Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30278063›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Optimal clustering under uncertainty.

Lori A Dalton, Marco E Benalcázar, Edward R Dougherty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lori A DaltonDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8715-5723
Marco E BenalcázarDepartamento de Informática y Ciencias de la Computación, Facultad de Ingeniería de Sistemas, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador.
Edward R DoughertyDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classical clustering algorithms typically either lack an underlying probability framework to make them predictive or focus on parameter estimation rather than defining and minimizing a notion of error. Recent work addresses these issues by developing a probabilistic framework based on the theory of random labeled point processes and characterizing a Bayes clusterer that minimizes the number of misclustered points. The Bayes clusterer is analogous to the Bayes classifier. Whereas determining a Bayes classifier requires full knowledge of the feature-label distribution, deriving a Bayes clusterer requires full knowledge of the point process. When uncertain of the point process, one would like to find a robust clusterer that is optimal over the uncertainty, just as one may find optimal robust classifiers with uncertain feature-label distributions. Herein, we derive an optimal robust clusterer by first finding an effective random point process that incorporates all randomness within its own probabilistic structure and from which a Bayes clusterer can be derived that provides an optimal robust clusterer relative to the uncertainty. This is analogous to the use of effective class-conditional distributions in robust classification. After evaluating the performance of robust clusterers in synthetic mixtures of Gaussians models, we apply the framework to granular imaging, where we make use of the asymptotic granulometric moment theory for granular images to relate robust clustering theory to the application.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisAlgorithmsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationPattern Recognition, AutomatedProbabilityUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID30278063
PMCPMC6168142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.