{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023033707865168538, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016853932584269663, 'mean_word_length': 5.293286219081272, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparative study of DIGNET, average, complete, single hierarchical and k-means clustering algorithms in 2D face image recognition

The study in this paper belongs to a more general research of discovering facial sub-clusters in different ethnicity face databases. These new sub-clusters along with other metadata (such as race, sex, etc.) lead to a vector for each face in the database where each vector component represents the likelihood of participation of a given face to each cluster. This vector is then used as a feature vector in a human identification and tracking system based on face and other biometrics. The first stage in this system involves a clustering method which evaluates and compares the clustering results of five different clustering algorithms (average, complete, single hierarchical algorithm, k-means and DIGNET), and selects the best strategy for each data collection. In this paper we present the comparative performance of clustering results of DIGNET and four clustering algorithms (average, complete, single hierarchical and k-means) on fabricated 2D and 3D samples, and on actual face images from various databases, using four different standard metrics. These metrics are the silhouette figure, the mean silhouette coefficient, the Hubert test Γ coefficient, and the classification accuracy for each clustering result. The results showed that, in general, DIGNET gives more trustworthy results than the other algorithms when the metrics values are above a specific acceptance threshold. However when the evaluation results metrics have values lower than the acceptance threshold but not too low (too low corresponds to ambiguous results or false results), then it is necessary for the clustering results to be verified by the other algorithms.