Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preserving consensus hierarchies

  • Published:
Journal of Classification Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In numerical taxonomy we often have the task of finding a consensus hierarchy for a given set of hierarchies. This consensus hierarchy should reflect the substructures which are common to all hierarchies of the set. Because there are several kinds of substructures in a hierarchy, the general axiom to preserve common substructures leads to different axioms for each kind of substructure. In this paper we consider the three substructurescluster, separation, andnesting, and we give several characterizations of hierarchies preserving these substructures. These characterizations facilitate interpretation of axioms for preserving substructures and the examination of properties of consensus methods. Finally some extensions concerning the preserving of qualified substructures are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ADAMS, E. N. III (1972), “Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees,”Systematic Zoology, 21, 390–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • ADAMS, E. N. III (1986), “N-Trees as Nestings: Complexity, Similarity, and Consensus,”Journal of Classification, 3, 299–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • COLONIUS, H., and SCHULZE, H.H. (1981), “Tree Structures for Proximity Data,”British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • NEUMANN, D. A. (1983), “Faithful Consensus Methods for n-Trees,”Mathematical Biosciences, 63, 271–287

    Google Scholar 

  • NEUMANN, D. A., and NORTON, V. T. (1986), “On Lattice Consensus Methods,”Journal of Classification, 3, 225–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • MARGUSH, T. and McMORRIS, F. R. (1981), “Consensus n-Trees,”Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 43, 239–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMORRIS, F. R., and NEUMANN, D. A. (1983), “Consensus Functions Defined on Trees,”Mathematical Social Sciences, 4, 131–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROHLF, F. J. (1982), “Consensus Indices for Comparing Classifications,”Mathematical Biosciences, 59, 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • SOKAL, R. R., and ROHLF, F. J. (1981), “Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptodomorpha Re-examined,”Systematic Zoology, 30, 309–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • VACH, W., and DEGENS, P. O. (1988), “The System of Common Lower Neighbors of a Hierarchy,” inClassification and Related Methods of Data Analysis, Ed., H.H. Bock, North Holland, Amsterdam, 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. W. Vach

    Present address: Institute for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Stefan Meier Str. 26, 79104, Freiburg, FRG

Authors and Affiliations

    Authors
    1. W. Vach
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Additional information

    The author is grateful to the editor and the referees for their helpful suggestions and to H. J. Bandelt for his comments on an earlier version of this paper.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Vach, W. Preserving consensus hierarchies. Journal of Classification 11, 59–77 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201023

    Download citation

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201023

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation