# Answer the following questions. Please ensure to use the Author, YYYY APA citations with any content brought into the assignment. For sparse data, discuss why considering only the presence of non-zero values might give a more accurate view of the objects than considering the actual magnitudes of values. When would such an approach not be desirable? Describe the change in the time complexity of K-means as the number of clusters to be found increases. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of treating clustering as an optimization problem. Among other factors, consider efficiency, non-determinism, and whether an optimization-based approach captures all types of clusterings that are of interest. What is the time and space complexity of fuzzy c-means? Of SOM? How do these complexities compare to those of K-means? Explain the difference between likelihood and probability. Give an example of a set of clusters in which merging based on the closeness of clusters leads to a more natural set of clusters than merging based on the strength of connection (interconnectedness) of clusters.

Sparse data refers to datasets where most of the values are zero or missing. When analyzing sparse data, considering only the presence of non-zero values can give a more accurate view of the objects than considering the actual magnitudes of values. This is because the presence of a non-zero value indicates that there is some meaningful information or relationship between the objects being analyzed. By focusing on the presence of non-zero values, we can identify patterns or similarities between objects that might not be apparent if we considered the magnitudes of values.

For example, in a dataset where each object represents a document and each attribute represents the presence or absence of a certain word, considering only the presence or absence of the word can provide insights into the thematic similarities or differences between documents. The actual magnitudes of frequencies or counts of the word might not be as important in this context. Additionally, considering only the presence of non-zero values can help reduce the noise or variability that might be introduced by the magnitudes of values.

However, there are cases where considering only the presence of non-zero values might not be desirable. For example, in a dataset where each object represents a customer and each attribute represents the amount of money spent on different products, considering only the presence of non-zero values would ignore the actual magnitudes of spending. In this case, the magnitudes of values provide valuable information about the customers’ purchasing behavior, and ignoring them would lead to a loss of important insights.

The time complexity of K-means algorithm increases as the number of clusters to be found increases. The time complexity of the K-means algorithm is O(n * k * I * d), where n is the number of objects, k is the number of clusters, I is the number of necessary iterations, and d is the dimensionality of the objects. As the number of clusters increases, the algorithm needs to iterate more times to converge to a solution. Consequently, the time complexity of the algorithm increases.

Treating clustering as an optimization problem has both advantages and disadvantages.

One advantage is that optimization-based approaches provide a formal framework for finding an optimal solution. By defining an objective function and constraints, we can search for the best clustering solution that satisfies certain criteria. This allows us to systematically evaluate and compare different clustering results.

However, there are also disadvantages of treating clustering as an optimization problem. Firstly, optimization-based approaches can be computationally expensive, especially for large datasets with complex data structures. The optimization process can be time-consuming, and the algorithms may struggle to converge to an optimal solution. Additionally, the optimization process may be non-deterministic, meaning that the clustering result may vary depending on the initial conditions or random processes involved in the algorithm. This non-determinism can make the interpretation and reproducibility of the clustering results more challenging.

Furthermore, an optimization-based approach may not capture all types of clusterings that are of interest. Optimization algorithms often optimize for certain criteria or assumptions, such as minimizing the sum of squared distances or maximizing the likelihood of the data given the clustering. However, these assumptions may not always align with the underlying structure or context of the data. Different clustering algorithms or approaches may be needed to capture different types of clusterings that are of interest or meaningful in a specific domain or application.

The time and space complexity of fuzzy c-means (FCM) and self-organizing maps (SOM) can vary depending on implementation details and parameter settings. However, the time complexity of FCM is generally higher than that of K-means, ranging from O(n * c * I * d) to O(n^2 * c * I * d), where c is the fuzziness parameter. FCM involves computing membership degrees for each object and iterating until convergence, which leads to higher time complexity compared to K-means.

On the other hand, the time complexity of SOM is typically higher than that of both FCM and K-means, ranging from O(n * I * d) to O(n^2 * I * d). SOM involves a competitive learning process where each object in the dataset competes for representation in a two-dimensional map. The iterative nature of SOM and the updates to the map’s weights contribute to its higher time complexity.

The space complexity of both FCM and SOM can be similar to that of K-means, typically O(n * d), as they involve storing the dataset and the cluster centroids or units’ information. However, additional space may be required for membership degrees in FCM or the map’s structure and weights in SOM.

The difference between likelihood and probability can be explained in the context of statistical inference. Likelihood refers to the probability of observing a set of data given a specific model or hypothesis. It measures how well the data conforms to the model, with a higher likelihood indicating a better fit. Likelihood is obtained by evaluating the probability density function or likelihood function of the data under the model.

Probability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of how likely an event or outcome is to occur. It quantifies the uncertainty associated with the event. Probability derives from the principle of counting and can be calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the total number of possible outcomes.

In statistical inference, likelihood is used to estimate model parameters or compare different models. It provides a way to find the parameter values that maximize the likelihood of the observed data, also known as maximum likelihood estimation.

For example, let’s say we have a dataset of coin tosses and we want to determine the probability of getting heads (H). We can define two models: Model A assumes the coin is fair (P(H)=0.5), while Model B assumes the coin is biased (P(H)=0.6).

The likelihood of observing the data “H,T,H,H,T” under Model A would be 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.03125.

Under Model B, the likelihood would be 0.6 * 0.4 * 0.6 * 0.6 * 0.4 = 0.05184, which is higher than the likelihood under Model A.

In this case, the likelihood favors Model B as it provides a better fit to the observed data.

In clustering, likelihood and probability can also be used in different contexts. For example, in probabilistic clustering algorithms like Gaussian Mixture Models, likelihood is used to measure the probability of an object belonging to a particular cluster. Probability can be used to assess the uncertainty of assignment to a cluster given the observed data.

Merging clusters based on the closeness of clusters can lead to a more natural set of clusters in certain cases. For example, suppose we have a dataset of geographical locations where each object represents a city. If we consider clusters based on the closeness of cities, such as their geographic proximity, we would likely obtain clusters that align with natural regions or communities. This approach would group cities that are closer to each other and share similar characteristics.

On the other hand, merging clusters based on the strength of connection or interconnectedness of clusters may not always lead to natural clusters. In the same geographical dataset, if we consider clusters based on the strength of connection, such as the transportation network between cities, we might end up with clusters that span across different geographic regions or communities. This approach would prioritize the connectivity of cities rather than their physical proximity.

In conclusion, the presence of non-zero values can provide a more accurate view of objects in sparse data, but there are cases where considering the magnitudes of values is necessary. The time complexity of K-means increases as the number of clusters to be found increases. Treating clustering as an optimization problem has advantages in providing a formal framework but also disadvantages such as computational complexity and non-determinism. The time and space complexity of fuzzy c-means and self-organizing maps can be higher than those of K-means. Likelihood measures the probability of observing data given a specific model, while probability quantifies the likelihood of an event occurring. Merging clusters based on closeness can lead to more natural clusters in certain cases compared to merging based on the strength of connection.

### Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadline.

Click Here to Make an Order Click Here to Hire a Writer