Loading…
A clustering effectiveness measurement model based on merging similar clusters
This article presents a clustering effectiveness measurement model based on merging similar clusters to address the problems experienced by the affinity propagation (AP) algorithm in the clustering process, such as excessive local clustering, low accuracy, and invalid clustering evaluation results t...
Saved in:
Published in: | PeerJ. Computer science 2024-02, Vol.10, p.e1863-e1863, Article e1863 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This article presents a clustering effectiveness measurement model based on merging similar clusters to address the problems experienced by the affinity propagation (AP) algorithm in the clustering process, such as excessive local clustering, low accuracy, and invalid clustering evaluation results that occur due to the lack of variety in some internal evaluation indices when the proportion of clusters is very high. First, depending upon the "rough clustering" process of the AP clustering algorithm, similar clusters are merged according to the relationship between the similarity between any two clusters and the average inter-cluster similarity in the entire sample set to decrease the maximum number of clusters
. Then, a new scheme is proposed to calculate intra-cluster compactness, inter-cluster relative density, and inter-cluster overlap coefficient. On the basis of this new method, several internal evaluation indices based on intra-cluster cohesion and inter-cluster dispersion are designed. Results of experiments show that the proposed model can perform clustering and classification correctly and provide accurate ranges for clustering using public UCI and NSL-KDD datasets, and it is significantly superior to the three improved clustering algorithms compared with it in terms of intrusion detection indices such as detection rate and false positive rate (FPR). |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2376-5992 2376-5992 |
DOI: | 10.7717/peerj-cs.1863 |