CHull as an alternative to AIC and BIC in the context of mixtures of factor analyzers

被引:0
|
作者
Kirsten Bulteel
Tom F. Wilderjans
Francis Tuerlinckx
Eva Ceulemans
机构
[1] KU Leuven,Methodology of Educational Sciences Research Group
[2] KU Leuven,undefined
来源
Behavior Research Methods | 2013年 / 45卷
关键词
Mixture analysis; Model selection; AIC; BIC; CHull;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Mixture analysis is commonly used for clustering objects on the basis of multivariate data. When the data contain a large number of variables, regular mixture analysis may become problematic, because a large number of parameters need to be estimated for each cluster. To tackle this problem, the mixtures-of-factor-analyzers (MFA) model was proposed, which combines clustering with exploratory factor analysis. MFA model selection is rather intricate, as both the number of clusters and the number of underlying factors have to be determined. To this end, the Akaike (AIC) and Bayesian (BIC) information criteria are often used. AIC and BIC try to identify a model that optimally balances model fit and model complexity. In this article, the CHull (Ceulemans & Kiers, 2006) method, which also balances model fit and complexity, is presented as an interesting alternative model selection strategy for MFA. In an extensive simulation study, the performances of AIC, BIC, and CHull were compared. AIC performs poorly and systematically selects overly complex models, whereas BIC performs slightly better than CHull when considering the best model only. However, when taking model selection uncertainty into account by looking at the first three models retained, CHull outperforms BIC. This especially holds in more complex, and thus more realistic, situations (e.g., more clusters, factors, noise in the data, and overlap among clusters).
引用
收藏
页码:782 / 791
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] CHull as an alternative to AIC and BIC in the context of mixtures of factor analyzers
    Bulteel, Kirsten
    Wilderjans, Tom F.
    Tuerlinckx, Francis
    Ceulemans, Eva
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2013, 45 (03) : 782 - 791
  • [2] Nonparametric Mixtures of Factor Analyzers
    Gorur, Dilan
    Rasmussen, Carl Edward
    [J]. 2009 IEEE 17TH SIGNAL PROCESSING AND COMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2009, : 922 - 925
  • [3] MIXTURES OF FACTOR ANALYZERS AND DEEP MIXTURES OF FACTOR ANALYZERS DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION ALGORITHMS FOR HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES CLASSIFICATION
    Zhao, Bin
    Ulfarsson, Magnus O.
    Sveinsson, Johannes R.
    Chanussot, Jocelyn
    [J]. 2019 IEEE INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING SYMPOSIUM (IGARSS 2019), 2019, : 891 - 894
  • [4] Mixtures of factor analyzers:: an extension with covariates
    Fokoué, E
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, 2005, 95 (02) : 370 - 384
  • [5] Bayesian analysis of mixtures of factor analyzers
    Utsugi, A
    Kumagai, T
    [J]. NEURAL COMPUTATION, 2001, 13 (05) : 993 - 1002
  • [6] Maximum likelihood estimation of mixtures of factor analyzers
    Montanari, Angela
    Viroli, Cinzia
    [J]. COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2011, 55 (09) : 2712 - 2723
  • [7] Mixtures of Hidden Truncation Hyperbolic Factor Analyzers
    Paula M. Murray
    Ryan P. Browne
    Paul D. McNicholas
    [J]. Journal of Classification, 2020, 37 : 366 - 379
  • [8] Mixtures of skew-t factor analyzers
    Murray, Paula M.
    Browne, Ryan P.
    McNicholas, Paul D.
    [J]. COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2014, 77 : 326 - 335
  • [9] Voice Conversion Based on Mixtures of Factor Analyzers
    Uto, Yosuke
    Nankaku, Yoshihiko
    Toda, Tomoki
    Lee, Akinobu
    Tokuda, Keiichi
    [J]. INTERSPEECH 2006 AND 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPOKEN LANGUAGE PROCESSING, VOLS 1-5, 2006, : 2278 - +
  • [10] Mixtures of Hidden Truncation Hyperbolic Factor Analyzers
    Murray, Paula M.
    Browne, Ryan P.
    McNicholas, Paul D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLASSIFICATION, 2020, 37 (02) : 366 - 379