Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consensus of classifications: the case of trees

  • Conference paper
Advances in Data Science and Classification

Summary

We present a survey of the literature on the consensus of classification trees, based on a corpus (in progress) of about ninety papers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. E.N. Adams III (1972), Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees, Syst. Zool. 21, 390–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. E.N. Adams III (1986), TV-Trees as Nestings: Complexity, Similarity and Consensus, J. of Classification 3 (2), 299–317.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Anderberg, A. Tehler (1990), Consensus trees, a necessity in taxonomic practice, Cladistics 6, 399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. P. Arabie, L.J. Hubert (1996), An overview of combinatorial data analysis, in: P. Arabie, L.J. Hubert, G. De Soete, eds., Clustering and Classification, World Scientific Publ., River Edge, NJ, pp. 5–63.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K.J. Arrow (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values, New-York, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H.J. Bandelt, J. Hedlikova (1983), Median algebras, Discrete Math. 45, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. H.J. Bandelt, J.P. Barthélémy (1984), Medians in Median Graphs, Discrete Applied Math. 8, 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. M. Barrett, M.J. Donoghue, E. Sober (1991), Against consensus, Syst. Zool. 40, 486–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M. Barrett, M.J. Donoghue, E. Sober (1991), Crusade? A response to Nelson, Syst. Zool. 42, 216–217.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.P. Barthélémy (1988), Thresholded consensus for n-trees, J. of Classification 5 (2), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J.P. Barthélémy, M.F. Janowitz (1991), A formal theory of consensus, SIAM J. Discr. Math. 4, 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. J.P. Barthélémy, B. Leclerc (1995), The median procedure for partitions, in I.J. Cox, P. Hansen, and B. Julesz, eds., Partitioning data sets, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 19, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, pp. 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.P. Barthélémy, B. Leclerc, B. Monjardet (1984), Ensembles ordonnés et taxonomie mathématique, in Orders: Descriptions and Roles, eds M. Pouzet and D. Richard, Annals of Discrete Mathematics 23, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 523–548.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J.P. Barthélémy, B. Leclerc, B. Monjardet (1986), On the use of ordered sets in problems of comparison and consensus of classifications, J. of Classification 3, 187–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. J.P. Barthélémy, F.R. McMorris (1986), The Median Procedure for n-trees, J. of Classification 3 (2), 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. J.P. Barthélémy, F.R. McMorris (1989), On an indépendance condition for consensus n-trees, Appl. Math. Lett. 2 (1), 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J.P. Barthélémy, F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1991), Indépendance conditions for consensus n-trees revisited, Appl. Math. Lett. 4 (5), 43–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. J.P. Barthélémy, F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1992), Dictatorial consensus functions on n-trees, Math. Soc. Sci. 25, 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. J.P. Barthélémy, F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1995), Stability conditions for consensus functions defined on n-trees, Mathl Comput. Modelling 22 (1), 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J.P. Barthélémy, B. Monjardet (1981), The median procedure in cluster analysis and social choice theory, Math. Soc. Sci. 1 (3), 235–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. J.P. Barthélémy, B. Monjardet (1988), The median procedure in data analysis: new results and open problems, in Classification and related methods in data analysis ( H.H.Bock, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 309–316.

    Google Scholar 

  22. B.R. Baum (1992), Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees, Taxon 41, 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. R. Baum, M.A. Ragan (1993), Reply to A.R. Rodrigo’s A comment on Baum’s method for combining phylogenetic trees, Taxon 42, 637–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. J.P. Benzécri (1967), Description mathématique des classifications, in L’analyse des données 1. La taxinomie, Paris, Dunod 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  25. K. Bremer (1990), Combinable component consensus, Cladistics 6, 369–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. P. Buneman (1971), The Recovery of Trees from Measures of Dissimilarity, in Mathematics in Archaeological and Historical Sciences, eds. F.R. Hodson, D.G. Kendall and P. Tautu, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 387–395.

    Google Scholar 

  27. V. Chepoi, B. Fichet (1997), Approximations via subdominants, Math. Social Sci., to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  28. H. Colonius, H.H. Schulze (1981), Tree structure for proximity data, British J. Math. Statist Psychol. 34, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M. Constantinescu, D. Sankoff (1995), An efficient algorithm for supertrees, J. of Classification 12, 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. G. Cucumel, F.J. Lapointe (1997), Un test de la pertinence du consensus par une méthode de permutations, Actes des XXIXèmes journées de statistique de Carcassonne, 299–300.

    Google Scholar 

  31. W.H.E. Day (1983), The role of complexity in comparing classifications, Math. Biosciences 66, 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. W.H.E. Day (1985), Optimal Algorithms for Comparing Trees with Labelled Leaves, J. of Classification 2, 7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. W.H.E. Day (1986), Foreword: Comparison and Consensus of Classifications, J. of Classification 3, n°2, 183–185.

    Google Scholar 

  34. W.H.E. Day, F.R. McMorris (1985), A Formalization of Consensus Index Methods, Bull, of Math. Biol. 47, 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  35. W.H.E. Day, R.S. Wells (1984) Extremes in the complexity of computing metric distances between partitions, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal, and Mach. Intel. PAMI-6, 69–73.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. de Queiroz (1993), For consensus (sometimes), Syst. Biol. 42, 368–372.

    Google Scholar 

  37. A. de Queiroz, M.J. Donoghue, J. Kim (1995), Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26, 657–681.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J.S. Farris, A.G. Kluge, M.J. Eckart (1970), A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics, Syst. Zoo I., 19, 172–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. J.S. R. Finden, A.D. Gordon (1985), Obtaining Common Pruned Trees, J. of Classification 2, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. M. Fréchet (1949), Réhabilitation de la notion statistique de l’homme moyen, Les Conférences du Palais de la Découverte, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  41. W. Goddard, E. Kubicka, G. Kubicki, F.R. McMorris (1995), Agreement subtrees, metrics and consensus for labeled binary trees, in Partitioning Data Sets, I. Cox, P. Hansen, B. Julesz, eds., DIMACS Series, vol. 19, AMS, Providence, R.I., 1995, pp. 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  42. A.D. Gordon (1979), A measure of the agreement between rankings, Biometrika 66, 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. A.D. Gordon (1980), On the assessment and comparison of classifications, in: R. Tomassone, ed., Analyse de données et informatique, Le Chesnay, INRIA, pp. 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  44. A.D. Gordon (1981), Classification: methods for the exploratory analysis of multivariate data, Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  45. A.D. Gordon (1986), Consensus Supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves, J. of Classification 3, n°2, 335–348.

    Google Scholar 

  46. A.D. Gordon (1987), A review of Hierarchical Classification, J. of the Royal Statist. Soc. (series A) 150, 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  47. D. Gordon (1996), Hierarchical Classification, in: P. Arabie, L.J. Hubert, G. De Soete, eds., Clustering and Classification, World Scientific Publ., River Edge, NJ, pp. 65–121.

    Google Scholar 

  48. M. Hendy, M.A. Steel, D. Penny, I.M. Henderson (1988), Families of Trees and Consensus, in H.H.Bock, ed., Classification and related methods in data analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  49. M.F. Janowitz (1978), An order theoretic model for cluster analysis, SIAMJ. Appl. Math. 37, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S. C. Johnson (1967), Hierarchical clustering schemes, Psychometrika 32, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. E. Kubicka, G. Kubicki, F.R. McMorris (1992), On agreement subtrees of two binary trees, Congress us Numerantium 88, 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  52. E. Kubicka, G. Kubicki, F.R. McMorris (1995), An algorithm to find agreement subtrees, J. of Classification 12, 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. S. Lanyon (1993), Phylogenetic frameworks: towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach, Biological J. of the Linnean Society 49, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. E. J. Lapointe (1997), How to validate phylogenetic trees? A stepwise procedure, preprint.

    Google Scholar 

  55. F.J. Lapointe, G. Cucumel (1997), The average consensus procedure: combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of objects, Syst. Biol. 46, 306–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. F.J. Lapointe, P. Legendre (1990), A statistical framework to test the consensus of two nested classifications, Syst. Zool. 39, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. F.J. Lapointe, P. Legendre (1992a), A statistical framework to test the consensus among additive trees (cladograms), Syst. Biol. 41, 158–171.

    Google Scholar 

  58. F.J. Lapointe, P. Legendre (1992b), Statistical significance of the matrix correlation coefficient for comparing independent phylogenetic trees, Syst. Biol. 41, 378–384.

    Google Scholar 

  59. F.J. Lapointe, P. Legendre (1995), Comparison tests for dendrograms: a comparative evaluation, J. of Classification 12, 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. B. Leclerc (1984), Efficient and binary consensus functions on transitively valued relations, Math. Social Sci. 8, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. B. Leclerc (1991), Agregation of fuzzy preferences: a theoretic Arrow-like approach, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 43 (3), (291–309).

    Google Scholar 

  62. B. Leclerc (1993), Lattice valuations, medians and majorities, Discrete Math. III, 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  63. B. Leclerc, G. Cucumel (1987), Consensus en classification: une revue bibliographique, Math. Sci. hum. 100, pp. 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  64. B. Leclerc, B. Monjardet (1995), Latticial theory of consensus, in Social choice, Welfare and Ethics, V. Barnett, H. Moulin, M. Salles & N. Schofield, eds, Cambridge University Press, 145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  65. L.P. Lefkovitch (1985), Euclidean consensus dendrograms and other classification structures, Math. Biosciences 74, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. T. Margush, F.R. McMorris (1981), Consensus n-trees, Bull. Math. Biology 43, 239–244.

    Google Scholar 

  67. F.R. McMorris (1985), Axioms for consensus functions on undirected phylogenetic trees, Math. Biosciences. A, 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  68. F.R. McMorris (1990), The median procedure for /i-Trees as a Maximum Likelihood Method, J. of Classification 7, 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. F.R. McMorris, D.B. Meronk, D.A. Neumann (1983), A view of some consensus methods for trees, in J. Felsenstein, ed., Numerical Taxonomy, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 122–126.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  70. F.R. McMorris, H.M. Mulder, F.S. Roberts (1996), The median function on median graphs and median semilattices, Discrete Applied Math., to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  71. F.R. McMorris, D.A. Neumann (1983), Consensus functions defined on trees, Math. Soc. Sci. 4, 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1993), Consensus functions on trees that satisfy an independance axiom, Discrete Applied Math. 47, 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1996), Intersection rules for consensus hierarchies and pyramids, in Ordinal and Symbolic Data Analysis ( E. Diday et al., eds.), Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 301–308.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  74. F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1995), The median procedure in a formal theory of consensus, SIAM J. Disc. Math. 14, 507–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. F.R. McMorris, R.C. Powers (1997), The median function on weak hierarchies, in Mathematical hierarchies and Biology (B. Mirkin, F.R. McMorris, F. Roberts, A. Rzhetsky, eds.), DIMACS Series, vol. 37, AMS, Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 265–269.

    Google Scholar 

  76. R. McMorris, M.A. Steel (1994), The complexity of the median procedure for binary trees, in New Approaches in Classification and Data Analysis ( E. Diday et al., eds), Studies in Classification, Data Analysis and Knowledge Organization, Berlin, Springer-Verlag (1994), 136–140.

    Google Scholar 

  77. B. Monjardet (1980), Théorie et application de la médiane dans les treillis distributifs finis, Annals of Discrete Math. 9, 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. B. Monjardet (1990), Arrowian characterizations of latticial federation consensus functions, Math. Soc. Sci. 20, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. G. Nelson (1979), Cladistic Analysis and Synthesis: principles and definitions, with a historical note on Adanson’s Familles des plantes (1763-1764), Syst. Zool. 28, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. G. Nelson (1993), Why crusade against consensus? A reply to Barrett, Donoghue and Sober, Syst. Biol. 42, 215–216.

    Google Scholar 

  81. D.A. Neumann (1983), Faithful Consensus Methods for n-Trees, Math. Biosci. 63, 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. D.A. Neumann, V.T. Norton Jr. (1986), On lattice consensus methods, J. of Classification 3, 225–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. R.D.M. Page (1989), Comments on component-compatibility in historical biogeography, Cladistics 5, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. R.D.M. Page, M.A. Charleston (1997), Reconciled trees and incongruent gene and species trees, in Mathematical hierarchies and Biology (B. Mirkin, F.R. McMorris, F. Roberts, A. Rzhetsky, eds.), DIMACS Series, vol. 37, AMS, Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  85. C. Philips, T.J. Warnow (1996), The asymmetric median tree - A new model for building consensus trees, Discrete Applied Math. 71, 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. R.C. Powers (1995), Intersection rules for consensus n-trees, Appl. Math. Lett. 8, 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. A. Purvis (1995a), A modification to Baum and Ragan’s method for combining phylogenetic trees, Syst. Biol. 44, 251–255.

    Google Scholar 

  88. A. Purvis (1995b), A composite estimate of primate phylogeny, Phil. Trans, of the Royal Soc. of London (B) 348, 405–421.

    Google Scholar 

  89. M.A. Ragan (1992), Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1, 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. A.G. Rodrigo (1993), A comments on Baum’s method for combining phylogenetic trees, Taxon 42, 631–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. F.J. Rohlf (1982), Consensus indices for comparing classifications, Math. Biosci. 59, 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. F. Ronquist (1996), Matrix representation of trees, redundancy and weighting, Syst. Biol. 45, 247–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. M.J. Sanderson (1989), Confidence limits on phylogenies: the bootstrap revisited, Cladistics 5, 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. M. Schader (1981), Scharfe und unscharfe ¡classification qualitative daten, Athenäum, Königstein.

    Google Scholar 

  95. K. Shao, F.J. Rohlf (1983), Sampling distribution of consensus indices when all bifurcation trees are equally likely, in J. Felsenstein, ed., Numerical Taxonomy, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 132–136.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  96. K. Shao, R.R. Sokal (1986), Significance tests of consensus indices, Syst. Zool. 35, 582–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. R.R. Sokal, F.J. Rohlf (1981), Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Reexamined, Syst. Zool. 30, 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. M.A. Steel (1988), Distribution of the symmetric difference metric on phylogenetic trees, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 9, 91–116.

    Google Scholar 

  99. M.A. Steel (1992), The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees, J. of Classification 9, 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. R. Stinebrickner (1984a), s-Consensus Trees and Indices, Bull, of Math. Biology 46, 923–935.

    Google Scholar 

  101. R. Stinebrickner (1984b), An extension of intersection methods from trees to dendrograms, Syst. Zool. 33 (4), 381–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. R. Stinebrickner (1986) s-Consensus Index Method: an additional axiom, J. of Classification 3, n°2, 319–327.

    Google Scholar 

  103. W. Vach (1994), Preserving consensus hierarchies, J. of Classification 11, 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. W. Vach, P.O. Degens (1988), The system of common lower neighbors of a hierarchy, in H.H. Bock, ed., Classification and related methods of data analysis, Amsterdam, North Holland, pp. 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  105. M. Wilkinson (1994), Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles, Syst. Biol. 43, 343–368.

    Google Scholar 

  106. M. Wilkinson (1996), Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping, Molecular Biology and Evolution 13, 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  107. H. P. Young (1988), Condorcet Theory of Voting, Amer. Political Science Rev. 82, 1231–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’Analyse et de Mathématique Sociales, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, F-75270, Paris cedex 06, France

    Bruno Leclerc

Authors
  1. Bruno Leclerc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Statisticà, Probabilità e Statistiche Applicate, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185, Roma, Italia

    Alfredo Rizzi

  2. Dipartimento di Metodi Quantitativi e Teoria Economica, Università “G. D’Annunzio” di Chieti, Viale Pindaro 42, I-65127, Pescara, Italia

    Maurizio Vichi

  3. Institut für Statistik und Wirtschaftsmathematik, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen, Wüllnerstraße 3, D-52056, Aachen, Germany

    Hans-Hermann Bock

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Leclerc, B. (1998). Consensus of classifications: the case of trees. In: Rizzi, A., Vichi, M., Bock, HH. (eds) Advances in Data Science and Classification. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-72253-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-72253-0_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64641-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-72253-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation