1
$\begingroup$

I have these 200 vectors which were clustered using K-means clustering based on keywords weight similarity that was given by TF-IDF (Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency). The vectors were clustered with respect to the vectors in four cities which are Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and, Utrecht. I have chosen k-cluster centroid = 6, which means I have cluster 0 to cluster 5. On each cluster, I also calculated the average number of keyword's numerical weight so that then I got the most relevant and least relevant set of keywords just like the picture below:

enter image description here

Both relevant keywords and least relevant could help the interpretation of what is the cluster about. For example, cluster 0 is related to rail transportation because in the most relevant keywords include tram, line, tramway, station, and rail. And the least relevant keywords emphasized the interpretation of cluster 0 where the keywords include photography, bicycle, iphoneography, green, nature, and flower.

And I have the cluster map of all six clusters in the Amsterdam city shows in this picture: enter image description here

The problem is that in Amsterdam city, there is no cluster 0, which related to rail transportation. In my analysis opinion, it is because all the vectors that relate to rail transportation were clustered to cluster 3, which is also related to rail transportation (based on my interpretation on most relevant and least relevant keywords on both clusters). Cluster 3 also related to rail transportation because in the most relevant keywords include tram, line, tramway, station, and rail. And the least relevant keywords emphasized the interpretation of cluster 0 where the keywords include photography, bicycle, iphoneography, green, nature, and flower.

enter image description here

There is also the evidence that cluster 3 could not be found in Rotterdam and The Hague city because all vectors related to rail transportation in both cities were all clustered to cluster 0. Below you could find the pictures of the cluster map in both cities: enter image description here enter image description here

My question is whether my analysis could be justified? But how come two clusters with the same theme could be separated? why they do not cluster together?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why are you considering two rail cluster same, I see many different features in most relevant list. Any specific reason. $\endgroup$ – 10xAI Jul 11 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @10xAI because both cluster contain the same most relevant and least relevant keywords, which related to rail transportation. Most relevant keywords including tram, tramway, rail, train, transport, and station. Least relevant keywords including flower, nature, camera, and photography. That's why I interpreted those two clusters as the same $\endgroup$ – Jack Zaki Zakiul Fahmi Jailani Jul 12 at 11:03
0
$\begingroup$

This KMeans Clustering is a representative of points in the space based on 200 Features and their length. I think there is some gap in your perspective and the actual clustering.

Other than "Tram", most of the other relevant features are uncommon in both the Rail Cluster. So, two different blobs are created in space.
See this image, data are at the same place on the Tram dimension but other Features have created two different groups.
enter image description here
These are the approaches, you may take -
- Clean all the features for duplicate/similar meaning in the domain context e.g. rail, railway
- Try different cluster count e.g. 5 and see if these two merges
- Even if these are not merging then there is some message and you should figure it out. e.g. gvg, combino, streetcar, city

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.