Re: assumption of Classification
- From: "Data Matter" <fungile@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Apr 2005 22:21:23 -0700
He's asking if these procedures make distributional assumptions.
Classification trees do not. Most clustering algorithms (k-means,
single link, average link, etc.) do not. However, there is a class of
clustering algorithms which assumes that each cluster is multivariate
normal and then proceed to find the means and covariances of these
clusters.
Nonetheless, normality is not the only assumption to be checked. Every
method has its own list of assumptions and you should make sure that
your data agree with the method you choose.
Richard Ulrich wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2005 11:49:26 -0700, wu_cheng2001@xxxxxxxxxxx (apple0811)
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > I am doing classification of voice signal.
> >
> > Since the voice signal is very virable[*], for sure it is not
normal.
>
> Being very "variable"* usually means that a feature has
> a large standard deviation, and that's easily possible
> with Normal data.
>
> Highly skewed? Discrete? Multi-modal? - those are more
> precise descriptions.
>
> >
> > Can I still use clustering analysis, tree method, QDA, RDA method
to classify?
> >
> > In fact, I have already applied these method, but I haven't check
normality.
> >
> > I am afraid these method are wrong for non-parameter[*] data.
>
> "Non-parametric* data" is not a very useful term.
> In my experience, the user sometimes should have said that
> he expects to use ranks, and sometimes should have said
> that there are discrete categories. - And you seem to be
> saying something otherwise.
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
> http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: assumption of Classification
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: assumption of Classification
- References:
- assumption of Classification
- From: apple0811
- Re: assumption of Classification
- From: Richard Ulrich
- assumption of Classification
- Prev by Date: Re: MatLab randn and Simulation Step Numbers
- Next by Date: Re: assumption of Classification
- Previous by thread: Re: assumption of Classification
- Next by thread: Re: assumption of Classification
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|