Factorial and reduced K-means reconsidered

Factorial K-means analysis (FKM) and Reduced K-means analysis (RKM) are clustering methods that aim at simultaneously achieving a clustering of the objects and a dimension reduction of the variables. Because a comprehensive comparison between FKM and RKM is lacking in the literature so far, a theoretical and simulation-based comparison between FKM and RKM is provided. It is shown theoretically how FKM's versus RKM's performances are affected by the presence of residuals within the clustering subspace and/or within its orthocomplement in the observed data. The simulation study confirmed that for both FKM and RKM, the cluster membership recovery generally deteriorates with increasing amount of overlap between clusters. Furthermore, the conjectures were confirmed that for FKM the subspace recovery deteriorates with increasing relative sizes of subspace residuals compared to the complement residuals, and that the reverse holds for RKM. As such, FKM and RKM complement each other. When the majority of the variables reflect the clustering structure, and/or standardized variables are being analyzed, RKM can be expected to perform reasonably well. However, because both RKM and FKM may suffer from subspace and membership recovery problems, it is essential to critically evaluate their solutions on the basis of the content of the clustering problem at hand.

[1]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  CLUSTERING VALIDATION: RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR APPLIED ANALYSES , 1996 .

[2]  H. Kiers,et al.  Selecting among three-mode principal component models of different types and complexities: a numerical convex hull based method. , 2006, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[3]  T. Caliński,et al.  A dendrite method for cluster analysis , 1974 .

[4]  J. Carroll,et al.  K-means clustering in a low-dimensional Euclidean space , 1994 .

[5]  N. Cliff Orthogonal rotation to congruence , 1966 .

[6]  Robert Henson,et al.  OCLUS: An Analytic Method for Generating Clusters with Known Overlap , 2005, J. Classif..

[7]  Joseph S. Verducci,et al.  Multivariate Statistical Modeling and Data Analysis. , 1988 .

[8]  Hans-Hermann Bock,et al.  On the Interface between Cluster Analysis, Principal Component Analysis, and Multidimensional Scaling , 1987 .

[9]  H. Kiers,et al.  Factorial k-means analysis for two-way data , 2001 .

[10]  M. Schader,et al.  New Approaches in Classification and Data Analysis , 1994 .

[11]  H. Solomon,et al.  Taxonomy and Behavioral Science: Comparative Performance of Grouping Methods , 1981 .

[12]  L. Hubert,et al.  Comparing partitions , 1985 .

[13]  Jan Schepers,et al.  Selecting Among Multi-Mode Partitioning Models of Different Complexities: A Comparison of Four Model Selection Criteria , 2008, J. Classif..

[14]  M. Brusco,et al.  Selection of Variables in Cluster Analysis: An Empirical Comparison of Eight Procedures , 2008 .

[15]  J. MacQueen Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations , 1967 .

[16]  G. De Soete,et al.  Clustering and Classification , 2019, Data-Driven Science and Engineering.

[17]  R. Cattell The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[18]  P. Arabie,et al.  Cluster analysis in marketing research , 1994 .

[19]  R. Ferber Handbook of Marketing Research , 1974 .

[20]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis , 1988 .

[21]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis , 1990 .

[22]  H. Kaiser The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis , 1958 .