Like this presentation? Why not share!

- Global Asset Security Oil And Gas by Arena International 2136 views
- Algebra of equivalent instances and... by SSA KPI 472 views
- Розвиток тематичного туризму на при... by Viktor Zagreba 339 views
- The Storyteller by marianneep 557 views
- Exwfylla 11 7 2010 by ireportergr 148 views
- Exwfylla 03 8 2010 by ireportergr 198 views

1,675 views

Published on

No Downloads

Total views

1,675

On SlideShare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

80

Shares

0

Downloads

73

Comments

0

Likes

2

No embeds

No notes for slide

- 1. 4th International Summer School Achievements and Applications of Contemporary Informatics, Mathematics and Physics National University of Technology of the Ukraine Kiev, Ukraine, August 5-16, 2009 Clustering Theory Data Mining for Quality Improvement with Nonsmooth Optimization vs. PAM and k-Means Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber * and Başak Akteke-Öztürk Gerhard- Akteke- Institute of Applied Mathematics Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey * Faculty of Economics, Management and Law, University of Siegen, Germany Center for Research on Optimization and Control, University of Aveiro, Portugal
- 2. Outline • Quality Analysis • Data Mining for Quality Analysis • Clustering Methods • Results and Comparison • Decision Tree Analysis of A Cluster • Conclusion
- 3. Quality Analysis • Quality is an essential requirement of – products, – processes, and – services. • This study is a part of a project whose main focus is on quality analysis: relationship between input and output • Modern quality analysis takes advantage of using tools of Data Mining.
- 4. Data Mining for Quality Analysis Data mining tools such as – decision trees (e.g. classification and regression trees (CART)), – neural networks (NN), – self-organizing maps (SOM), – support vector machines (SVM), are highly prefered for modeling and producing rules for the output. Applications of such tools are not enough such that the industry people would prefer and make use of them for quality analysis needs.
- 5. Aim of Our Data Mining Studies • to identify the data mining approaches that can effectively improve product and process quality in industrial organizations: – classification / prediction, – clustering and – association analysis, • to develop new data mining software and improve the existing ones for quality analysis. • Inital study: To identify the most influential variables that cause defects on the items produced by a casting company located in Turkey.
- 6. Our Data Set • Our data set: 92 objects (rows), 35 process variables (columns). • Belongs to a particular product, which has high percentage of defectives collected during the first five months production period of 2006. • Missing values: filled with the averages of the columns
- 7. Clustering - 2 Algorithms (Model Free) choose a randon start partition compute centroids create minimal distance partition end partition minimal distance procedure
- 8. Clustering - 2 Algorithms (Model Free) choose a randon start partition test an object in all clusters update the centroids end partition exchange procedure minimal distance procedure
- 9. Our Clustering • The data set scaled to the interval [0,1] before the clustering analysis: xi − xmin xi = ' . xmax − xmin • We used k-means, PAM (Partitioning Around Medoids) and a modified k-means by Nonsmooth Analysis: • to understand the data set by examining the groups in the data, • to find the outliers of the data set, • our data set was not big. • These methods use Euclidean metric by default.
- 10. About the Methods • PAM is more robust than k-means in the presence of noise and outliers. • PAM minimizes a sum of dissimilarities instead of a sum of squared Euclidean distances. • Medoids are less influenced by the presence of noise and outliers. • A medoid can be defined as that object of a cluster, whose average distance (dissimilarity) to all the objects in the cluster is minimal.
- 11. Nonsmooth Analysis • k-means takes as input: the number of clusters and initial cluster centers. • This problem can be reduced to nonsmooth optimization problem --> initial problem for the a modified k-means. – global optimization techniques, – nonsmooth optimization algorithms and – derivative free optimization for the modified k-means algorithm. • The minimum sum of squares problem --> nonsmooth and nonconvex optimization problem.
- 12. k-Means Results k=2 cluster_1 (70 Object) – cluster_2 (22 Object) 1.113769 cluster_1 (68 Object) – cluster_2 (22 Object) 1.111567 k=3 cluster_1 (68 Object) – cluster_3 (2 Object) 1.593595 cluster_2 (22 Object) – cluster_3 (2 Object) 1.968277 cluster_1 (68 Object) – cluster_2 (6 Object) 1.44533 cluster_1 (68 Object) – cluster_3 (2 Object) 1.593595 cluster_1 (68 Object) – cluster_4 (16 Object) 1.104353 k=4 cluster_2 (6 Object) – cluster_3 (2 Object) 2.197992 cluster_2 (6 Object) – cluster_4 (16 Object) 1.055844 cluster_3 (2 Object) – cluster_4 (16 Object) 1.95292
- 13. k-Means Results • Best result is for k=2. • The proximities of clusters for k=3 and k=4 are higher. • But, the results of k=3 and k=4 are artificial, one of the clusters contain only 2 objects. • These objects are outliers.
- 14. PAM Results 2 clusters cluster_1 (40 Objects) – cluster_2 (52 Objects) 1.2838 cluster_1 (33 Objects) – cluster_2 (34 Objects) 1.2838 3 clusters cluster_1 (33 Objects) – cluster_3 (25 Objects) 1.2729 cluster_2 (34 Objects) – cluster_3 (25 Objects) 1.1242 cluster_1 (20 Objects) – cluster_2 (34 Objects) 1.2838 cluster_1 (20 Objects) – cluster_3 (25 Objects) 1.2729 cluster_1 (20 Objects) – cluster_4 (13 Objects) 1.1374 4 clusters cluster_2 (34 Objects) – cluster_3 (25 Objects) 1.1242 cluster_2 (34 Objects) – cluster_4 (13 Objects) 1.5336 cluster_3 (25 Objects) – cluster_4 (13 Objects) 1.5523
- 15. PAM Results • The proximities of clusters for k=4 is higher, i.e., the clusters are better separated. • The number of objects in the clusters are 20, 34, 25 and 13. • This is quite natural grouping of the data. • Best result is for k=4. • We can say that clustering conducted by PAM is a fine tuning of the one done by k-means. PAM 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total k-Means 1.00 20 12 25 13 70 2.00 0 22 0 0 22 Total 20 34 25 13 92
- 16. Modified k-Means Results k=2 k=3 k=4 cluster_1: 45 Objects cluster_1: 59 Objects cluster_1: 61 Objects cluster_2: 24 Objects cluster_2: 31 Objects cluster_2: 31 Objects cluster_3: 2 Objects cluster_3: 2 Objects clluster_4: 21 Objects For k=4, k-means has 2 clusters of less than 10 objects. Modified k-means has only 1 cluster of less than 10 objects, others have all more than 20. Best result is for k=2. Modified global k -Means 1.00 2.00 Total k-Means 1.00 61 9 70 2.00 0 22 22 Total 61 31 92
- 17. Modified k-Means Results • Modified k-means gave more natural results than k-means. • Found clusters by this modified method are more balanced in terms of objects numbers. • As k increases, k-means give artificial results; however, modified global k-means gives reasonable clusters except for one cluster. • This new algorithm can be used when k is not known a priori. • It is easy to use and the running time of algorithm is significantly short (seconds in all of our runs).
- 18. Studies on Found Clusters We obtained the rule sets for k-means when k = 2,3 and 4. These rule sets show us which values of the process variables together characterize any regarded class of the object. These results are meaningful for the decision maker which is in our case the company. Instead of rule sets it will be meaningful for you to see the decision tree analysis of the clusters. We applied CART (classification and regression trees) of SPSS Clementine® 10.1, on the group we found from k-means for k=2.
- 19. Results • We chose the big cluster of 70 objects as our dataset for CART. • We formed 7 different training sets of 60 objects randomly and 7 test sets from the remaining 10 objects. • One output variable (i.e., response variable) which represents the total defective items. • We obtained 7 decision tree models from these training and test sets.
- 20. Results We used two main measure to compare these models: – Mean error (ME) – Mean absolute error (MAE) – Correlation Average 1.Model 2.Model 3.Model 4.Model 5.Model 6.Model 7.Model Training ME 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Training MAE 2,8 2,6 3,1 3,0 2,5 3,2 2,4 2,8 Training correlation 0,887 0,922 0,840 0,871 0,917 0,874 0,911 0,872 Test ME -0,004 0,008 0,031 0,053 -0,064 0,002 -0,02 -0,04 Test MAE 7,74 5,2 7,7 6,9 9,5 5,5 7,7 11,7 Test correlation 0,040 -0,453 -0,046 0,555 0,146 -0,378 0,535 -0,08
- 21. Results Cluster of 70 Objects Whole data set of 92 objects Training ME 0 0 Training MAE 2,8 3.23 Training korelasyonu 0,887 0.8098 Test ME -0,004 -0.21 Test MAE 7,74 6.85 Test korelasyonu 0,040 0.0757 Our studies shows that it is better to make clustering before building models and extracting rulesets. We obtained 4 most important variables for the response variables. 2 of these important variables are also the most important ones for the whole set.
- 22. Conclusion • When the data mining techniques used for classification / prediction cannot produce accurate results or cannot build models which are capable of predicting correctly, it is better to find the homogenous groups in the data set. • Clustering algorithms produce highly different results, one should choose the most efficient and natural one. • Modified k-Means can be preferred instead of k-Means.
- 23. References [1] Akteke-Özturk, B., Weber, G.-W., and Kropat, E., Continuous optimization approaches for minimum sum of squares, in the ISI Proceedings of 20th Mini-EURO Conference Continuous Optimization and Knowledge-Based Technologies (Neringa, Lithuania, May 20-23, 2008) 253-258. [2] Bagirov, A.M., Rubinov, A.M., Soukhoroukova, N.V., and Yearwood, J., Unsupervised and supervised data classification via nonsmooth and global optimization, TOP 11, 1 (2003), 1-93. [3] Bakır, B., Batmaz, Đ., Güntürkün, F.A., Đpekçi, Đ.A., Köksal, G., and Özdemirel, N.E., Defect Cause Modeling with Decision Tree and Regression Analysis, Proceedings of XVII. International Conference on Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Cairo, Egypt, December 08-10, 2006, Volume 17, pp. 266-269, ISBN 975-00803-7-8. [4] Sugar, C.A. and James, G.M., Finding the number of clusters in a dataset: an information-theoretic approach, Journal of the American Statistical Association 98, 463 (2003) 750-763. [5] Volkovich, Z., Barzily, Z., Weber, G.-W., and Toledano-Kitai, D., Cluster stabilityestimation based on a minimal spanning trees approach, Proceedings of the Second Global Conference on Power Control and Optimization, AIP Conference Proceedings 1159, Bali, Indonesia, 1-3 June 2009, Subseries: Mathematical and Statistical Physics; ISBN 978-0-7354-0696-4 (August 2009) 299-305; Hakim, A.H., Vasant, P., and Barsoum, N., guest eds..

No public clipboards found for this slide

Be the first to comment