Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 30.
Published in final edited form as: Stat Med. 2017 Jun 15;36(22):3495–3506. doi: 10.1002/sim.7374

Table 1.

Comparisons of BClustLonG, BClustLonG0, MCLUST, EPGMM, and K-means in simulation settings. The numbers in each cell indicate the average adjusted Rand index (Avg.Rand) and the average number of clusters (Avg.Clust) estimated by each method under each scenario with standard deviations in parentheses.

Scenarios BClustLonG BClustLonG0 MCLUST EPGMM K-means
RR Avg.Rand 0.972 (0.054) 0.303 (0.065) 0.407 (0.114) 0.050 (0.224) 0.566 (0.123)
Avg.Clust 2.2 (0.4) 7.9 (1.7) 3.5 (0.8) 1.1 (0.2) 2.0 (0.0)

RI Avg.Rand 0.990 (0.017) 0.447 (0.073) 0.627 (0.121) 0.840 (0.362) 0.756 (0.096)
Avg.Clust 2.1 (0.3) 5.5 (1.4) 3.0 (0.6) 1.8 (0.3) 2.0 (0.0)

IR Avg.Rand 1.000 (0.000) 0.474 (0.066) 0.695 (0.127) 1.000 (0.000) 0.860 (0.086)
Avg.Clust 2.0 (0.0) 5.6 (1.2) 3.1 (0.9) 2.0 (0.0) 2.0 (0.0)

II Avg.Rand 0.998 (0.009) 0.998 (0.009) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.998 (0.009)
Avg.Clust 2.0 (0.0) 2.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 2.0 (0.0)