Cluster analysis (continued)
Complete linkage (furthest neighbor) clustering
Identical to single linkage clustering except that the distance between entities is defined as the
point of maximum distance
e.g., distances:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 - 3.16 4.47 15.16 11.40 12.32
2 - 7.07 12.04 8.94 9.85
All distances of entities after quadrats 1 and 2 are joined:
1,2 3 4 5 6
1,2 - 7.07 15.16 11.40 12.32
i.e., d(1,3) = 4.47
d(2,3) = 7.07;
thus, d[(1,2),3] = 7.07
w/ single linkage clustering, dist = minimum distance - -> d[(1,2),3] = 4.47
Decision rule is still based on smallest distance, but distances are calculated
differently
Characteristics of complete linkage clustering:
1. "space-dilating"--as a cluster grows it tends to become more dissimilar to
others --> non-chaining
2. group structure is ignored; as w/ single linkage clustering, comparisons are
based on indiv. quadrats
3. results often similar to "minimum-variance" clustering
Centroid clustering
Distance between 2 clusters is defined as the euclidean distance between their
centroids
Two groups are joined if the distance between their centroids is the smallest of all
possible "choices"
e.g., distance between groups:
To calculate centroid:
Quadrat Species A Species B
1 15 9
2 12 8
3 17 13
4 0 7
5 8 0
6 3 12
First step is identical to single linkage clustering, since groups are single quadrats.
After quadrats 1 and 2 are joined, centroid(1,2) = [(15+12)/2, (9+8)/2] = (13.5,8.5).
centroid (1,2,3) = [(15+12+17)/3, (9+8+13)/3] = (14.333,10)
Then euclidean distance is calculated not between nearest quadrats in group (single
linkage) and not between furthest quadrats in group (complete linkage), but between
centroids of groups
Thus, group structure is used in determining between- group similarities
A disadvantage of centroid clustering is the potential for reversals
After a fusion, the next fusion occurs at a less dissimilar point (i.e., closer distance)
e.g., consider these 3 quadrats w/ 2 species:
Quadrat Species A Species B
1 26 10
2 34 6
3 34 15
d(1,2) = [(26-34)2 + (10-6)2] = 8.944
d(1,3) = [(26-34)2 + (10-15)2] = 9.434
d(2,3) = [(34-34)2 + (6-15)2] = 9.000
Quadrats 1 and 2 are joined --> centroid = [(26+34)/2,(10+6)/2] = (30,8)
d[(1,2),3] = [(30-34)2 + (8-15)2] = 9.062
Thus, the second fusion occurs at a smaller distance than the first fusion (i.e., this
indicates these entities are more similar than those joined by the first fusion):
Centroid clustering incorporates information about the group when joining groups (vs.
single linkage and complete linkage clustering, which do not)
However, reversals create interpretational difficulties, and this has discouraged
widespread use of clustering techniques which have potential to show reversals
Comparison studies have shown that single linkage and centroid clustering behave
similarly
Minimum-variance clustering (Ward's method) (syn. Orloci's method in ecological literature)
Concept: we can measure the sum of the distances2 of the members of a group from
the group centroid as an indicator of group heterogeneity or dispersion
Distance (similarity) measure: euclidean distance
Fusion rule: groups are joined only if the increase in d2 is less for that pair of groups
than for any other pair
Ward's method lends itself to a measure of "classification efficiency":
SStotal = d2 of all quadrats from centroid
At any point in the analysis, SS can be calculated for each group (i.e., within-group
heterogeneity or dispersion)
Thus, a percentage can be calculated which indicates the proportion of total variability
explained by each group: SSgroup/SStotal
Characteristics of Ward's method
1. Minimizes dispersion within groups
2. Like complete linkage clustering, it favors the formation of small clusters of
approximately equal size
3. Incorporates information about groups, not merely about individual quadrats
4. Computationally complex and time-consuming compared to other methods
we've discussed
5. Widely applied in ecology, especially recently (since computers have
overcome problems w/ computational complexity)
