Abstract:Because of the large variety of cluster validation indices (CVIs), choosing the most suitable index is challenging. We assessed several CVIs using artificial binary data sets. Only a few CVI performed as expected with noisy data. Tau and silhouette widths proved to be the best geometric CVIs both for equal and unequal cluster sizes. Among non‐geometric indices, Crispness and OptimClass performed best. Aims Different clustering methods often classify the same data set differently. Selecting the "best" clustering solution from alternatives is possible with cluster validation indices. Because of the large variety of cluster validation indices (CVIs), choosing the most suitable index concerning the data set and clustering algorithms is challenging. We aim to assess different internal clustering validation indices. Methods Artificial binary data sets with equal‐ and unequal‐sized well‐separated a priori clusters were simulated and three levels of noise were then added. Twenty replications of each of the six types of data sets (two group sizes × three levels of noise) were created and analyzed by three clustering algorithms with Jaccard dissimilarity. Twenty‐seven clustering validation indices are evaluated including both geometric and non‐geometric indices. Results Although, in theory, all CVIs could differentiate between good and wrong classifications, only a few perform as expected with noisy data. Tau and silhouette widths proved to be the best geometric CVIs both for equal and unequal cluster sizes. Among non‐geometric indices, crispness and OptimClass performed best. Conclusion We recommend using these best‐performing CVIs. We suggest plotting the CVI value against the number of clusters because the lack of a sharp peak means that the position of the maximum is uncertain.

Inertia-Based Indices to Determine the Number of Clusters in K-Means: An Experimental Evaluation

Estimating the number of clusters in multivariate data by various fittings of the L-curve

A New Index for Clustering Evaluation Based on Density Estimation

Performance evaluation of some clustering algorithms and validity indices

Graph Sensitive Indices for Comparing Clusterings

Effective and Optimal Clustering Based on New Clustering Validity Index

A comparative study of different cluster validity indexes

Adaptive Initialization Method for K-means Algorithm

Big-Data Clustering: K-Means or K-Indicators?

Towards Information-Theoretic K-means Clustering for Image Indexing

Enhancement Clustering Evaluation Result of Davies-Bouldin Index with Determining Initial Centroid of K-Means Algorithm

On the Use of Relative Validity Indices for Comparing Clustering Approaches

Careful Seeding for k-Medois Clustering with Incremental k-Means++ Initialization

Sorted Kernel Matrices As Cluster Validity Indexes

k is the Magic Number -- Inferring the Number of Clusters Through Nonparametric Concentration Inequalities

K*-Means: an Effective and Efficient K-Means Clustering Algorithm

A Method to Determine the Number of Clusters Based on Multi-validity Index

Quantitative evaluation of internal cluster validation indices using binary data sets

An Improved K-Means Algorithm Based on Kurtosis Test

Centroid index: Cluster level similarity measure.

Extended multivariate comparison of 68 cluster validity indices. A review