Comparison of hierarchical cluster analysis methods by cophenetic correlation

Journal of Inequalities and Applications

Volumn 2013, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Saraçli, Sinan ^a   Doǧan, Nurhan ^a   Doǧan, Ismet ^a  

^a AFYON KOCATEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Cophenetic correlation; Distance measures; Hierarchical clustering methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893343857     PISSN: 10255834     EISSN: 1029242X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1029-242X-2013-203     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Carmichael, JW, George, JA, Julius, RS: Finding natural clusters. Syst. Zool. 17(2), 144-150 (1968)
2. Lapointe, FJ, Legendre, P: Comparison tests for dendrograms: a comparative evaluation. J. Classif. 12, 265-282 (1995)
3. Kettenring, JR: The practice of cluster analysis. J. Classif. 23, 3-30 (2006)
4. Gunnarsson, J: Portfolio-Based Segmentation and Consumer Behaviour: Empirical Evidence and Methodological Issues. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, The Economic Research Institute, p. 274 (1999)
5. Steinbach, M, Karypis, G, Kumar, V: A comparison of document clustering techniques. Text mining workshop. In: Proc. of the Sixth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2000), Boston, MA, pp. 20-23 (2000)
6. Hill, T, Lewicki, P: STATISTICS: Methods and Applications. StatSoft, Tulsa (2007)
7. Lessig, VP: Comparing cluster analyses with cophenetic correlation. J. Mark. Res. 9(1), 82-84 (1972)
8. Sneath, HA, Sokal, RR: Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification, p. 573. Freeman, San Francisco (1973)
9. Mathworks statistics toolbox: http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/ cophenet.html (2012)
10. Sokal, RR, Rohlf, FJ: The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon 11, 33-40 (1962)
11. Farris, JS: On the cophenetic correlation coefficient. Syst. Zool. 18(3), 279-285 (1969)
12. Rohlf, FJ, David, LF: Test for hierarchical structure in random data sets. Syst. Zool. 17, 407-412 (1968)
13. Baker, FB: Stability of two hierarchical grouping techniques - case I: sensitivity to data errors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 440-445 (1974)
14. Hubert, L: Approximate evaluation techniques for the single-link and complete-link hierarchical clustering procedures. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 698-704 (1974)
15. Kuiper, FK, Fisher, LA: A Monte Carlo comparison of six clustering procedures. Biometrics 31, 777-783 (1975)
16. Blashfield, RK: Mixture model tests of cluster analysis: accuracy of four agglomerative hierarchical methods. Psychol. Bull. 83, 377-388 (1976)
17. Milligan, GW: An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika 45, 325-342 (1980)
18. Hands, S, Everitt, B: A Monte Carlo study of the recovery of cluster structure in binary data by hierarchical clustering techniques. Multivar. Behav. Res. 22, 235-243 (1987)
19. Yao, KB: A comparison of clustering methods for unsupervised anomaly detection in network traffic. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Copenhagen (2006)
20. Ferreira, L, Hitchcock, DB: A comparison of hierarchical methods for clustering functional data. Commun. Stat., Simul. Comput., 38, 1925-1949 (2009)
21. Milligan, GW, Cooper, MC: A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis. J. Classif. 5, 181-204 (1988)
22. Dixon, WJ: Analysis of extreme value. Ann. Math. Stat. 21, 488-506 (1950)
23. Johnson, RA, Wichern, DW: Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New York (2002)