apoorva-week4

[apoorva-week4]

Week 4: Peer-graded Assignment: Running a k-means Cluster Analysis

This assignment is intended for Coursera course "Machine Learning for Data Analysis by Wesleyan University”.

It is for "Week 4: Peer-graded Assignment: Running a k-means Cluster Analysis".

I am working on k-means Cluster Analysis in Python.

Syntax used to run k-means Cluster Analysis

A k-means cluster analysis was conducted to identify underlying subgroups of real machine parameters based on their similarity of responses on 19 variables that represent characteristics that could have an impact on product yield loss. Clustering variables included only quantitative variables measuring different machine parameters. All clustering variables were standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Data were randomly split into a training set that included 70% of the observations (N=116) and a test set that included 30% of the observations (N=50). A series of k-means cluster analyses were conducted on the training data specifying k=1-9 clusters, using Euclidean distance. The variance in the clustering variables that was accounted for by the clusters (r-square) was plotted for each of the nine cluster solutions in an elbow curve to provide guidance for choosing the number of clusters to interpret.

2. Code used to run k-means Cluster Analysis

3. Corresponding Output

Figure 1. Elbow curve of r-square values for the nine cluster solutions

Figure 2. Plot of the first two canonical variables for the clustering variables by cluster.

4. Interpretation

For Figure 1: The elbow curve was inconclusive, suggesting that the 2, 4 and 8-cluster solutions might be interpreted. All 3 were tested, yielding [F-statistic and Prob (F-statistic)] of: [0.5298,0.469]; [6.242,0.000725] and [3.73,0.00156] accordingly. The results below are for an interpretation of the 4-cluster solution (highest F-statistic and lowest Prob).

Canonical discriminant analyses was used to reduce the 19 clustering variable down a few variables that accounted for most of the variance in the clustering variables. A scatterplot of the first two canonical variables by cluster indicated that the observations in cluster 1 was densely packed with relatively low within cluster variance, and did not overlap very much with the other clusters. Cluster 2 was generally distinct, but the observations had greater spread suggesting higher within cluster variance. Observations in cluster 3 and 4 were spread out more than the other clusters, showing high within cluster variance. The results of this plot suggest that the best cluster solution may have fewer than 4 clusters, so it will be especially important to also evaluate the cluster solutions with fewer than 4 clusters.

For Figure 2: In order to externally validate the clusters, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducting to test for significant differences between the clusters on product failure rates (BINS_SUM).

A tukey test was used for post hoc comparisons between the clusters. Results indicated some significant differences between the clusters on BINS_SUM (F (3, 85) = 6.242, p<.0001). The tukey post hoc comparisons showed significant differences between clusters on BINS_SUM for cluster vs. 1 and 3, however insignificance of all other clusters among each other. Samples in cluster 4 had the lowest BINS_SUM (mean=60.28, sd=10.89), and cluster 1 had the highest BINS_SUM (mean=76.35, sd=13.08).