3
$\begingroup$

I'm studying customer requirements clustering. Each customer's requirements are collected as a set of application features. I'd like to cluster those set of features, so that I can know what are the typical customer requirement clusters/patterns.

My first naive attempt is to represent each feature's presence by 1 when the feature presences in a feature set, or 0 otherwise. It results in high dimensional binary vectors for those feature sets. I then tried hierarchical cluster analysis. I'm afraid that the results are hard to interpret, as there is not much geometry intuition to explore.

My next attempt would be to categorize the features and represents only features belong in to the same category as a presence binary vector interpreting as coefficient to the polynomial with 2, and use the categories as the coordinates, this will resulting vectors of numbers. I hope that the resulted representation would have lower dimensions, and more geometry to explore, thus resulting more effective clustering.

Please give me pointers of existing good practice, or research on effective representation of features for feature set clustering. Thanks a lot!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I do not think clustering is what you are looking for. These methods assume everything is equally important and often would try to just partition the data one way or another. But do you really need partitions?

Instead, consider this market basket analysis. Every customer "bought" some requirements. Use frequent itemset mining to identify typical requirements and requirement combinations such as "customers that want A also usually want B".

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for giving me the pointers. I'll study further. At my early learning stage of the subject, it sounds that "market basket analysis", and "frequent itemset mining" would suits my needs more. But clustering of the feature sets (itemsets) seems also valid approach, albeit quite preliminary. $\endgroup$
    – Yu Shen
    Commented Apr 30, 2015 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ After reading more on "frequent itemset", I got your point that "frequent itemset" would be a lot more effective in identifying high probability patterns of feature association than blindly do feature set clustering. $\endgroup$
    – Yu Shen
    Commented Apr 30, 2015 at 10:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.