Comparison of Proximity Measures: A Topological Approach

  • Djamel Abdelkader ZighedEmail author
  • Rafik Abdesselam
  • Ahmed Bounekkar
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 471)


In many application domains, the choice of a proximity measure affect directly the result of classification, comparison or the structuring of a set of objects. For any given problem, the user is obliged to choose one proximity measure between many existing ones. However, this choice depend on many characteristics. Indeed, according to the notion of equivalence, like the one based on pre-ordering, some of the proximity measures are more or less equivalent. In this paper, we propose a new approach to compare the proximity measures. This approach is based on the topological equivalence which exploits the concept of local neighbors and defines an equivalence between two proximity measures by having the same neighborhood structure on the objects.We compare the two approaches, the pre-ordering and our approach, to thirty five proximity measures using the continuous and binary attributes of empirical data sets.


Adjacency Matrix Minimal Span Tree Appendix Table Neighborhood Structure Dissimilarity Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Batagelj and Bren, 1992]
    Batagelj, V., Bren, M.: Comparing resemblance measures. Technical report, Proc. International Meeting on Distance Analysis, DISTANCIA 1992 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. [Batagelj and Bren, 1995]
    Batagelj, V., Bren, M.: Comparing resemblance measures. Journal of Classification 12, 73–90 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Bouchon-Meunier et al., 1996]
    Bouchon-Meunier, B., Rifqi, M., Bothorel, S.: Towards general measures of comparison of objects. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 84(2), 143–153 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Clarke et al., 2006]
    Clarke, K., Somerfield, P., Chapman, M.: On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted bray-curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330(1), 55–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Fagin et al., 2003]
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: Comparing top k lists. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, p. 36. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2003)Google Scholar
  6. [Kim and Lee, 2003]
    Kim, J., Lee, S.: Tail bound for the minimal spanning tree of a complete graph. Statistics and Probability Letters 64(4), 425–430 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Lerman, 1967]
    Lerman, I.: Indice de similarité et préordonnance associée, Ordres. Travaux du séminaire sur les ordres totaux finis, Aix-en-Provence (1967)Google Scholar
  8. [Lesot et al., 2009]
    Lesot, M.-J., Rifqi, M., Benhadda, H.: Similarity measures for binary and numerical data: a survey. IJKESDP 1(1), 63–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Liu et al., ]
    Liu, H., Song, D., Rüger, S.M., Hu, R., Uren, V.S.: Comparing Dissimilarity Measures for Content-Based Image Retrieval. In: Li, H., Liu, T., Ma, W.-Y., Sakai, T., Wong, K.-F., Zhou, G. (eds.) AIRS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4993, pp. 44–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Malerba et al., 2002]
    Malerba, D., Esposito, F., Monopoli, M.: Comparing dissimilarity measures for probabilistic symbolic objects. Series Management Information Systems 6, 31–40 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. [Mantel, 1967]
    Mantel, N.: A technique of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27, 209–220 (1967)Google Scholar
  12. [Noreault et al., 1980]
    Noreault, T., McGill, M., Koll, M.: A performance evaluation of similarity measures, document term weighting schemes and representations in a boolean environment. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, p. 76. Butterworth and Co. (1980)Google Scholar
  13. [Park et al., 2006]
    Park, J., Shin, H., Choi, B.: Elliptic gabriel graph for finding neighbors in a point set and its application to normal vector estimation. Computer-Aided Design 38(6), 619–626 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Preparata and Shamos, 1985]
    Preparata, F., Shamos, M.: Computational geometry: an introduction. Springer (1985)Google Scholar
  15. [Richter, 1992]
    Richter, M.: Classification and learning of similarity measures. In: Proceedings der Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft fur Klassifikation. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis and Knowledge Organisation. Springer (1992)Google Scholar
  16. [Schneider and Borlund, 2007a]
    Schneider, J., Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, part 1: Motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results. Journal American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(11), 1586–1595 (2007a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Schneider and Borlund, 2007b]
    Schneider, J., Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, part 2: Measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the mantel and procrustes statistics. Journal American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(11), 1596–1609 (2007b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Spertus et al., 2005]
    Spertus, E., Sahami, M., Buyukkokten, O.: Evaluating similarity measures: a large-scale study in the orkut social network. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, p. 684. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  19. [Strehl et al., 2000]
    Strehl, A., Ghosh, J., Mooney, R.: Impact of similarity measures on web-page clustering. In: Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Web Search (AAAI 2000), pp. 58–64 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. [Toussaint, 1980]
    Toussaint, G.: The relative neighbourhood graph of a finite planar set. Pattern Recognition 12(4), 261–268 (1980)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Ward Jr, 1963]
    Ward Jr., J.: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58(301), 236–244 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Warrens, 2008]
    Warrens, M.: Bounds of resemblance measures for binary (presence/absence) variables. Journal of Classification 25(2), 195–208 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Zhang and Srihari, 2003]
    Zhang, B., Srihari, S.: Properties of binary vector dissimilarity measures. In: Proc. JCIS Int’l Conf. Computer Vision, Pattern Recognition, and Image Processing. Citeseer (2003)Google Scholar
  24. [Zwick et al., 1987]
    Zwick, R., Carlstein, E., Budescu, D.: Measures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: A comparative analysis. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 1(2), 221–242 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Djamel Abdelkader Zighed
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rafik Abdesselam
    • 1
  • Ahmed Bounekkar
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire ERICUniversity Lumière of Lyon 2Bron CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire ERICUniversity Claude Bernard of Lyon 1Villeurbanne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations