Advertisement

Three-way k-means: integrating k-means and three-way decision

  • Pingxin WangEmail author
  • Hong Shi
  • Xibei Yang
  • Jusheng Mi
Original Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

The traditional k-means, which unambiguously assigns an object precisely to a single cluster with crisp boundary, does not adequately show the fact that a cluster may not have a well-defined cluster boundary. This paper presents a three-way k-means clustering algorithm based on three-way strategy. In the proposed method, an overlap clustering is used to obtain the supports (unions of the core regions and the fringe regions) of the clusters and perturbation analysis is applied to separate the core regions from the supports. The difference between the support and the core region is regarded as the fringe region of the specific cluster. Therefore, a three-way explanation of the cluster is naturally formed. Davies–Bouldin index (DB), Average Silhouette index (AS) and Accuracy (ACC) are computed by using core region to evaluate the structure of three-way k-means result. The experimental results on UCI data sets and USPS data sets show that such strategy is effective in improving the structure of clustering results.

Keywords

Three-way clustering Three-way decision K-means Cluster validity index 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable comments. This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 61503160, 61773012 and 61572242), Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (no. 15KJB110004).

References

  1. 1.
    Afridi MK, Azam N, Yao JT, Alanazi E (2018) A three-way clustering approach for handling missing data using GTRS. Int J Approx Reason.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2018.04.001
  2. 2.
    Bezdek J (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezdek J, Pal N (1998) Some new indexes of cluster validity. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 28:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blake CL, Merz CJ (2005) UCI machine learning repository. http://www.ics.uci.edu/mlearn/MLRepository.html
  5. 5.
    Hao C, Li JH, Fan M, Liu WQ, Tsang ECC (2017) Optimal scale selection in dynamic multi-scale decision tables based on sequential three-way decisions. Inf Sci 415:213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang CC, Li JH, Mei CL, Wu WZ (2017) Three-way concept learning based on cognitive operators: an information fusion viewpoint. Int J Approx Reason 83:218–242MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain AK (2010) Data clustering: 50 years beyond k-means. Pattern Recognit Lett 31:651–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv 31:264–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (1990) Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lang GM, Miao DQ, Cai MJ (2017) Three-way decision approaches to conflict analysis using decision-theoretic rough set theory. Inf Sci 406:185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P (1990) USPS zip code handwritten digits database. http://www.ics.uci.edu/mlearn/MLRepository.html
  12. 12.
    Li CP, Li JH, He M (2016) Concept lattice compression in incomplete contexts based on k-medoids clustering. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 7:539–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li HX, Zhou XZ (2011) Risk decision making based on decision-theoretic rough set: a three-way view decision model. Int J Comput Inf Sys 4:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li JH, Huang CC, Qi JJ, Qia YH, Liu WQ (2017) Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci 378:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li W, Miao DQ, Wang WL, Zhang N (2010) Hierarchical rough decision theoretic framework for text classification. In: IEEE international conference on cognitive informatics, pp 484–489Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li Y, Zhang C, Swan JR (2000) An information filtering model on the web and its application in jobagent. Knowl-Based Syst 13:285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liang DC, Liu D (2015) A novel risk decision-making based on decision-theoretic rough sets under hesitant fuzzy information. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lingras P, West C (2004) Interval set clustering of web users with rough k-means. J Intell Inf Syst 23:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu D, Li TR, Liang DC (2012) Three-way government decision analysis with decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Uncertain Fuzz 20:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu D, Yao YY, Li TR (2011) Three-way investment decisions with decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sys 4:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macqueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of 5th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, pp 281–197Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maulik U, Bandyopadhyay S (2002) Performance evaluation of some clustering algorithms and validity indices. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 24:1650–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mirkin B (1991) Mathematical classification and clustering. Kluwer, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mitra S, Banka H, Pedrycz W (2006) Rough-fuzzy collaborative clustering. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 36:795–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitra S, Pedrycz W, Barman B (2010) Shadowed c-means: integrating fuzzy and rough clustering. Pattern Recognit 43:1282–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11:314–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pawlak Z (1991) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pawlak Z (2004) Some issues on rough sets. Trans Rough Sets I 3100:1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pedrycz W (1998) Shadowed sets: representing and processing fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 28:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Qi JJ, Qian T, Wei L (2016) The connections between three-way and classical concept lattices. Knowl-Based Syst 91:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rousseeuw P (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpreta-tion and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Math Appl Math 20:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shivhare R, Cherukuri AK (2017) Three-way conceptual approach for cognitive memory functionalities. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh PK (2016) Three-way fuzzy concept lattice representation using neutrosophic set. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:1–11Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singh PK (2017) Interval-valued neutrosophic graph representation of concept lattice and its (\(\alpha,\beta,\gamma\))-decomposition. Arab J Sci Eng 43:1–18Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Singh PK (2018) Similar vague concepts selection using their Euclidean distance at different granulation. Cogn Comput 10:228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singh PK (2018) Concept learning using vague concept lattice. Neural Process Lett 48:31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh PK (2017) Medical diagnoses using three-way fuzzy concept lattice and their euclidean distance. Comp Appl Math 3:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tou JT, Gonzalez RC (1974) Pattern recognition principles. Addison-Wesley, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang PX, Yao YY (2018) CE3: A three-way clustering method based on mathematical morphology. Knowl-Based Syst 155:54–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xu R, Wunsch DC (2005) Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 16:645–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang X, Li TR, Fujita H, Liu D, Yao YY (2017) A unified model of sequential three-way decisions and multilevel incremental processing. Knowl-Based Syst 134:172–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yao JT (2015) Web-based medical decision support systems for three-way medical decision making with game-theoretic rough sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yao YY (2009) Three-way decision: an interpretation of rules in rough set theory. In: Proceedings of RSKT’09, vol 5589, pp 642–649Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yao YY (2010) Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inf Sci 180:341–353MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yao YY (2011) The superiority of three-way decisions in probabilistic rough set models. Inf Sci 181:1080–1096MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yao YY (2012) An outline of a theory of three-way decisions. In: Proceedings of RSCTC’12, vol 7413, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yao YY (2016) Three-way decisions and cognitive computing. Cogn Comput 8:543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yao YY (2017) Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yu H (2017) A framework of three-way cluster analysis. In: Proceedings of international joint conference on rough sets, pp 300–312Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yu H, Jiao P, Yao YY, Wang GY (2016) Detecting and refining overlapping regions in complex networks with three-way decisions. Inf Sci 373:21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yu H, Wang XC , Wang GY, Zeng XH (2018) An active three-way clustering method via low-rank matrices for multi-view data. Inf Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.03.009
  52. 52.
    Yu H, Zhang C, Wang GY (2016) A tree-based incremental overlapping clustering method using the three-way decision theory. Knowl-Based Syst 91:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhang QH, Lv GX, Chen YH, Wang GY (2018) A dynamic three-way decision model based on the updating of attribute values. Knowl-Based Syst 142:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhang QH, Xia DY, Wang GY (2017) Three-way decision model with two types of classification errors. Inf Sci 420:431–453MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ScienceJiangsu University of Science and TechnologyZhenjiangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Mathematics and Information ScienceHebei Normal UniversityShijiazhuangPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceJiangsu University of Science and TechnologyZhenjiangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations