Journal of Classification

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 255–276

Obtaining common pruned trees

  • C. R. Finden
  • A. D. Gordon
Authors Of Articles

Abstract

Given two or more dendrograms (rooted tree diagrams) based on the same set of objects, ways are presented of defining and obtaining common pruned trees. Bounds on the size of a largest common pruned tree are introduced, as is a categorization of objects according to whether they belong to all, some, or no largest common pruned trees. Also described is a procedure for regrafting pruned branches, yielding trees for which one can assess the reliability of the depicted relationships. The tree obtained by regrafting branches on to a largest common pruned tree is shown to contain all the classes present in the strict consensus tree. The theory is illustrated by application to two classifications of a set of forty-nine stratigraphical pollen spectra.

Keywords

Common pruned trees Consensus trees Hierarchical classification Regrafting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ADAMS, E.N. (1972), “Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees,”Systematic Zoology, 21, 390–397.Google Scholar
  2. ANSI (1978), “American National Standard Programming Language FORTRAN, ANSI X3.9- 1978,” American National Standards Institute, New York.Google Scholar
  3. BIRKS, H.H., and MATHEWES, R.W. (1978), “Studies in the Vegetational History of Scotland V,”New Phytologist, 80, 455–484.Google Scholar
  4. COOK, R.D., and WEISBERG, S. (1982),Residuals and Influence in Regression, London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  5. DAY, W.H.E., and EDELSBRUNNER, H. (1984), “Efficient Algorithms for Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering Methods,”Journal of Classification, 1, 7–24.Google Scholar
  6. DEC (1982), “VAX-11 FORTRAN Language Reference Manual,” Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. DIDAY, E. (1982), “Croisements, Ordres et Ultramétriques: Application à la Recherche de Consensus en Classification Automatique”, Rapport 144, INRIA, Centre de Rocquencourt, Le Chesnay.Google Scholar
  8. FINDEN, C.R. (1983), “CMTREE Manual,” Report, Department of Statistics, University of St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  9. FINDEN, C.R. (1984a), “FSTREE Manual,” Report, Department of Statistics, University of St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  10. FINDEN, C.R. (1984b), “UBTREE Manual,” Report, Department of Statistics, University of St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  11. FINDEN, C.R. (1984c), “LMTREE Manual,” Report, Department of Statistics, University of St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  12. GAREY, M.R., and JOHNSON, D.S. (1979),Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  13. GORDON, A.D. (1979), “A Measure of the Agreement between Rankings,”Biometrika, 66, 7–15.Google Scholar
  14. GORDON, A.D. (1980), “On the Assessment and Comparison of Classifications,” inAnalyse de Données et Informatique, ed. R. Tomassone, Le Chesnay: INRIA.Google Scholar
  15. GORDON, A.D. (1981),Classification: Methods for the Exploratory Analysis of Multivariate Data, London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  16. HARTIGAN, J.A. (1975),Clustering Algorithms, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. KRUSKAL, J. (1977), “The Relationship between Multidimensional Scaling and Clustering,” inClassification and Clustering, ed. J. Van Ryzin, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. MAIER, D. (1978), “The Complexity of Some Problems on Subsequences and Supersequences,”Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 25, 322–336.Google Scholar
  19. MARGUSH, T., and MC MORRIS, F.R. (1981), “Consensus n-Trees,”Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 43, 239–244.Google Scholar
  20. MURTAGH, F. (1984), “Counting Dendograms: A Survey,”Discrete Applied Mathematics, 7, 191–199.Google Scholar
  21. NEUMANN, D.A. (1983), “Faithful Consensus Methods for n-Trees,”Mathematical Biosciences, 63, 271–287.Google Scholar
  22. ROHLF, F.J. (1970), “Adaptive Hierarchical Clustering Schemes,”Systematic Zoology, 19, 58–82.Google Scholar
  23. SIBSON, R. (1972), “Order Invariant Methods for Data Analysis,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 311–349.Google Scholar
  24. SOKAL, R.R., and ROHLF, F.J. (1981), “Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-examined,”Systematic Zoology, 30, 309–325.Google Scholar
  25. WAGNER, R.A., and FISCHER, M.J. (1974), “The String-to-String Correction Problem,”Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 21, 168–173.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. R. Finden
    • 1
  • A. D. Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of St. AndrewsSt. AndrewsScotland

Personalised recommendations