Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 51–58 | Cite as

A model for correlation within clusters and its use in pollen analysis

  • M. B. DaleEmail author
  • L. Allison
  • P. E. R. Dale
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Many methods of cluster analysis do not explicitly account for correlation between attributes. In this paper we explicitly model any correlation using a single factor within each cluster: i.e., the correlation of atributes within each cluster is adequately described by a single component axis. However, the use of a factor is not required in every cluster. Using a Minimum Message Length criterion, we can determine the number of clusters and also whether the model of any cluster is improved by introducing a factor. The technique allows us to seek clusters which reflect directional changes rather than imposing a zonation constrained by spatial (and implicitly temporal) position. Minimal message length is a means of utilising Okham’s Razor in inductive analysis. The ‘best’ model is that which allows most compression of the data, which results in a minimal message length for the description. Fit to the data is not a sufficient criterion for choosing models because more complicated models will almost always fit better. Minimum message length combines fit to the data with an encoding of the model and provides a Bayesian probability criterion as a means of choosing between models (and classes of model). Applying the analysis to a pollen diagram from Southern Chile, we find that the introduction of factors does not improve the overall quality of the mixture model. The solution without axes in any cluster provides the most parsimonious solution. Examining the cluster with the best case for a factor to be incorporated in its description shows that the attributes highly loaded on the axis represent a contrast of herbaceous vegetation and dominant forests types. This contrast is also found when fitting the entire population, and in this case the factor solution is the preferred model. Overall, the cluster solution without factors is much preferred. Thus, in this case classification is preferred to ordination although more data are desirable to confirm such a conclusion.

Keywords

Clustering Correlation within clusters Minimum message length Pollen analysis 

Abbreviations

MDL

Minimum description Length

MML

Minimal Message Length

Supplementary material

42974_2010_11010051_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (62 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 63 KB.

References

  1. Agusta, Y. and Dowe, D. L. 2003. Unsupervised learning of correlated multivariate Gaussian mixture models. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2903, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 477–489.Google Scholar
  2. Aitchison, J. and Kay, J. W. 2003. Possible solutions of some essential zero problems. In: Compositional Data Analysis. Compositional Data Analysis Workshop, Universitat de Girona. pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  3. Berryman, A. A. 1992. On choosing models for describing and analyzing ecological time series. Ecology 73: 694–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amari, S. and Nagaoka, H. 2000. Methods of Information Geometry Translations of Mathematical Monographs, American Mathematical Society and Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Balasubramanian, V. 1997. Statistical inference, Occam’s razor, and statistical mechanics on the space of probability distributions. Neural Computation 9: 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, K. D. and Porter, C. 2001. Late Quarternary dynamics of Western Tierra del Fuego. Uppsala Universitet: https://doi.org/www.geo.uu.se/Institutionen för geovetenskaper: Paleobiologi: forskning.
  7. Berryman, A. A. 1992. On choosing models for describing and analyzing ecological time series. Ecology 73: 694–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bezdek, J.C., Coray, C., Gunderson, R. and Watson, J. 1981a. Detection and characterization of cluster substructure I. linear structure: fuzzy c-lines. SIAM J. App. Math. 40: 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bezdek, J.C., Coray, C., Gunderson, R. and Watson, J. 1981b. Detection and characterization of cluster substructure II. Fuzzy c-varieties and convex combinations thereof. SIAM J. App. Mathe. 40: 358–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birks, H. J. B. and Gordon, A. D. 1985. Numerical methods in Quaternary Pollen Analysis. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  11. Boulton, D. M. and Wallace, C. S. 1970. A program for numerical classification. Computer J. 13: 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W and Zhang, G. 2005. DyFA: Dynamic Factor Analysis of Lagged Correlation Matrices Version 2.03 [Computer Software and Manual]. https://doi.org/quantrm2.psy.ohio-state.edu/browne.
  13. Crutchfield, J. P. and Young, K.. 1989. Inferring statistical complexity. Physical Rev. Lett. 63: 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale, M. B. 2000. Mt Glorious Revisited: Secondary succession in subtropical rainforest. Community Ecol. 1: 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dale, M. B. 2001. Minimal message length clustering, environmental heterogeneity and the variable Poisson model. Community Ecol. 2: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dale, M. B. 2007. Changes in the model of within-cluster distribution of attributes and their effects on cluster analysis of vegetation data. Community Ecol. 8: 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dale, M. B., Allison, L. and Dale, P. E. R. 2007. Segmentation and clustering as complementary sources of information. Acta Oe-col. 31:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dale, M. B., Allison, L. and Dale, P. E. R. submitted. Attribute properties and clustering procedures: an example using pollen analysis.Google Scholar
  19. Dale, M. B., Dale, P. E. R. and Edgoose, T. 2002. Markov models for incorporating temporal dependence. Acta Oecol. 23:261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dale, M. B., Salmina, L. and Mucina, L. 2001. Minimum message length clustering: an explication and some applications to vegetation data. Community Ecol. 2: 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dale, M. B. and Walker, D. 1970. Information analysis of pollen diagrams. Pollen et Spores 2: 21–37.Google Scholar
  22. Dale, M. B. and Wallace, C. S. 2005. Hierarchical clusters of vegetation types. Community Ecol. 6: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edgoose, T. and Allison, L. 1999. MML Markov classification of sequential data. Statistics and Computing 9: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edwards, R. T. and D. L. Dowe 1998. Single factor analysis in MML mixture modelling. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) 1394, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 96–109.Google Scholar
  25. Georgieff, M. P. and Wallace, C. S. 1984. A general selection criterion for inductive inference. Proceedings 6th European Conference Artificial Intelligence, (ECAI-84) Pisa. pp. 473–482.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, A.D. and Birks, H.J.B. 1972. Numerical methods in Quaternary palaeoecology. I. Zonation ofpollen diagrams. New Phytol. 71:961–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gower, J. C. 1974. Maximal predictive classification. Biometrics 30: 643–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, D. G. 1983a. Interactive pollen time series analysis. Pollen et Spores 25: 531–540.Google Scholar
  29. Green, D. G. 1983b. The ecological interpretation of fine resolution pollen records. The New Phytol. 94: 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ihm, P. and van Groenewoud, H. 1975. A multivariate ordering of vegetation data based on Gaussian type gradient response curves. J. Ecol. 63: 767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jörnsten, R. and Bin Yu. 2003. Simultaneous gene clustering and subset selection for sample classification via . Bioinformatics 19: 1100–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kodratoff, Y. 1986. Leçons d’apprentissage symbolique, Editions Cépadues, Toulouse.Google Scholar
  33. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A. and Pereira, F. 2001. Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labelling sequence data. In: Proceedings 18th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2001), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. pp. 282–289.Google Scholar
  34. Legendre, P. and Gallagher, E. 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 270: 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li, C. Biswas, G., Dale, M. B. and Dale, P. E. R. 2001. Building models of ecological dynamics using HMM-based temporal data clustering. In: Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis, the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Data Analysis, Lec-ture Notes in Computer Science Series 2189, Springer, Berlin. pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
  36. Liu, B., Hsu, W., Mun, L-F. and Lee, H-Y. 1999. Finding interesting patterns using user expectation. I.E.E.E. Trans. Knowledge and Data Engineering 11: 817–832.Google Scholar
  37. Mac Nally, R. 2000. Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between – and reconciliation of – ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers. Conserv. 9: 655–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markgraf, V. 1983. Late and Postglacial vegetational and paleocli-matic changes in subantarctic, temperate, and arid environments in Argentina. Palynology 7: 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paez M. M., Schäbitz, F. and Stutz, S. 2001. Modern pollen–vegetation and isopoll maps in southern Argentina. J. Biogeogr. 28: 997–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahwan, T. and Jennings, N. R. 2008. An improved dynamic programming algorithm for coalition structure generation. In: L. Padgham, D. C. Parkes, J. Mueller and S. Parsons (eds.), Proceedings 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent systems (AAMAS), Estoril, Portugal. pp. 1417–1420.Google Scholar
  41. Rissanen, J. J. 1978. Modelling by shortest data description. Automation 14: 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schader, M. 1979. Branch and bound clustering with a generalised scatter criterion. Oper. Res. Verfahren 30: 154–162.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidhuber, J. 1997. What’s interesting? Tech. Rep. IDSIA-35–97, IDSIA, Lugano, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  44. Shalizi, C. R. and Crutchfield, J. P. 2001. Computational mechanics: pattern and prediction, structure and simplicity. J. Stat. Phys. 104: 819–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sombattheera, C. and Ghose, A. 2008 A best-first anytime algorithm for computing optimal coalition structures. In: L. Padgham, D. C. Parkes, J. Mueller and S. Parsons (ed.), Proceedings 7thIn-ternational Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent systems (AAMAS), Estoril, Portugal. pp. 1425–1427.Google Scholar
  46. Vinod, H. D. 1969. Integer programming and the theory of grouping. Amer. Stat. Ass. J. 64: 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Visser, G. and Dowe, D. L. 2007. Minimum message length clustering of spatially-correlated data with varying inter-class penalties. 6th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007), 11–13 July 2007, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 17–22.Google Scholar
  48. Walker, D. 1966. The late Quaternary history of the Cumberland lowlands. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society 251:1–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallace, C. S. 1995. Multiple factor analysis by MML estimation. Technical Report 95/218, Dept Computer Science, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia. 21pp.Google Scholar
  50. Wallace, C. S. 1998. Intrinsic classification of spatially-correlated data. Computer J. 41: 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wallace, C. S. 2005. Statistical and Inductive Inference by Minimum Message Length. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  52. Wallace, C. S. and Freeman, P. R. 1992. Single-factor analysis by minimal message length estimation. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 54: 195–209.Google Scholar
  53. Wallace, C. S. and Georgieff, M. P. 1983. A general objective for inductive inference. Technical Report 32, Department Computer Science, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia.Google Scholar
  54. Westhoff, V., and E. van der Maarel. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: R. H. Whittaker (ed.), Classification of Plant Communities. Dr. W. Junk, Den Haag. pp. 287–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yamada, H. and Amaroso, S. 1971. Structural and behavioural equivalences of tessellation automata. Information and Control 18:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2010

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EnvironmentGriffith UniversityNathan QueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.Dept. Computer Science and Software EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations