances, $L_1$ (city block)-, $L_2$ (Euclidean)-, $L_3$-, $L_4$-, and maximum distances are combined with different schemes of standardisation of the variables before aggregating them. Boxplot transformation is proposed, a new transformation method for a single variable that standardises the majority of observations but brings outliers closer to the main bulk of the data. Distances are compared in simulations for clustering by partitioning around medoids, complete and average linkage, and classification by nearest neighbours, of data with a low number of observations but high dimensionality. The $L_1$-distance and the boxplot transformation show good results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Recovering the number of clusters in data sets with noise features using feature rescaling factors

In this paper we introduce three methods for re-scaling data sets aiming at improving the likelihood of clustering validity indexes to return the true number of spherical Gaussian clusters with additional noise features. Our method obtains feature re-scaling factors taking into account the structure of a given data set and the intuitive idea that different features may have different degrees of relevance at different clusters. We experiment with the Silhouette (using squared Euclidean, Manhattan, and the p$^{th}$ power of the Minkowski distance), Dunn's, Calinski-Harabasz and Hartigan indexes on data sets with spherical Gaussian clusters with and without noise features. We conclude that our methods indeed increase the chances of estimating the true number of clusters in a data set.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Beyond subjective and objective in statistics

We argue that the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity" in statistics discourse are used in a mostly unhelpful way, and we propose to replace each of them with broader collections of attributes, with objectivity replaced by transparency, consensus, impartiality, and correspondence to observable reality, and subjectivity replaced by awareness of multiple perspectives and context dependence. The advantage of these reformulations is that the replacement terms do not oppose each other. Instead of debating over whether a given statistical method is subjective or objective (or normatively debating the relative merits of subjectivity and objectivity in statistical practice), we can recognize desirable attributes such as transparency and acknowledgment of multiple perspectives as complementary goals. We demonstrate the implications of our proposal with recent applied examples from pharmacology, election polling, and socioeconomic stratification.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Clustering strategy and method selection

This paper is a chapter in the forthcoming Handbook of Cluster Analysis, Hennig et al. (2015). For definitions of basic clustering methods and some further methodology, other chapters of the Handbook are referred to. To read this version of the paper without the Handbook, some knowledge of cluster analysis methodology is required. The aim of this chapter is to provide a framework for all the decisions that are required when carrying out a cluster analysis in practice. A general attitude to clustering is outlined, which connects these decisions closely to the clustering aims in a given application. From this point of view, the chapter then discusses aspects of data processing such as the choice of the representation of the objects to be clustered, dissimilarity design, transformation and standardization of variables. Regarding the choice of the clustering method, it is explored how different methods correspond to different clustering aims. Then an overview of benchmarking studies comparing different clustering methods is given, as well as an out- line of theoretical approaches to characterize desiderata for clustering by axioms. Finally, aspects of cluster validation, i.e., the assessment of the quality of a clustering in a given dataset, are discussed, including finding an appropriate number of clusters, testing homogeneity, internal and external cluster validation, assessing clustering stability and data visualization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Flexible parametric bootstrap for testing homogeneity against clustering and assessing the number of clusters

There are two notoriously hard problems in cluster analysis, estimating the number of clusters, and checking whether the population to be clustered is not actually homogeneous. Given a dataset, a clustering method and a cluster validation index, this paper proposes to set up null models that capture structural features of the data that cannot be interpreted as indicating clustering. Artificial datasets are sampled from the null model with parameters estimated from the original dataset. This can be used for testing the null hypothesis of a homogeneous population against a clustering alternative. It can also be used to calibrate the validation index for estimating the number of clusters, by taking into account the expected distribution of the index under the null model for any given number of clusters. The approach is illustrated by three examples, involving various different clustering techniques (partitioning around medoids, hierarchical methods, a Gaussian mixture model), validation indexes (average silhouette width, prediction strength and BIC), and issues such as mixed type data, temporal and spatial autocorrelation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

What are the true clusters?

Constructivist philosophy and Hasok Chang's active scientific realism are used to argue that the idea of "truth" in cluster analysis depends on the context and the clustering aims. Different characteristics of clusterings are required in different situations. Researchers should be explicit about on what requirements and what idea of "true clusters" their research is based, because clustering becomes scientific not through uniqueness but through transparent and open communication. The idea of "natural kinds" is a human construct, but it highlights the human experience that the reality outside the observer's control seems to make certain distinctions between categories inevitable. Various desirable characteristics of clusterings and various approaches to define a context-dependent truth are listed, and I discuss what impact these ideas can have on the comparison of clustering methods, and the choice of a clustering methods and related decisions in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Quantile-based classifiers

Quantile classifiers for potentially high-dimensional data are defined by classifying an observation according to a sum of appropriately weighted component-wise distances of the components of the observation to the within-class quantiles. An optimal percentage for the quantiles can be chosen by minimizing the misclassification error in the training sample. It is shown that this is consistent, for $n \to \infty$, for the classification rule with asymptotically optimal quantile, and that, under some assumptions, for $p\to\infty$ the probability of correct classification converges to one. The role of skewness of the involved variables is discussed, which leads to an improved classifier. The optimal quantile classifier performs very well in a comprehensive simulation study and a real data set from chemistry (classification of bioaerosols) compared to nine other classifiers, including the support vector machine and the recently proposed median-based classifier (Hall et al., 2009), which inspired the quantile classifier.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access