Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

FCPCA: Fuzzy clustering of high-dimensional time series based on common principal component analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces FCPCA, a fuzzy clustering method for high-dimensional multivariate time series that assigns partial memberships from reconstruction error in cluster-specific common principal component subspaces, and reports that it…

desk verdict FCPCA is a sensible fuzzy extension of CPCA clustering, but the varying-length version does not minimize the stated objective; the paper needs a fix or a revised claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07276 v1 pith:YYGKVHPN submitted 2025-05-12 stat.ME stat.APstat.ML

Ziling Ma , Ángel López-Oriona , Hernando Ombao , Ying Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.APstat.ML MSC 62H3062M1062H25
keywords fuzzyclusteringmultivariatetimeseriescommonprincipalcomponentanalysisreconstructionerrorEEGsignalsfuzzinessparameterclustervalidityindexhigh-dimensional
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a fuzzy clustering method, FCPCA, for multivariate time series that can be high-dimensional and of unequal lengths. Instead of measuring distance to a centroid, FCPCA measures how well each series is reconstructed after projection onto a low-dimensional common subspace shared by each cluster. The authors argue this reconstruction-based objective handles the curse of dimensionality, that a data-driven criterion selects the fuzziness parameter and number of clusters objectively, and that partial memberships reveal transitional states that hard clustering misses. Simulations and real EEG data are used to support the claim that FCPCA outperforms several existing fuzzy and hard clustering approaches.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the fuzzy reconstruction-error objective: minimize $\sum_{i,s} u_{is}^m \sum_l \|\hat{X}_i(l) - \hat{X}_i(l) C_s(l) C_s(l)^\top\|^2$, where $u_{is}$ is the fuzzy membership of series $i$ in cluster $s$, and $C_s(l)$ is the projection subspace for cluster $s$ at lag $l$. Each subspace comes from the SVD of the membership-weighted block covariance matrix $\tilde{\Sigma}_s(l) = \frac{\sum_i u_{is}^m \hat{\Gamma}_i(l)}{\sum_i u_{is}^m}$, where $\hat{\Gamma}_i(l)$ stacks the lag-0 and lag-$l$ cross-covariance estimates into a $2p \times 2p$ block. Membership updates make $u_{is}$ inversely proportional to reconstruction error, and a modified Xie-Beni index selects the fuzziness parameter $m$ and number of clusters $S$. The common-principal-component idea is that all series in a cluster share a low-dimensional linear subspace of lagged covariance space, so each series is best represented by its own cluster's projection axes.

What would settle it

Simulate two clusters with identical lag-1 and lag-2 cross-covariance blocks but different lag-3 blocks, run FCPCA with $L=2$ as the paper does, and check whether the Rand index of the hard labels stays at chance; if it does, the reconstruction error is blind to the true cluster structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fuzzy clustering of multivariate time series should be driven by reconstruction error in cluster-specific common subspaces rather than by distance to a representative. FCPCA builds, for each cluster and lag, a membership-weighted block cross-covariance matrix, extracts its leading principal components as the cluster's projection axes, and alternates between updating those axes and updating each series' membership degrees from the ratio of reconstruction errors. The paper reports that this yields superior clustering accuracy on VARMA-generated series with varying lengths and dimensions, that it successfully identifies genuinely mixed or transitional series, and that on EEG driver-drowsiness data it produces memberships revealing alert-to-drowsy transition states that hard clustering cannot express.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes each cluster of multivariate time series is second-order stationary and that its structure lives in a low-dimensional linear subspace of lagged cross-covariance blocks; if clusters are non-stationary or not linearly separable in that covariance space, the reconstruction errors that define memberships will not separate them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FCPCA gives competitive fuzzy clustering accuracy on VARMA-generated multivariate time series across lengths 200–600 and dimensions 20–100, with mean Rand indices often at 0.91 or above for moderate fuzziness values, beating VPCA and fuzzy C-medoids.
  • The method can flag mixed or transitional series: VARMA(1,1) series that combine VAR(1) and VMA(1) behavior receive low membership in both pure clusters, so fuzzy memberships act as an explicit indicator of ambiguous observations.
  • On EEG driver-drowsiness data, FCPCA produces memberships that locate transitional alert-to-drowsy states within individual subjects, a capability hard clustering lacks; for subject 11, the automatically selected fuzziness parameter also yields the highest Rand index among the values tested.
  • Even a low fuzziness setting, $m=1.1$, improves the Rand index over the hard CPCA baselines on several real multivariate time series datasets, suggesting that mild fuzziness absorbs labeling uncertainty without sacrificing crisp interpretability.
  • The iterative scheme only requires SVD of $S$ membership-weighted $2p \times 2p$ matrices per iteration, which keeps the method computationally feasible for moderately high-dimensional data; the paper reports consistent performance up to 128 EEG channels.
  • A data-driven modified Xie-Beni index selects both the fuzziness parameter and the number of clusters, removing two user choices that are usually made subjectively.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If reconstruction error in a cluster-specific subspace is the right criterion, a natural extension is to handle missing or irregularly sampled observations by estimating the block covariance matrices from pairwise-complete lags; the paper does not treat missingness.
  • Editorial inference: The membership trajectory over time could serve as a continuous drowsiness score in driver monitoring, since partial memberships track the approach to a drowsy state rather than forcing a binary label; the paper mentions this idea but does not test it as a forecasting signal.
  • Editorial inference: Because FCPCA assumes each cluster is a single low-dimensional linear subspace, a cluster containing multiple distinct regimes (for example, alternating attentive and fatigued stretches within one subject) may need to be split into more clusters than the number of true states, making the validity index's choice of $S$ critical.
  • Editorial inference: The use of lagged block covariance matrices captures only second-order temporal structure, so clusters that differ only in higher-order moments or nonlinear dynamics would be invisible to FCPCA, and testing that boundary would clarify the method's scope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FCPCA, a fuzzy clustering method for multivariate time series based on common principal component analysis of lagged cross-covariance block matrices. The method iteratively updates fuzzy memberships and cluster-specific projection spaces to minimize a total weighted reconstruction error, with a data-driven criterion for selecting the fuzziness parameter. The authors evaluate FCPCA on simulated VARMA processes, on simulated EEG data, on several benchmark multivariate time series datasets, and on a real EEG driver-drowsiness dataset, comparing against VPCA-based fuzzy clustering, fuzzy C-medoids, and hard CPCA-based clustering.

Significance. If the optimization were consistent, FCPCA would be a useful addition to the fuzzy-clustering literature for multivariate time series: it explicitly addresses variable lengths and high dimensionality, and the paper includes a public R implementation and an interesting real-data application. The comparisons against external baselines (VPCA, FCMD) and against hard CPCA variants are appropriate. However, the central algorithmic claim is undermined by a mismatch between the stated objective and the covariance update used for variable-length series, and the simulation evidence is reported without variability measures and partly contradicts the stated conclusions. These issues currently block acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (7)-(8), and Algorithm 1] For varying-length series, the algorithm does not minimize the objective in Eq. (7). For fixed U, the term involving C_s(l) in Eq. (7) is sum_i u_is^m ||hatX_i(l) - hatX_i(l)C_s(l)C_s(l)^T||^2. Since hatX_i(l)^T hatX_i(l) = (T_i-l) hatGamma_i(l) after mean centering, the minimizer over C_s(l) (for fixed k(l)) is the top-k eigenspace of sum_i u_is^m (T_i-l) hatGamma_i(l), up to normalization. Algorithm 1, Step 9, instead uses Eq. (8), which drops the (T_i-l) factor. With equal lengths this factor is constant and cancels; with unequal lengths it changes both the projection axes and the subsequent membership updates. Consequently, Algorithm 1 is not coordinate descent on Eq. (7), no monotone decrease follows, and the convergence check in Step 15 has no formal basis. Since Scenario 3 in Section 4.1.2 is the advertised variable-length setting, the reported results there are obtained under an objective different from the one stated.
  2. [Section 4.1.4-4.1.6, Tables 1-3] The empirical support for the central claim is incomplete. Tables 1 and 2 report only mean Rand indices, with no standard deviations or confidence intervals, so claims of 'outperforms' are not statistically grounded. Additionally, Section 4.1.5 states that only one replicate is used for FCPCA to obtain the RI results, even though Algorithm 1 recommends running multiple random starts; this makes the reported means potentially dependent on a single initialization and weakens the robustness claim. Moreover, the text in Section 4.1.6 says 'FCPCA can detect the fuzzy series in most cases,' but Table 3 reports an average detection rate of 0.00 in several cells (e.g., all three dimension rows for length 400 at threshold 0.6, and the length-200/400 rows at threshold 0.7 for dimension 20). These entries directly contradict the stated claim and the 'fuzzy detection' ability that is a key advertised feature.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (10)] The proposed cluster validity index is self-referential. The numerator of Eq. (10) is exactly the objective minimized by the algorithm, and the denominator is built from the same projection matrices P_s = C_s(l)C_s(l)^T that the clustering output produces. Selecting m by minimizing this CVI therefore selects the fuzziness parameter that minimizes the same reconstruction objective, which does not provide independent evidence about cluster validity. The paper should demonstrate on simulated data with known structure that the CVI-based selection of m correlates with an external accuracy measure; the EEG application in Section 5 shows one case where it works, but the claim of 'objectively' selecting m is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1.1] There is a typo in the first sentence: 'Ths study' should be 'This study.'
  2. [Section 1, contribution (4)] The phrase 'improved performance and interoperability' likely should be 'interpretability,' since the paragraph discusses richer clustering insights rather than system interoperability.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The definition of hatX_i(l) is confusing: the notation X^*_{i,t-l} and X^*_{i,t} suggests columns of a matrix, but the relation to the original X_i is not spelled out. Please clarify the dimensions and the index ranges, since this object is central to the reconstruction error in Eq. (5).
  4. [Section 4.1.6 and Table 3] Table 3 refers to the 'optimal m' but the procedure for selecting m in the simulations is not defined; the cross-reference 'see Section??' appears to be unresolved. The statement that the most selected m is 'mostly 1.7 or 1.8' would benefit from a table or figure showing the selections.
  5. [Section 4.3 and Table 6] The text states that a low fuzziness parameter m=1.1 is used for the real-data comparisons, but Table 6 does not state the value of m used for each method. Please specify the configuration so the results are reproducible.
  6. [Section 5, Figure 5] The description of Figure 5 is ambiguous: it says 'the log-transformed CVI values ... The original CVIs and RIs are marked in the figure.' It is unclear whether one plot or two plots are shown and how to distinguish the curves; a legend is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; one minor self-referential CVI does not drive the main claims.

  1. other [Section 3.2, Eq. (10) (CVI_{S,m} definition)]
    "In Equation 10, the numerator is precisely the objective function (which we prefer to be as small as possible), while the denominator measures cluster separation (which we want to be as large as possible)."

    The CVI for selecting m and S is defined with the same total weighted reconstruction error that FCPCA minimizes; its numerator is exactly objective (7). Therefore choosing m by minimum CVI partly means choosing the solution with smallest clustering objective, so the selection criterion is not an independent external validation. This is a mild self-reference, not load-bearing: the reported accuracy advantages are validated by Rand indices against known labels and against VPCA/FCMD baselines.

full rationale

FCPCA's derivation is an alternating optimization of the weighted reconstruction error: memberships are updated from reconstruction errors by Eq. (9), and projection axes are re-estimated from membership-weighted covariance matrices by Eq. (8). No predicted cluster label or reported Rand index is an input to these updates. The numerical claims are tested externally: synthetic series are generated from known VAR(1)/VMA(1)/VARMA(1,1) mechanisms with known partitions; the benchmark datasets carry ground-truth labels; and the EEG data have alert/drowsy labels. The comparisons to VPCA, FCMD, Mc2PCA and ROBCPCA use independent implementations; the self-citation to ROBCPCA is a building block/baseline, not an unverified premise used to force the fuzzy result. The only self-referential element is Eq. (10): the CVI used for automatic m/S selection has a numerator that is exactly the clustering objective, so the selected m is partly chosen by the objective itself. This is a mild internal-criterion effect, not a tautology, because accuracy is established against external labels. The Eq. (7)/Eq. (8) length-weighting inconsistency is a correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not raise the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The algorithm's parameters (m, S, threshold, k(l), L, R) are all standard tuning choices; m is selected on data via a validity index, which makes it a fitted parameter. The core modeling axioms are stationarity, linear representability of clusters in covariance space, and the validity of the modified Xie-Beni index.

free parameters (5)
  • Fuzziness parameter m = Selected by grid search over [1.1, 2.2] minimizing modified Xie-Beni CVI (Eq. 10)
    Controls softness of membership; results are highly sensitive to m (Tables 1-2 show RI drops to 0.10 at m=2.2), so it is effectively a fitted parameter.
  • Number of clusters S = Set to 2 in simulations and EEG application; grid search proposed but not used
    The number of clusters is assumed known in the simulations (true partition) and set to 2 for the EEG drowsiness data; the paper proposes CVI-based selection but does not validate it.
  • Membership threshold for hardening = 0.6 or 0.7
    Used to convert fuzzy memberships into hard labels and to define a 'mixed' category; detection rates in Tables 1-3 depend strongly on this threshold.
  • Number of principal components k(l) = Determined by 95% explained variance, fixed after first iteration
    The subspace dimension affects reconstruction errors and thus membership updates; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Number of lags L = 2
    Lag order recommended by the Mc2PCA authors (Li 2019); the choice is not data-driven.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each multivariate time series is a realization of a second-order stationary process, so that cross-covariance at lag l depends only on l.
    Invoked in Section 2 when defining Gamma_i(l) and computing sample covariances; violated by many real-world recordings, including EEG segments with drifts.
  • ad hoc to paper Cluster structure is adequately captured by common linear subspaces of lagged covariance block matrices.
    The entire reconstruction-error criterion in Section 3.1 (Eqs. 7-9) rests on this representational assumption; it is not tested against nonlinear or non-Gaussian dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified Xie-Beni index (Eq. 10) is a valid criterion for selecting the fuzziness parameter m.
    The CVI is adapted from Xie and Beni (1991) without a theoretical justification or systematic simulation; the paper only shows one favorable example (subject 11) in the EEG application.
  • standard math The alternating optimization converges to a useful local optimum (standard fuzzy c-means style argument).
    Each step (SVD and membership update) decreases the objective, implying monotone convergence; the authors state this informally ('until the total reconstruction error ceases to decrease').
  • domain assumption ROBCPCA (Ma et al., 2024), the robust hard-clustering base, is a valid and reliable algorithm.
    FCPCA inherits the robust covariance construction from a same-author preprint; its properties are assumed rather than re-derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FCPCA: Fuzzy clustering of high-dimensional time series based on common principal component analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYGKVHPN

@misc{pith2026250507276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FCPCA: Fuzzy clustering of high-dimensional time series based on common principal component analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYGKVHPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07276}
}
read the original abstract

Clustering multivariate time series data is a crucial task in many domains, as it enables the identification of meaningful patterns and groups in time-evolving data. Traditional approaches, such as crisp clustering, rely on the assumption that clusters are sufficiently separated with little overlap. However, real-world data often defy this assumption, exhibiting overlapping distributions or overlapping clouds of points and blurred boundaries between clusters. Fuzzy clustering offers a compelling alternative by allowing partial membership in multiple clusters, making it well-suited for these ambiguous scenarios. Despite its advantages, current fuzzy clustering methods primarily focus on univariate time series, and for multivariate cases, even datasets of moderate dimensionality become computationally prohibitive. This challenge is further exacerbated when dealing with time series of varying lengths, leaving a clear gap in addressing the complexities of modern datasets. This work introduces a novel fuzzy clustering approach based on common principal component analysis to address the aforementioned shortcomings. Our method has the advantage of efficiently handling high-dimensional multivariate time series by reducing dimensionality while preserving critical temporal features. Extensive numerical results show that our proposed clustering method outperforms several existing approaches in the literature. An interesting application involving brain signals from different drivers recorded from a simulated driving experiment illustrates the potential of the approach.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    S., and Wah, T

    Aghabozorgi, S., Shirkhorshidi, A. S., and Wah, T. Y. (2015). Time-series clustering--a decade review. Information systems 53, 16--38

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Ann Maharaj, E., D’Urso, P., and Galagedera, D. U. (2010). Wavelet-based fuzzy clustering of time series. Journal of Classification 27, 231--275

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    C., Ehrlich, R., and Full, W

    Bezdek, J. C., Ehrlich, R., and Full, W. (1984). Fcm: The fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. Computers & geosciences 10, 191--203

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Brown, T., Johnson, R., and Milavetz, G. (2013). Identifying periods of drowsy driving using EEG . Annals of advances in automotive medicine 57, 99

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    S., Murphy, S

    Burkom, H. S., Murphy, S. P., and Shmueli, G. (2007). Automated time series forecasting for biosurveillance. Statistics in Medicine 26, 4202--4218

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Coppi, R., D'Urso, P., and Giordani, P. (2006). Fuzzy c-medoids clustering models for time-varying data. In Modern Information Processing , pages 195--206. Elsevier

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Cui, J., Lan, Z., Liu, Y., Li, R., Li, F., Sourina, O., and M \"u ller-Wittig, W. (2022). A compact and interpretable convolutional neural network for cross-subject driver drowsiness detection from single-channel EEG . Methods 202, 173--184

    work page 2022

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    D \"o ring, C., Lesot, M.-J., and Kruse, R. (2006). Data analysis with fuzzy clustering methods. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51, 192--214

    2006

  2. [10]

    S., Tsay, R

    D \"u ker, M.-C., Matteson, D. S., Tsay, R. S., and Wilms, I. (2025). Vector autoregressive moving average models: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 17, e70009

    2025

  3. [11]

    and Maharaj, E

    D'Urso, P. and Maharaj, E. A. (2012). Wavelets-based clustering of multivariate time series. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 193, 33--61

    2012

  4. [12]

    D’Urso, P., De Giovanni, L., and Massari, R. (2021). Trimmed fuzzy clustering of financial time series based on dynamic time warping. Annals of Operations Research 299, 1379--1395

    2021

  5. [13]

    H., and Yolcu, U

    Egrioglu, E., Aladag, C. H., and Yolcu, U. (2013). Fuzzy time series forecasting with a novel hybrid approach combining fuzzy c-means and neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 854--857

    2013

  6. [14]

    and Riley, H

    Gurudath, N. and Riley, H. B. (2014). Drowsy driving detection by EEG analysis using wavelet transform and K-means clustering . Procedia Computer Science 34, 400--409

    2014

  7. [15]

    and Tan, Y

    He, H. and Tan, Y. (2018). Unsupervised classification of multivariate time series using vpca and fuzzy clustering with spatial weighted matrix distance. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 50, 1096--1105

    2018

  8. [16]

    Izakian, H., Pedrycz, W., and Jamal, I. (2015). Fuzzy clustering of time series data using dynamic time warping distance. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 39, 235--244

    2015

  9. [17]

    K., Murty, M

    Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., and Flynn, P. J. (1999). Data clustering: a review. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 31, 264--323

    1999

  10. [18]

    N., Kodagoda, S., Lal, S., and Dissanayake, G

    Khushaba, R. N., Kodagoda, S., Lal, S., and Dissanayake, G. (2010). Driver drowsiness classification using fuzzy wavelet-packet-based feature-extraction algorithm. IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering 58, 121--131

    2010

  11. [19]

    M., Makwana, P

    Kodinariya, T. M., Makwana, P. R., et al. (2013). Review on determining number of cluster in k-means clustering. International Journal 1, 90--95

    2013

  12. [20]

    Krishnapuram, R., Joshi, A., and Yi, L. (1999). A fuzzy relative of the k-medoids algorithm with application to web document and snippet clustering. In FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 99CH36315) , volume 3, pages 1281--1286. IEEE

    1999

  13. [21]

    Kruse, R., D \"o ring, C., and Lesot, M.-J. (2007). Fundamentals of fuzzy clustering. Advances in fuzzy clustering and its applications pages 3--30

    2007

  14. [22]

    Li, H. (2019). Multivariate time series clustering based on common principal component analysis. Neurocomputing 349, 239--247

    2019

  15. [23]

    and Wei, M

    Li, H. and Wei, M. (2020). Fuzzy clustering based on feature weights for multivariate time series. Knowledge-Based Systems 197, 105907

    2020

  16. [24]

    Lopez-Oriona, A. and A. Vilar , J. (2023). mlmts: Machine Learning Algorithms for Multivariate Time Series . R package version 1.1.1

    2023

  17. [25]

    A., and D'Urso, P

    L \'o pez-Oriona, \'A ., Vilar, J. A., and D'Urso, P. (2022). Quantile-based fuzzy clustering of multivariate time series in the frequency domain. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 443, 115--154

    2022

  18. [26]

    A., and D’Urso, P

    L \'o pez-Oriona, \'A ., Vilar, J. A., and D’Urso, P. (2023). Hard and soft clustering of categorical time series based on two novel distances with an application to biological sequences. Information Sciences 624, 467--492

    2023

  19. [27]

    Ma, Z., Lopez Oriona, A., Ombao, H., and Sun, Y. (2024). ROBCPCA: A Robust Multivariate Time Series Clustering Method Based on Common Principal Component Analysis

    2024

  20. [28]

    Madhulatha, T. S. (2012). An overview on clustering methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.1117

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Maharaj, E. A. (1999). Comparison and classification of stationary multivariate time series. Pattern Recognition 32, 1129--1138

    1999

  22. [30]

    Maharaj, E. A. and D’Urso, P. (2011). Fuzzy clustering of time series in the frequency domain. Information Sciences 181, 1187--1211

    2011

  23. [31]

    and Pinto, M

    Ombao, H. and Pinto, M. (2024). Spectral dependence. Econometrics and Statistics 32, 122--159

    2024

  24. [32]

    Ouyang, R., Ren, L., Cheng, W., and Zhou, C. (2010). Similarity search and pattern discovery in hydrological time series data mining. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 24, 1198--1210

    2010

  25. [33]

    and Gravano, L

    Paparrizos, J. and Gravano, L. (2017). Fast and accurate time-series clustering. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 42, 1--49

    2017

  26. [34]

    Patel, N. U. (2014). Comparative study between fuzzy clustering and hard clustering. International Journal of Futuristic Trends in Engineering and Technology 1, 16--19

    2014

  27. [35]

    Rand, W. M. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical association 66, 846--850

    1971

  28. [36]

    H., Bezdek, J

    Ruspini, E. H., Bezdek, J. C., and Keller, J. M. (2019). Fuzzy clustering: A historical perspective. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 14, 45--55

    2019

  29. [37]

    and Chambers, J

    Sanei, S. and Chambers, J. A. (2013). EEG signal processing . John Wiley & Sons

    2013

  30. [38]

    Sarda-Espinosa, A. (2024). dtwclust: Time Series Clustering Along with Optimizations for the Dynamic Time Warping Distance . R package version 6.0.0

    2024

  31. [39]

    P., Tiwari, A., Er, M

    Saxena, A., Prasad, M., Gupta, A., Bharill, N., Patel, O. P., Tiwari, A., Er, M. J., Ding, W., and Lin, C.-T. (2017). A review of clustering techniques and developments. Neurocomputing 267, 664--681

    2017

  32. [40]

    H., Stoffer, D

    Shumway, R. H., Stoffer, D. S., and Stoffer, D. S. (2000). Time series analysis and its applications , volume 3. Springer

    2000

  33. [41]

    and Li, G

    Song, H. and Li, G. (2008). Tourism demand modelling and forecasting—a review of recent research. Tourism Management 29, 203--220

    2008

  34. [42]

    Tucker, A., Swift, S., and Liu, X. (2001). Variable grouping in multivariate time series via correlation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 31, 235--245

    2001

  35. [43]

    Wang, X., Smith, K., and Hyndman, R. (2006). Characteristic-based clustering for time series data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 13, 335--364

    2006

  36. [44]

    Wei, C.-S., Wang, Y.-T., Lin, C.-T., and Jung, T.-P. (2018). Toward drowsiness detection using non-hair-bearing EEG-based brain-computer interfaces . IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering 26, 400--406

    2018

  37. [45]

    Wu, K.-L. (2012). Analysis of parameter selections for fuzzy c-means. Pattern Recognition 45, 407--415

    2012

  38. [46]

    Xie, X. L. and Beni, G. (1991). A validity measure for fuzzy clustering. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 13, 841--847

    1991

  39. [47]

    Zhang, H., Ji, H., Yu, J., Li, J., Jin, L., Liu, L., Bai, Z., and Ye, C. (2023). Subject-independent EEG classification based on a hybrid neural network . Frontiers in Neuroscience 17, 1124089

    2023

  40. [48]

    Zhou, K., Fu, C., and Yang, S. (2014). Fuzziness parameter selection in fuzzy c-means: the perspective of cluster validation. Science China Information Sciences 57, 1--8

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.