Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Clustering Longitudinal Life-Course Sequences Using Mixtures of Exponential-Distance Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new family of mixtures of exponential-distance models clusters categorical life-course sequences directly, finds 11 typical trajectories in a Northern Irish youth cohort, and identifies GCSE performance as the dominant predictor of…

desk verdict A genuinely useful model-based alternative to heuristic sequence clustering, with clean math and honest limitations; the headline MVAD predictor claim is more fragile than the abstract admits. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07963 v4 pith:2NRT3NQI submitted 2019-08-21 stat.ME stat.AP

Keefe Murphy , Thomas Brendan Murphy , Raffaella Piccarreta , Isobel Claire Gormley This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62H3062P25
keywords sequenceanalysismodel-basedclusteringexponential-distancemodelsweightedHammingdistancelife-coursesequencesmixtureofexpertsgatingcovariatessurveysamplingweights
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 family of model-based clustering methods, called MEDseq, that cluster categorical life-course sequences directly rather than feeding a dissimilarity matrix into a heuristic algorithm. Each cluster is represented by a central sequence and a precision parameter, with probability decaying exponentially in a weighted Hamming distance from the central sequence. Because the weighted Hamming distance is a sum over time points, its normalizing constant has a closed form, which makes an exact expectation–conditional-maximization algorithm possible. Applied to monthly school-to-work trajectories of 712 Northern Irish youths, the method selects an 11-cluster model and finds that GCSE examination performance is the single most important predictor of cluster membership.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exponential-distance model with weighted Hamming distance, in which sequence probability decays as $\exp(-\sum_{t=1}^T\lambda_t\mathbb{1}(s_{i,t}\neq\theta_t))$ around a central sequence $\theta$. Its normalizing constant factorizes over time as $\prod_{t=1}^T((v-1)e^{-\lambda_t}+1)$, so every parameter — central sequence positions, precision parameters, gating coefficients, and sampling weights — can be updated inside an exact expectation–conditional-maximization algorithm. This closed form is what turns an otherwise intractable distance-based generative model into a practical clustering tool.

What would settle it

Permute the 70 time points consistently for every sequence and refit the optimal model; since the weighted Hamming distance is invariant under such permutations, a Hamming-based model must reproduce the same partition (up to relabeling), whereas any method that captures duration or transition structure would generally change the clusters. A second check is to simulate sequences from a Markov or hidden-Markov process with long spells and confirm whether the MEDseq clusters still recover the true groups.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that exponential-distance models based on weighted Hamming distance provide a tractable, generative foundation for clustering categorical sequences. Under the Hamming distance the normalizing constant reduces to $\Psi_H(\lambda|T,v) = ((v-1)e^{-\lambda}+1)^T$, independent of the central sequence, and the same closed form carries over to time-varying precision parameters $\lambda_t$; this removes the intractable sum over all $v^T$ sequences. The resulting MEDseq family allows precision parameters to be constrained or free across clusters and time points, includes a uniform noise component, and embeds cluster membership probabilities in a mixture-of-experts gating network that can depend on covariates and survey sampling weights. On the MVAD data the BIC selects an 11-component UUN model (cluster- and time-specific precisions) with a noise component; the 10 non-noise components describe interpretable school-to-work patterns, and a stepwise search reduces the gating covariates to a single indicator of strong GCSE performance, whose negative coefficients show that academically strong students are less likely than others to enter every other trajectory relative to the higher-education route.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that, within a cluster, monthly states are independent once the central sequence and month-specific precisions are fixed — an assumption that ignores spell durations and state dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clustering and covariate analysis happen in one step: the same model estimates the number of typical trajectories, their features, and the covariates that predict membership, avoiding the distortion of hard assignments in a separate regression.
  • Weighted variants of the Hamming distance let different months contribute different implicit substitution costs, so the model can capture periods of high and low consensus without losing tractability.
  • The uniform noise component absorbs deviant sequences, so the remaining clusters are more homogeneous and the gating coefficients are less influenced by outliers.
  • On the MVAD data, an 11-component solution gives a finer typology than the 5 groups found by earlier two-step analyses, with persistent unemployment isolated in a single cluster.
  • Ignoring the sampling weights changes the selected number of clusters (from 11 to 10) and the gating covariates, so weighting matters for inference on these data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the weighted Hamming distance is invariant to permuting time points, the method's clusters characterize sequencing only through contemporaneous matches; a natural testable extension is to incorporate duration or transition penalties into the distance while keeping a closed-form normalizing constant, e.g., through a factorized model over adjacent states.
  • The same closed-form machinery could be transferred to other settings where data are fixed-length categorical sequences, such as daily activity diaries or weekly employment histories, as long as a time-wise product structure holds.
  • The paper's finding that one summary exam indicator dominates all other background covariates suggests a sharper policy question: whether clusters are better predicted by measured ability than by family or community background, which the MVAD covariates can only partially separate.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new family of model-based clustering methods, MEDseq, for longitudinal categorical sequences. The models are mixtures of exponential-distance models based on the Hamming distance or weighted variants thereof, which yields a closed-form normalizing constant. The framework incorporates survey sampling weights through a pseudo-likelihood and allows cluster membership probabilities to depend on covariates through a gating network. The authors apply the method to the MVAD data on school-to-work transitions of 712 Northern Irish youths, selecting an 11-component UUN model with GCSE5eq as the only gating covariate by stepwise BIC. The paper's central methodological claim is that this family clusters sequences directly using mixtures of exponential-distance models, and its headline empirical finding is that school examination performance is the single most important predictor of cluster membership.

Significance. If the methodological claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by bridging distance-based sequence analysis and model-based clustering. The closed-form Hamming normalizing constant in Eq. (3), the exact ECM estimation steps in Section 4.1 and Appendix B, and the publicly available R package MEDseq are concrete strengths. The treatment of sampling weights and the noise component is thoughtful. The application to the MVAD data is substantive and the comparison with several alternative methods is informative. However, the headline empirical claim about GCSE5eq being 'the single most important predictor' is not robust to the model's own gating-covariate selection procedure, and the model's invariance to permutations of time periods limits the strength of the substantive conclusions about persistent unemployment. These issues affect the interpretation of the central empirical claims rather than the internal validity of the estimation machinery.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Tables 3 and 5, Section 7] The abstract's claim that GCSE5eq is 'the single most important predictor of cluster membership' is stronger than the evidence supports. Under the NGN gating network with G=11, each additional covariate adds (r+1)(G-2)+1 parameters, which is 19 parameters for a single binary covariate; with log(712) ≈ 6.57, a covariate must improve BIC by roughly 125 units to be selected. The paper itself notes in Section 7 that Catholic affiliation is substantially underrepresented in cluster 7 and overrepresented in cluster 10 despite not being selected. Furthermore, because Grammar is a design variable that defines the sampling weights and is excluded from the weighted gating network, the GCSE5eq coefficients in Table 5 may partly absorb the Grammar effect; the unweighted analysis in Section 5.1 selects Grammar as an extra gating covariate. I recommend rephrasing the headline to something like 'the only covariate retained by the stepwise BIC search' and explicitly discussing the potential for omitted-variable confounding.
  2. [Section 6, Section 7, Table 4] The model's likelihood is invariant to permutations of time periods because the Hamming distance factorizes over time, so the model does not distinguish contiguous spells from fragmented states. The interpretation of cluster 10 as representing 'persistent unemployment' and the broader policy conclusion that youth unemployment is mostly a problem of a small group with long spells does not follow directly from the model. Table 4 reports average months spent in joblessness (42.89 for cluster 10) but not average spell length; sequences with many short JL episodes could have a small Hamming distance to the central sequence (TR,10)-(JL,2)-(TR,3)-(JL,55) and be assigned to cluster 10. The authors should verify that the MAP-assigned sequences in cluster 10 exhibit long uninterrupted JL spells, for example by reporting mean spell lengths, or soften the substantive claims in Section 6.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Table A.1] The BIC-selected G=11 UUN model is heavily parameterized for n=712. By the paper's own counting convention in Table A.1, the UUN specification has (G-1)*sum_t(v_t-1) parameters for the central sequences plus (G-1)*T precision parameters; for the MVAD data this is on the order of 4,200 parameters, so k/n is about 6. In this regime the BIC penalty k log n may not provide reliable model selection across G and model type. The choice of G=11 UUN is plausible, but the paper's repeated use of 'optimal' to describe this model would be better supported by a sensitivity analysis, such as a bootstrap stability check of cluster assignments, a split-half replication, or an examination of the stability of the BIC ranking across random starts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph on latent class analysis] There is an extra closing parenthesis after 'Lazarsfeld and Henry 1968': it reads '(LCA; Lazarsfeld and Henry 1968 ))' and should be '(LCA; Lazarsfeld and Henry 1968)'.
  2. [Section 2, paragraph on covariates] The text refers to 'Fune mp' but the covariate is named 'Funemp' in Table 1; the space appears to be a typo.
  3. [Appendix C, Table C.2] In the row labelled 'Responses: MAP (z_i)', the GCSE5eq coefficient for cluster 8 is printed as '2 .21' with no minus sign; it should be '-2.21' to be consistent with the soft-response row and the otherwise uniformly negative slope coefficients.
  4. [Section 7, final paragraph of the discussion] The phrase 'the most single most important predictor' is redundant and should read 'the single most important predictor'.
  5. [Section 5.2, ClickClust comparison] The text reports negative Hamming-based wASW values for ClickClust but does not include them in Figure 4; because Hamming distance is the metric underlying MEDseq but not the Markovian ClickClust model, the comparison is unsurprising and should be interpreted with care. The wDBS comparison in Figure 5 is the more appropriate one and could be highlighted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No definitional or load-bearing circularity: the MEDseq likelihood, normalizing constant, and ECM updates are derived from stated assumptions, and the empirical covariate findings are fitted rather than predicted from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The exponential-distance likelihood in Eq. (1) is defined from a distance metric and precision parameter; the Hamming normalizing constant in Eq. (3) is derived by counting sequences at each Hamming distance, and the weighted-Hamming extension follows by factorization over time points. The ECM updates for central sequences and precision parameters, including the closed-form expressions in Eq. (9) and Table B.2, are obtained by standard maximization of the complete-data pseudo log-likelihood. None of these steps assumes the clustering result or the covariate effects it later reports. The headline empirical claim that GCSE5eq is the 'single most important predictor' is a fitted multinomial logistic regression coefficient from a stepwise BIC search, not an independent prediction; it is therefore not circular, though it may be fragile, as the paper itself notes in Section 7 when discussing the omission of the religious affiliation covariate. The validation measures wASW and wDBS are computed using the Hamming distance, the same metric underlying the model; however, the paper explicitly states these silhouette summaries 'are used only to validate MEDseq clustering solutions and to facilitate comparisons with other methods,' and the comparator methods are evaluated on the same Hamming distance, so this is a self-consistent evaluation rather than a derivation of the model's claims from its outputs. The self-citations to Murphy and Murphy (2020) supply a gating-network convention and a stepwise selection strategy, but the present paper derives its own likelihood, normalizing constant, and estimation equations; the cited work is not used to forbid alternatives or to import the central result. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations, to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Overall circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of stated statistical modeling choices: a tractable Hamming-based likelihood, conditional independence within clusters, pseudo-likelihood weighting, and BIC selection. The first two are strong assumptions and are not externally validated, which is the main burden on the empirical conclusions.

free parameters (3)
  • Precision parameters lambda, lambda_g, lambda_t, or lambda_g,t = Estimated via ECM moment matching; the selected G=11 UUN model has 10 x 70 = 700 cluster-and-time precision values…
    The precision parameters control cluster concentration and are fitted to the data rather than fixed. The UUN model selected by BIC is the most heavily parameterized variant.
  • Central sequence states theta_g,t = Estimated as weighted modal states per cluster and month; ties are broken at random
    Each cluster's typical trajectory is estimated from the data via weighted modes (Section 4.1.2), and these estimates define the SPS labels and all cluster interpretations in Section 6.
  • Gating network coefficients beta_g = Table 5 reports intercepts and GCSE5eq coefficients for 10 non-noise clusters relative to baseline cluster 1
    The paper's empirical claim that GCSE5eq is the single most important predictor rests directly on these fitted multinomial logistic regression coefficients.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Closed-form Hamming normalizing constant: the number of sequences at each Hamming distance from a reference sequence follows binomial counts, giving Psi_H = ((v-1)e^{-lambda}+1)^T.
    Equation (3) uses standard combinatorics and is required for the tractable likelihood on which all estimation depends.
  • domain assumption Conditional independence of time points within a cluster under the Hamming exponential-distance model.
    The likelihood in Eq. (1) factorizes over time when d is Hamming or weighted Hamming. This is a substantive modeling assumption, acknowledged as a limitation in Section 7.
  • domain assumption Sampling weights enter by exponentiating each unit's likelihood, forming a pseudo likelihood, with weights normalized to sum to n.
    Section 3.2 follows Chambers and Skinner (2003) and Xu et al. (2013). The validity of clustering and model selection depends on this pseudo-likelihood interpretation.
  • domain assumption BIC is an appropriate criterion for pseudo-likelihood model selection, including selection of the number of components and gating covariates.
    Section 4.3 relies on Xu et al. (2013); the paper provides no consistency or robustness proof for BIC in the MEDseq setting.
  • domain assumption All substitution costs in the Hamming metric are equal across pairs of states, with no insertions or deletions.
    Section 7 states that MEDseq cannot account for some states being more different than others; this homogeneity is needed for the closed-form normalizing constant and exact ECM steps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustering Longitudinal Life-Course Sequences Using Mixtures of Exponential-Distance Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NRT3NQI

@misc{pith2026190807963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustering Longitudinal Life-Course Sequences Using Mixtures of Exponential-Distance Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NRT3NQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07963}
}
read the original abstract

Sequence analysis is an increasingly popular approach for analysing life courses represented by ordered collections of activities experienced by subjects over time. Here, we analyse a survey data set containing information on the career trajectories of a cohort of Northern Irish youths tracked between the ages of 16 and 22. We propose a novel, model-based clustering approach suited to the analysis of such data from a holistic perspective, with the aims of estimating the number of typical career trajectories, identifying the relevant features of these patterns, and assessing the extent to which such patterns are shaped by background characteristics. Several criteria exist for measuring pairwise dissimilarities among categorical sequences. Typically, dissimilarity matrices are employed as input to heuristic clustering algorithms. The family of methods we develop instead clusters sequences directly using mixtures of exponential-distance models. Basing the models on weighted variants of the Hamming distance metric permits closed-form expressions for parameter estimation. Simultaneously allowing the component membership probabilities to depend on fixed covariates and accommodating sampling weights in the clustering process yields new insights on the Northern Irish data. In particular, we find that school examination performance is the single most important predictor of cluster membership.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall state distribution for the weighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BIC values for all MEDseq model types, with weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Values of the wASW measure, using Hamming distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Values of the wDBS measure for the best MEDseq model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Central sequences of the optimal G = 11 UUN model with the GCSE5eq gating covariate. The SPS labels on the right characterise each non-noise cluster by the distinct successive states in θbg, with associated durations (in months). Time Clusters Noise 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Clusters uncovered under the optimal G = 11 UUN model with the GCSE5eq gating covariate. The rows correspond to the n = 712 observed sequences, including duplicate cases previously discarded during model fitting, grouped according to the MAP classification and ordered …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observations assigned to the noise component of th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if new.block note output fin.entry FUNCTION b...

  2. [2]

    Billari, and R

    Aassve, A., F. Billari, and R. Piccarreta (2007). Strings of adulthood: a sequence analysis of young B ritish women's weekly work-family trajectories. European Journal of Population\/ 23\/ (3), 369--388

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Abbott, A. and J. Forrest (1986). O ptimal matching methods for historical sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History\/ 16\/ (3), 471--494

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    Abbott, A. and A. Hrycak (1990). Measuring resemblance in sequence data: an optimal matching analysis of musician's careers. American Journal of Sociology\/ 96\/ (1), 145--185

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis . New York: John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Airoldi, E. M., D. M. Blei, E. A. Erosheva, and S. E. Fienberg (2014). Handbook of Mixed Membership Models and Their Applications . New York, USA: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Istance, R

    Armstrong, D., D. Istance, R. Loudon, S. McCready, G. Rees, and D. Wilson (1997). ` S tatus 0': a socio-economic study of young people on the margin. Belfast: Training and Employment Agency , Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Bakk, Z. and J. Kuha (2018). Two-step estimation of models between latent classes and external variables. Psychometrika\/ 83\/ (4), 871--892

    work page 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Banfield, J. and A. E. Raftery (1993). M odel-based G aussian and non- G aussian clustering. Biometrics\/ 49\/ (3), 803--821

    1993

  2. [10]

    Billari, F. C. (2001). The analysis of early life courses: complex description of the transition to adulthood. Journal of Population Research\/ 18\/ (2), 119--142

    2001

  3. [11]

    Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning . New York: Springer

    2006

  4. [12]

    Dietz, R

    B \" o hning, D., E. Dietz, R. Schaub, P. Schlattmann, and B. G. Lindsay (1994). The distribution of the likelihood ratio for mixtures of densities from the one-parameter exponential family. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics\/ 46\/ (2), 373--388

    1994

  5. [13]

    Celeux, T

    Bouveyron, C., G. Celeux, T. B. Murphy, and A. E. Raftery (2019). Model-Based Clustering and Classification for Data Science: With Applications in R . Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2019

  6. [14]

    Celeux, G. and G. Govaert (1992). A classification EM algorithm for clustering and two stochastic versions. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis\/ 14\/ (3), 315--332

    1992

  7. [15]

    Chambers, R. L. and C. J. Skinner (2003). Analysis of Survey Data . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

    2003

  8. [16]

    Dayton, C. M. and G. B. Macready (1988). C oncomitant-variable latent-class models. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 83\/ (401), 173--178

    1988

  9. [17]

    de Amorim, R. C. (2015). Feature relevance in W ard's hierarchical clustering using the L_p norm. Journal of Classification\/ 32\/ (1), 46--62

    2015

  10. [18]

    Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin (1977). M aximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)\/ 39\/ (1), 1--38

    1977

  11. [19]

    D'Urso, P. (2016). Fuzzy clustering. In C. Hennig, M. Meila, F. Murtagh, and R. Rocci (Eds.), Handbook of Cluster Analysis , Chapter 24, pp.\ 245--575. New York: Chapman and Hall

    2016

  12. [20]

    D'Urso, P. and R. Massari (2013). Fuzzy clustering of human activity patterns. Fuzzy Sets and Systems\/ 215 , 29--54

    2013

  13. [21]

    Elzinga, C. H. (2007). Sequence analysis: metric representations of categorical time series . Technical report, Department of Social Science Research Methods, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

    2007

  14. [22]

    Ritschard, N

    Gabadinho, A., G. Ritschard, N. S. M \" u ller, and M. Studer (2011). A nalyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with T ra M ine R . Journal of Statistical Software\/ 40\/ (4), 1--37

    2011

  15. [23]

    Garc \' i a-Magari \ n os, M. and J. A. Vilar (2015). A framework for dissimilarity-based partitioning clustering of categorical time series. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery\/ 29\/ (2), 466--502

    2015

  16. [24]

    u hwirth-Schnatter (2019). Mixtures of experts models. In S. Fr \

    Gormley, I. C. and S. Fr \" u hwirth-Schnatter (2019). Mixtures of experts models. In S. Fr \" u hwirth-Schnatter, G. Celeux, and C. P. Robert (Eds.), Handbook of Mixture Analysis , Chapter 12, pp.\ 279--316. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press

    2019

  17. [25]

    Govaert, G. and M. Nadif (2013). Co-Clustering: Models, Algorithms and Applications . London: ISTE-Wiley

    2013

  18. [26]

    Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics\/ 27\/ (4), 857--871

    1971

  19. [27]

    Hornik, and C

    Hahsler, M., K. Hornik, and C. Buchta (2008). Getting things in order: an introduction to the R package seriation. Journal of Statistical Software\/ 25\/ (3), 1--34

    2008

  20. [28]

    Hamming, R. W. (1950). E rror detecting and error correcting codes. The Bell System Technical Journal\/ 29\/ (2), 147--160

    1950

  21. [29]

    Helske, S. and J. Helske (2019). M ixture hidden M arkov models for sequence data: the seqHMM package in R . Journal of Statistical Software\/ 88\/ (3), 1--32

    2019

  22. [30]

    Helske, and M

    Helske, S., J. Helske, and M. Eerola (2016). Analysing complex life sequence data with hidden Markov modeling . In G. Ritschard and M. Studer (Eds.), LaCOSA II: Proceedings of International Conference on Sequence Analysis and Related Methods , pp.\ 209--240

    2016

  23. [31]

    Hoos, H. and T. St \" u tzle (2004). Stochastic Local Search: Foundations and Applications . San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc

    2004

  24. [32]

    Huang, Z. (1997). A fast clustering algorithm to cluster very large categorical data sets in data mining. In H. Lu, H. Motoda, and H. Luu (Eds.), KDD: Techniques and Applications , pp.\ 21--34. Singapore: World Scientific

    1997

  25. [33]

    Calvo, and J

    Irurozki, E., B. Calvo, and J. A. Lozano (2019). M allows and generalized M allows model for matchings. Bernoulli\/ 25\/ (2), 1160--1188

    2019

  26. [34]

    Jacobs, R. A., M. I. Jordan, S. J. Nowlan, and G. E. Hinton (1991). A daptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation\/ 3\/ (1), 79--87

    1991

  27. [35]

    Kaufman, L. and P. J. Rousseeuw (1990). Partitioning around medoids (program PAM ). In L. Kaufman and P. J. Rousseeuw (Eds.), Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis , Chapter 2, pp.\ 68--125. New York: John Wiley & Sons

    1990

  28. [36]

    Lazarsfeld, P. F. and N. W. Henry (1968). Latent Structure Analysis . Boston: Houghton Mifflin

    1968

  29. [37]

    Lesnard, L. (2010). Setting cost in optimal matching to uncover contemporaneous socio-temporal patterns. Sociological Methods & Research\/ 38\/ (3), 389--419

    2010

  30. [38]

    Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady\/ 10\/ (8), 707--710

    1966

  31. [39]

    Linzer, D. A. and J. B. Lewis (2011). poLCA : an R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software\/ 42\/ (10), 1--29

    2011

  32. [40]

    Mallows, C. L. (1957). Non-null ranking models. Biometrika\/ 44\/ (1/2), 114--130

    1957

  33. [41]

    McVicar, D. (2000). Status 0 four years on: young people and social exclusion in Northern Ireland . Labour Market Bulletin\/ 14 , 114--119

    2000

  34. [42]

    McVicar, D. and M. Anyadike-Danes (2002). P redicting successful and unsuccessful transitions from school to work by using sequence methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)\/ 165\/ (2), 317--334

    2002

  35. [43]

    Melnykov, V. (2016a). 20160101 M odel-based biclustering of clickstream data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis\/ 93\/ (C), 31--45

    2016

  36. [44]

    Melnykov, V. (2016b). 20160202 ClickClust : an R package for model-based clustering of categorical sequences. Journal of Statistical Software\/ 74\/ (9), 1--34

    2016

  37. [45]

    Menardi, G. (2011). Density-based silhouette diagnostics for clustering methods. Statistics and Computing\/ 21\/ (3), 295--308

    2011

  38. [46]

    Meng, X. L. and D. R. Rubin (1993). Maximum likelihood estimation via the ECM algorithm: a general framework. Biometrika\/ 80\/ (2), 267--278

    1993

  39. [47]

    Mu \ n oz-Bull \' o n, F. and M. A. Malo (2003). Employment status mobility from a life-cycle perspective: a sequence analysis of work-histories in the BHPS . Demographic Research\/ 9\/ (7), 119--162

    2003

  40. [48]

    Murphy, K. and T. B. Murphy (2020). G aussian parsimonious clustering models with covariates and a noise component. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification\/ 14\/ (2), 293--325

    2020

  41. [49]

    Murphy, K., T. B. Murphy, R. Piccarreta, and I. C. Gormley (2021). MEDseq : mixtures of exponential-distance models with covariates . R package version 1.3.0

    2021

  42. [50]

    Murphy, T. B. and D. Martin (2003). M ixtures of distance-based models for ranking data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis\/ 41\/ (3--4), 645--655

    2003

  43. [51]

    O'Hagan, A., T. B. Murphy, L. Scrucca, and I. C. Gormley (2019). Investigation of parameter uncertainty in clustering using a G aussian mixture model via jackknife, bootstrap and weighted likelihood bootstrap. Computational Statistics\/ 34\/ (4), 1779--1813

    2019

  44. [52]

    Pamminger, C. and S. Fr \" u hwirth-Schnatter (2010). M odel-based clustering of categorical time series. Bayesian Analysis\/ 5\/ (2), 345--368

    2010

  45. [53]

    Piccarreta, R. and M. Studer (2019). Holistic analysis of the life course: methodological challenges and new perspectives. Advances in Life Course Research\/ 41 , 100251

    2019

  46. [54]

    R : a language and environment for statistical computing

    R Core Team (2021). R : a language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing

    2021

  47. [55]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Computational and Applied Mathematics\/ 20 , 53--65

    1987

  48. [56]

    Schwarz, G. (1978). E stimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics\/ 6\/ (2), 461--464

    1978

  49. [57]

    Studer, M. (2013). W eighted C luster library manual: a practical guide to creating typologies of trajectories in the social sciences with R . Technical report, LIVES Working Papers 24

    2013

  50. [58]

    Studer, M. (2018). Divisive property-based and fuzzy clustering for sequence analysis. In G. Ritschard and M. Studer (Eds.), Sequence Analysis and Related Approaches: Innovative Methods and Applications , pp.\ 223--239. Cham: Springer International Publishing

    2018

  51. [59]

    Studer, M. and G. Ritschard (2016). What matters in differences between life trajectories: a comparative review of sequence dissimilarity measures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)\/ 179\/ (2), 481--511

    2016

  52. [60]

    Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 58\/ (301), 236--244

    1963

  53. [61]

    Wu, L. L. (2000). Some comments on sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology: review and prospect. Sociological Methods & Research\/ 29\/ (1), 41--64

    2000

  54. [62]

    Chen, and H

    Xu, C., J. Chen, and H. Mantell (2013). Pseudo-likelihood-based B ayesian information criterion for variable selection in survey data. Survey Methodology\/ 39\/ (2), 303--322

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.