4
$\begingroup$

I want to use k-means to cluster my data. I have broken one column into 4 dummy variables and I have normalized all of the data to mean=0 and sd=1. Will k-means work with these dummy variables?

I have run the k-means in R and the results look pretty good, but are much more dependent on the value of these dummy variables than the rest of the data. My 'between_SS / total_ss' = 58%

Data Sample:

num_months, sales, dummy_a, dummy_b, dummy_c, dummy_d
10, 102.33, 1, 0, 0, 0
5.7, 57.5, 0, 0, 0, 1
21.3, 152.88, 0, 1, 0, 0

Code:

library("ggplot2")
library("scatterplot3d")

mydata <- read.csv("data.csv", stringsAsFactors = FALSE) 
data <- scale(data)

km <- kmeans(data, 4)     #Break into 4 clusters

##...combine the dummy variables into 1 field so I can use it as the 3rd dimension to graph it

results$color[results$cluster1==1] <- "red"
results$color[results$cluster2==1] <- "blue"
results$color[results$cluster3==1] <- "green"
results$color[results$cluster4==1] <- "orange"
with(results, {
    s3d <- scatterplot3d(num_months, sales, dummy_combined,       
                  color=color, pch=19)       
     s3d.coords <- s3d$xyz.convert(num_months, sales, dummy_combined)
})

edit: Here is some code for my comment below. It uses kmeans to cluster 3-dimensional data, 2 of which are binary data. It looks like it does a fine job clustering.

seed(2015)
v1 <- c(runif(500, min = -10, -5), runif(500, min = 5, 10))
v2 <- round(runif(1000, min=0, max=1))
v3 <- round(runif(1000, min=0, max=1))
v1 <- scale(v1)
v2 <- scale(v2)
v3 <- scale(v3)

mat <- matrix(c(v1,v2),nrow=length(v1))

k <- kmeans(mat,4)

plot3d(v1, v2, v3,  size=7, col = k$cluster)

enter image description here

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
9
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It looks inappropiate, almost absurd to apply k-means clustering directly to the qualitative data - be they original nominal or dummy-recoded categories. Normalizing the dummies doesn't help it. Even with non-dummy binary variables k-means will be very much questionnable, because it is an issue what meaning the mean of a binary variable might have (see e.g. 1, 2). $\endgroup$
    – ttnphns
    Sep 28, 2015 at 16:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ K-means assumes continuous, numeric variables. Only this scale can have a real mean, a mean as a substantive value on the scale. Binary variables do not have such substantive mean, their "mean" has the meaning of proportion of cases falling into this or that category. Although, with a frawn or fear of critics, one might venture to do k-means on purely binary data, he would not do it on a mixture of continuous and binary data - because the two above meanings of the "mean" are incompatible. $\endgroup$
    – ttnphns
    Sep 29, 2015 at 14:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In regards to your code. I'd be better if you show the results (pictures). Not everybody is R user here. $\endgroup$
    – ttnphns
    Sep 29, 2015 at 14:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What about first using some form of multidimensional scaling (maybe multiple cotrrespondence analysis) and only then using $k$-means in the reconstructed representation space? I will try to add an example of this when I have time! $\endgroup$
    – kjetil b halvorsen ♦
    Sep 29, 2015 at 18:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @kjetil, sure, this is one of fine ways (but prone with losing much information, especially given that MDS, generally, better reconstructs large, between-cluster distances than small, within-cluster ones). But clustering can be effectively done on nominal/dummy data, using specialized similarities such as Dice and then hierarchical or DB methods; and it is unclear to me why the OP seems to stick to k-means. $\endgroup$
    – ttnphns
    Sep 29, 2015 at 18:50

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.