Skip to main content
20 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 20, 2016 at 13:53 history post merged (destination)
Oct 20, 2016 at 12:40 comment added tripleee For a somewhat more intelligent approach, maybe use several clustering methods and collect the outliers which are not accepted into a cluster by any of those methods.
Oct 20, 2016 at 12:39 comment added tripleee The inverse of clustering is identifying outliers. You collect the samples which do not fall into a cluster by any criteria into a separate group. Calling this group a "cluster" is misleading but this seems to be what you are asking.
S Oct 18, 2016 at 13:15 history suggested Manuel CC BY-SA 3.0
Progress datails
Oct 18, 2016 at 12:56 comment added EngrStudent @Manuel - the k-means is a blunt instrument. It assumes the variance of the various clusters are uniform - the real world doesn't actually do that. "All models are wrong ..." but some are more wrong than others and they have to be evaluated before they inform next steps. A gaussian mixture model (GMM) is a decent higher-tech check for your k-means. If the minimum AICc happens at the same cluster count AND if the variances of the GMM components are all very close to each other, then you might go forward with k-means. Otherwise, don't be married to 9 clusters.
Oct 18, 2016 at 12:52 review Suggested edits
S Oct 18, 2016 at 13:15
Oct 16, 2016 at 20:17 comment added Pere @Manuel: I don't have references, but I made an example.
Oct 16, 2016 at 20:16 answer added Pere timeline score: 1
S Oct 14, 2016 at 0:11 history edited gung - Reinstate Monica CC BY-SA 3.0
Provide more details
S Oct 14, 2016 at 0:11 history suggested Manuel CC BY-SA 3.0
Provide more details
Oct 14, 2016 at 0:08 comment added gung - Reinstate Monica Please register &/or merge your accounts (you can find information on how to do this in the My Account section of our help center), then you will be able to edit & comment on your own question.
Oct 13, 2016 at 23:56 comment added GeoMatt22 The description is reminiscent of graph cliques vs. independent sets. So the suggestion of @Pere is similar to "inverting the weights" to form a complement graph. Perhaps a similarity based approach would be better than a distance based approach? (e.g. something like this?)
Oct 13, 2016 at 23:56 review Suggested edits
S Oct 14, 2016 at 0:11
Oct 13, 2016 at 23:46 comment added Danica Are you really trying to find a single, diverse group? Do you want as many diverse groups as possible?
Oct 13, 2016 at 23:36 comment added Manuel Thank you for your suggestion. To be honest I only know how to perform the inverse of functions! Can you please provide how I can perform in my correlation matrix? or indicate a reference/toolbox?
Oct 13, 2016 at 19:01 review First posts
Oct 13, 2016 at 19:25
Oct 13, 2016 at 18:53 comment added Pere You just need to define a "distance" that is inverse of usual distance. It won't fit the definition of distance in algebra or topology but for most clustering methods that shouldn't be a problem. Anyway, I would expect rather strange groups and some instability among groups.
Oct 13, 2016 at 18:53 comment added whuber Because this is such an unusual request, could you please provide more specifics about what this grouping is intended to achieve? It will come down to this question (abstractly): given two candidate groupings, exactly how would you decide which one is a better solution than the other?
Oct 13, 2016 at 18:49 history asked Manuel CC BY-SA 3.0
Oct 13, 2016 at 18:00 comment added agenis well, you said it yourself, you want to perform the "inverse", so you can try to take the inverse (algebric) of your correlation matrix