5.3 Performance Metrics
5.3.1 Minkowski Score
The performances of the clustering algorithms are
evaluated in terms of the Minkowski Score (MS) (Jar-
dine and Sibson, 1971). This is a measure of the qual-
ity of a solution given the true clustering. Let T be
the “true” solution and S the solution we wish to mea-
sure. Denote by n
11
the number of pairs of elements
that are in the same cluster in both S and T. Denote
by n
01
the number of pairs that are in the same cluster
only in S, and by n
10
the number of pairs that are in
the same cluster in T. Minkowski Score (MS) is then
defined as:
MS =
r
n
01
+ n
10
n
11
+ n
10
(8)
For MS, the optimum score is 0, with lower scores
being “better”.
5.4 Input Parameters
The population size and number of generation used
for DECC and GACC are 50 and 100 respectively.
The crossoverprobability and mutation factors (F) for
DECC are set to be 0.8 and 0.7, respectively. The
crossover and mutation probabilities for GACC are
taken to be 0.8 and 0.3, respectively. The parame-
ters of the SA based fuzzy clustering algorithm are as
follows: T
max
=100, T
min
=0.01, r=0.9 and k=100. The
K-means algorithm is executed till it converges to the
final solution. For all the fuzzy clustering algorithms
m, the fuzzy exponent, is set to 2.0. Results reported
in the tables are the average values obtained over 50
runs of the algorithms. Note that the input parame-
ters used here are fixed either following the literature
or experimentally. For example the value of fuzzy
exponent (m), the scheduling of simulated annealing
follows the literature whereas the crossover, mutation
probability, population size, number of generation is
fixed experimentally.
5.5 Performance
Tables 1 to 2 report the average values of ζ and
MS indices provided by DECC-ANN, GACC-ANN,
SACC-ANN, K-means-ANN, DECC, GACC, SACC
and K-means clustering over 50 runs of the algo-
rithms for the two synthetic and two real life data
sets considered here. The values reported in the
tables show that for all the data sets, DECC-ANN
provides the best ζ and MS indices score. For ex-
ample, Cancer data set, the average value of MS
produces by DECC-ANN algorithm is 0.3511. The
MS value produce by GACC-ANN, SACC-ANN, K-
means-ANN, DECC, GACC, SACC and K-means are
0.3702, 0.3873, 0.4502, 0.3733, 0.3839, 3945 and
0.4733, respectively. Fig. 5 demonstrates the box-
plot as well as the convergence plot of different al-
gorithms. As can be seen from the figures the perfor-
mance of the proposed DECC-ANN is the best for all
the data sets.
Table 1: Average ζ and MS values over 50 runs of different
algorithms for the two Artificial data sets.
Algorithms Data1 Data1
ζ MS ζ MS
DECC-ANN 486.17 0.3022 467.33 0.4074
GACC-ANN 488.34 0.3108 470.62 0.4404
SACC-ANN 490.71 0.3673 475.53 0.4784
K-means-ANN 496.72 0.4283 481.64 0.5194
DECC 488.02 0.3231 469.05 0.4293
GACC 489.16 0.3604 472.5 0.4694
SACC 494.65 0.3982 477.47 0.4844
K-means 498.36 0.4433 484.88 0.5454
Table 2: Average ζ and MS values over 50 runs of different
algorithms for the two Real-life data sets.
Algorithms Iris Cancer
ζ MS ζ MS
DECC-ANN 75.05 0.3803 19324.13 0.3511
GACC-ANN 77.62 0.4004 19327.04 0.3702
SACC-ANN 80.72 0.4336 193330.62 0.3873
K-means-ANN 83.07 0.5257 19336.82 0.4502
DECC 78.93 0.4013 19327.54 0.3733
GACC 79.83 0.4210 19329.02 0.3839
SACC 82.62 0.4502 19332.42 0.3945
K-means 85.42 0.5434 19339.82 0.4733
5.6 Statistical Significance Test
A non-parametric statistical significance test called
Wilcoxons rank sum test (Hollander and Wolfe, 1999)
for independent samples has been conducted at the
5% significance level. Eight groups, corresponding
to the eight algorithms (1. DECC-ANN, 2. GACC-
ANN, 3. SACC-ANN, 4. K-means-ANN, 5. DECC,
6. GACC, 7. SACC, 8. K-means), have been created
for each data set. Each group consists of the MS for
the data sets produced by 50 consecutive runs of the
corresponding algorithm. The median values of each
group for all the data sets are shown in Table 3.
It is evident from Table 3 that the median values
for DECC-ANN are better than that for other algo-
rithms. To establish that this goodness is statisti-
cally significant, Table 4 reports the p-values pro-
duced by Wilcoxons rank sum test for comparison
of two groups (one group corresponding to DECC-
ANN and another group corresponding to some other
algorithm) at a time. As a null hypothesis, it is as-
sumed that there is no significant difference between
the median values of two groups. Whereas, according
to the alternative hypothesis there is significant differ-
IMPROVEMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL CRISP CLUSTERING USING ANN CLASSIFIER FOR UNSUPERVISED
PIXEL CLASSIFICATION OF SATELLITE IMAGE
25