Optimal Landmark Point Selection Using Clustering for Manifold Modeling and Data Classification

  • Manazhy RashmiEmail author
  • Praveen Sankaran


As data volume and dimensions continue to grow, effective and efficient methods are needed to obtain the low dimensional features of the data that describe its true structure. Most nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods (NLDR) utilize the Euclidean distance between the data points to form a general idea of the data manifold structure. Isomap uses the geodesic distance between data points and then uses classical multidimensional scaling(cMDS) to obtain low dimensional features. As the data size increases Isomap becomes complex. To overcome this disadvantage, Landmark Isomap (L-Isomap) uses selected data points called landmark points and finds the geodesic distance from these points to all other non-landmark points. Traditionally, landmark points are randomly selected without considering any statistical property of the data manifold. We contend that the quality of the features extracted is dependent on the selection of the landmark points. In applications such as data classification, the net accuracy is dependent on the quality of the features selected, and hence landmark points selection might play a crucial role. In this paper, we propose a clustering approach to obtain the landmark points. These new points are now used to represent the data, and Fisher’s linear discriminants are used for classification. The proposed method is tested with different datasets to verify the efficacy of the approach.


Clustering Landmark isomap Fisher’s linear discrimant analysis Geodesic Feature extraction Manifolds MDS 



  1. Alsabti, K., Ranka, S., Singh, V. (1997). An efficient k-means clustering algorithm.Google Scholar
  2. Belkin, M., & Niyogi, P. (2003). Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural Computation, 15(6), 1373–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengio, Y., Paiement, J.-F., Vincent, P., Delalleau, O., Le Roux, N., Ouimet, M. (2004). Out-of-sample extensions for lle, isomap, mds, eigenmaps, and spectral clustering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 16, 177–184.Google Scholar
  4. Burfield, C. (2013). Floyd-warshall algorithm. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Chatfield, C., & Collins, A.J. (1980). Principal component analysis. In Introduction to multivariate analysis, (Vol. 1 pp. 57–81).Google Scholar
  6. Feng, L., Gao, C., Sun, T., Wu, H. (2010). A neighborhood selection algorithm for manifold learning. In 2010 International conference on computer design and applications (ICCDA), (Vol. 2 pp. 2–339): IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. Jain, A.K. (2010). Data clustering: 50 years beyond k-means. Pattern recognition letters, 31(8), 651–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kanungo, T., Mount, D.M., Netanyahu, N.S., Piatko, C.D., Silverman, R., Wu, A.Y. (2002). An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: Analysis and implementation. IEEE transcation on. Pattern analysis and machine learning, 24(7), 881–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P. (1998). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11), 2278–2324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roweis, S.T., & Saul, L.K. (2000). Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science, 290(5500), 2323–2326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nene, S.K.N.S.A., & Murase, H. (1996). Columbia object image library (COIL-20). In Technical report CUCS-005-96.Google Scholar
  12. Saul, L.K., & Roweis, S.T. (2003). Think globally, fit locally: unsupervised learning of low dimensional manifolds. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4, 119–155.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Silva, V.D., & Tenenbaum, J.B. (2002). Global versus local methods in nonlinear dimensionality reduction. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 705–712).Google Scholar
  14. Steinley, D. (2006). K-means clustering: A half-century synthesis. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistical Psychology, 59(1), 1–34.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steinley, D., & Brusco, M.J. (2007). Intializing k-means batch clustering: a critical evaluation of several techniques. Journal of Classification, 24(1), 99–121.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tenenbaum, J.B., De Silva, V., Langford, J.C. (2000). A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science, 290(5500), 2319–2323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tsai, F.S., & Chan, K.L. (2007). Dimensionality reduction techniques for data exploration. In 2007 6th International conference on information, communications & signal processing, (pp. 1–5): IEEE.Google Scholar
  18. Van der Maaten, L., Postma, E., Van Den Herik, H. (2009). Dimensionality reduction: A comparative review. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10, 1–41.Google Scholar
  19. Wang, J. (2012). Classical multidimensional scaling. In Geometric structure of high-dimensional data and dimensionality reduction (pp. 115–129).Google Scholar
  20. Welling, M. (2005). Fisher linear discriminant analysis. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 3, 1–4.Google Scholar
  21. Yang, M.-H. (2002). Face recognition using extended isomap. In 2002. Proceedings. 2002 international conference on image processing, (Vol. 2 p. 117): IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Classification Society of North America 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Scholar, NIT CalicutKattangalIndia
  2. 2.NIT CalicutKattangalIndia

Personalised recommendations