Skip to main content

Clusterings should not be compared by visual inspection: response to Gagné & Proulx

Buy Article:

$43.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract

In Heikinheimo et al. (Journal of Biogeography, 2007, 34, 1053–1064) we used clustering to analyse European land mammal fauna. Gagné & Proulx criticized our choice of the Euclidean distance measure in the analysis, and advocated the use of the Hellinger distance measure, claiming that this leads to very different clustering results. The criticism fails to take into account the probabilistic nature of the methods used and the fact that in this case the similarity measures correlate strongly. Gagné & Proulx used subjective inspection as the criterion of similarity between clusterings. We show that this is insufficient and misleading. Namely, owing to the local minimum problem, two clustering runs rarely give identical results. In the case of our study, the measured similarity (using the kappa statistic) between the Euclidean- and Hellinger-based clusterings is roughly equal to the similarity between two clusterings that both use the Hellinger distance but different random initialization points.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Clustering; Euclidean distance; Europe; Hellinger distance; double-zero problem; kappa; objective comparison; optimization with randomization; species abundance paradox

Document Type: Correspondence

Affiliations: Department of Geology and Institute of Biotechnology, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, PO Box 64, Helsinki, Finland

Publication date: 2009-03-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more