Hubbry Logo
DendrogramDendrogramMain
Open search
Dendrogram
Community hub
Dendrogram
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dendrogram
Dendrogram
Dendrogram
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Dendrogram of a hierarchical clustering (UPGMA) with the height of the nodes (adapted from bacterial 5S rRNA sequence data[1]).
Dendrogram output for hierarchical clustering of marine provinces using presence / absence of sponge species.[2]
A dendrogram of the Tree of Life. This phylogenetic tree is adapted from Woese et al. rRNA analysis.[3] The vertical line at bottom represents the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
Heatmap of RNA-Seq data showing two dendrograms in the left and top margins.

A dendrogram is a diagram representing a tree graph. This diagrammatic representation is frequently used in different contexts:

The name dendrogram derives from the two ancient greek words δένδρον (déndron), meaning "tree", and γράμμα (grámma), meaning "drawing, mathematical figure".[7][8]

Clustering example

[edit]

For a clustering example, suppose that five taxa ( to ) have been clustered by UPGMA based on a matrix of genetic distances. The hierarchical clustering dendrogram would show a column of five nodes representing the initial data (here individual taxa), and the remaining nodes represent the clusters to which the data belong, with the arrows representing the distance (dissimilarity). The distance between merged clusters is monotone, increasing with the level of the merger: the height of each node in the plot is proportional to the value of the intergroup dissimilarity between its two daughters (the nodes on the right representing individual observations all plotted at zero height).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dendrogram

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A dendrogram is a tree-like diagram that visually represents the hierarchical relationships among a set of objects or data points, typically generated through to depict the sequence of mergers or splits in forming clusters, with branch heights indicating the similarity or distance levels at which these groupings occur. The term "dendrogram" originates from words dendron (tree) and gramma (), reflecting its branching structure akin to a , and it was first introduced in the 1953 text Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology by and colleagues before gaining prominence in through the 1963 book Principles of Numerical Taxonomy by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath. In this foundational work, Sokal and Sneath formalized its use in agglomerative clustering, where individual data points start as singleton clusters and are iteratively merged based on proximity measures, producing a nested visualized by the dendrogram. Dendrograms are constructed using either agglomerative (bottom-up) or divisive (top-down) algorithms, with the former being more common; the process involves computing a proximity matrix of distances between objects, then repeatedly combining the closest clusters according to a linkage criterion—such as single linkage (minimum ), complete linkage (maximum ), or average linkage—until all objects form a single cluster. The resulting consists of nodes (representing clusters) and branches (indicating connections), often scaled vertically to show dissimilarity levels, allowing users to interpret cluster quality through metrics like the cophenetic correlation coefficient, which measures how well the dendrogram preserves original pairwise distances. These diagrams are essential in for exploring underlying structures in datasets without predefined cluster numbers, enabling applications in fields like bioinformatics for gene clustering, market research for segmenting consumers, and for taxonomic , though they can be computationally intensive for large datasets (requiring O(n² log n) time and O(n²) ). By "cutting" the dendrogram at a specific , analysts can derive flat partitions with a desired number of clusters, making it a versatile tool for both exploratory and confirmatory analysis.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

The term dendrogram derives from the ancient Greek words déndron (δένδρον), meaning "," and grámma (γράμμα), meaning "drawing" or "," reflecting its as a branching visual representation. A dendrogram is a graph that illustrates hierarchical relationships, such as those in clustering or evolutionary processes, with leaves representing individual data points, taxa, or entities, and internal nodes denoting merges or splits between them. It serves as a foundational tool to visualize the nested of clusters generated by algorithms or the divergence patterns in phylogenetic trees. Unlike general , dendrograms are typically binary, oriented vertically with leaves positioned at the bottom, and the height of nodes corresponds to the dissimilarity or evolutionary at which clusters form or branches diverge. This height-based scaling provides a quantitative measure of separation, enabling clear interpretation of hierarchical arrangements.

Components and Structure

A dendrogram is a tree-like that visually represents hierarchical relationships among data points, taxa, or observations, composed of distinct structural elements that convey similarity or dissimilarity. These components form a binary or multifurcating , typically oriented vertically with the base at the bottom and the apex at the top, facilitating the interpretation of clustering or evolutionary patterns. The leaves, or terminal nodes, are the foundational elements of a dendrogram, situated at the bottom or along the side, each representing an individual observation, data point, or . In hierarchical clustering, these leaves denote the original objects being analyzed, such as samples in a , while in phylogenetic contexts, they correspond to extant species or operational taxonomic units (OTUs). These endpoints provide the starting basis for the hierarchical arrangement, with their horizontal positioning often reflecting an ordering derived from the clustering process to minimize branch crossings for clarity. Branches are the line segments connecting the nodes, illustrating the sequential merging or splitting of groups, with their lengths typically proportional to the distance or dissimilarity between the connected clusters or taxa. In clustering dendrograms, branch lengths from a node to its children indicate the dissimilarity level at which subclusters were joined, often scaled to reflect metrics like . In phylogenetic dendrograms, branches represent evolutionary lineages, where lengths may denote or time since divergence from a common ancestor, tying briefly to dissimilarity measures in evolutionary . Internal nodes serve as junction points where branches converge, signifying the formation of clusters in agglomerative clustering or common ancestors in . These non-terminal points mark the hierarchical levels at which subgroups combine into larger entities, with each node encapsulating the dissimilarity threshold for that merger. In both applications, internal nodes enable the tracing of nested relationships, from small subgroups at lower levels to broader assemblages higher up. The height axis provides the vertical scale of the dendrogram, quantifying dissimilarity measures such as in clustering or in , where increasing height corresponds to greater separation between merged entities. This axis allows users to identify fusion points at specific dissimilarity values, with the vertical distance between nodes directly tied to the metric used in construction. At the apex lies the root, the uppermost node representing the entire as a single encompassing cluster or the (MRCA) of all taxa in phylogenetic representations. This terminal point completes the hierarchy, unifying all leaves through successive mergers. In unrooted dendrograms, common in certain phylogenetic analyses, no designated exists, instead presenting a network of branches without a specified ancestral node, which permits flexible interpretation of relative relationships among taxa.

Historical Development

Early Origins in Taxonomy

The origins of dendrogram-like representations trace back to 18th-century taxonomy, where early branching diagrams emerged as tools for organizing biological classifications. (1707–1778), often regarded as the father of modern , introduced dichotomous branching structures in his works to facilitate identification and classification. In the first edition of (1735), Linnaeus employed artificial systems for classifying minerals, plants, and animals, laying foundational principles for without implying evolutionary relationships. These principles were expanded in Classes Plantarum (1738), where he incorporated branching diagrams that used differentiating characters at branch points to lead users to specific classes, standardizing taxonomic keys through binary divisions. The influence of evolutionary theory further propelled the development of branching diagrams in the mid-19th century. Charles Darwin's (1859) featured the book's sole illustration: a hand-sketched branching diagram depicting descent with modification, often referred to as the "I think" tree from his 1837 notebook but formalized here as a precursor to phylogenetic trees. This diagram illustrated an "entangled bank" of diverging lineages, emphasizing branching from common ancestors rather than a strict ladder of progress, and it popularized tree metaphors in biology. Building on Darwin's ideas, 19th-century biologists advanced explicit phylogenetic representations. , in his 1866 Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, produced the first comprehensive Darwinian trees of life, including diagrams for the plant kingdom and a grand tree encompassing all organisms across three kingdoms (Plantae, Protista, and Animalia). Haeckel's phylogenies, which coined the term "phylogeny" for evolutionary histories, employed tree-like structures to depict branching descent, often in illustrative formats that highlighted morphological relationships. These early taxonomic diagrams were predominantly hand-drawn and qualitative, relying on morphological observations without quantitative distance measures or computational scaling, which distinguished them from later dendrograms while establishing the for hierarchical visualization in .

Evolution in Statistics and Computing

The term "dendrogram" was first introduced in 1953 by , E. Gorton Linsley, and L. Usinger in their book Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology, defining it as a diagrammatic in the form of a to show hierarchical relationships. In the early , the formalization of dendrograms within statistical clustering emerged prominently through the work of Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath, who in their 1963 book Principles of popularized dendrograms as visual representations of results in , a quantitative approach to based on observable similarities rather than evolutionary relationships. This text established dendrograms as essential tools for depicting nested clusters derived from similarity matrices, emphasizing algorithmic methods to generate objective taxonomies from multivariate data. The marked a pivotal period for computational adoption of dendrogram-based techniques, with developments in clustering algorithms influenced by Joseph B. Kruskal's foundational work on (MDS) from the late 1950s and early , which provided methods for visualizing high-dimensional proximities that informed subsequent implementations. By the 1970s, these methods gained widespread use in bioinformatics, where dendrograms facilitated the analysis of molecular data to infer evolutionary relationships, bridging statistical computation with biological . A key milestone occurred in 1990 when utilized dendrograms in his rRNA-based phylogenetic analysis to propose the of life—Bacteria, , and Eukarya—depicting their divergence from the (LUCA) and revolutionizing microbial classification through quantitative tree representations. By the 1980s, dendrograms had become standard in phylogenetic software such as (Phylogeny Inference Package), first released in 1980 by Joseph Felsenstein, which integrated numerical methods for tree construction and visualization, effectively linking traditional taxonomy to . Post-1990s advancements integrated dendrograms deeply into , particularly with the rise of high-throughput data; for instance, Michael B. Eisen and colleagues' 1998 development of algorithms for expression data popularized dendrogram visualizations to reveal co-expression patterns across thousands of genes, enabling scalable analysis of genome-wide datasets. This era saw dendrograms evolve from simple taxonomic aids to robust tools in , supporting the unweighted pair group method with (UPGMA) and other linkage strategies for handling complex genomic hierarchies.

Applications

Phylogenetic Analysis

In phylogenetic analysis, dendrograms serve as graphical representations of evolutionary trees that illustrate the ancestry and among biological taxa, with branches symbolizing events and branch lengths proportional to the elapsed time or since those events. These structures are constructed from molecular sequence data, such as (rRNA), to infer historical relationships and . A seminal example is the dendrogram derived from 16S rRNA sequence comparisons in the 1990 study by Woese, Kandler, and Wheelis, which proposed the of life—Bacteria, , and Eukarya—rooted at the (LUCA), fundamentally reshaping microbial by revealing Archaea as a distinct domain rather than a subset of . In macroevolutionary contexts, dendrograms have been applied to biogeographic patterns, as seen in the analysis by Van Soest et al., where of (Porifera) across marine provinces was visualized using presence/absence data, highlighting regional and global diversity hotspots such as the Indo-West Pacific. Rooted phylogenetic dendrograms designate the root as the (MRCA) of the included taxa, providing a temporal anchor for evolutionary inference, while ultrametric variants enforce a constant evolutionary rate across lineages, aligning with the hypothesis to estimate divergence timings. Modern applications extend to viral phylogenetics, exemplified by post-2020 dendrograms of strains constructed via of genomic sequences, which track variant emergence, transmission dynamics, and zoonotic spillovers to inform responses.

Hierarchical Clustering

In , dendrograms serve as a visual representation of the process of grouping data points based on their similarity measures, such as Euclidean distances, through either bottom-up (agglomerative) or top-down (divisive) approaches. This structure allows analysts to observe how individual data points progressively merge into larger clusters, facilitating the identification of natural groupings without predefined cluster numbers. By encoding hierarchical relationships in a tree-like , dendrograms enable the determination of optimal cut points for partitioning data into meaningful subsets, which is particularly useful in across various statistical domains. A prominent example of dendrogram application in hierarchical clustering is the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA), which computes average distances between clusters during merging. Consider five data points labeled a through e, analyzed using Euclidean distances derived from non-biological attributes like feature vectors in a dataset; the process begins by identifying the closest pair, such as a and b, merging them into a cluster at a height corresponding to their distance, then iteratively averaging distances to incorporate c, d, and e, resulting in a dendrogram that reveals sequential groupings based on similarity thresholds. This method, originally developed for systematic classification but widely adopted in statistical clustering, produces a rooted tree where branch heights reflect dissimilarity levels, aiding in the interpretation of cluster stability. In analysis, dendrograms are frequently integrated with heatmaps from data to cluster samples or genes by expression profiles, highlighting patterns of similarity in high-dimensional datasets. For instance, applied to normalized counts can generate a dendrogram atop a heatmap, where rows represent genes and columns denote samples, with color intensity indicating expression levels; closely related samples, such as those from similar experimental conditions, branch together at lower heights, revealing subgroups like treatment responders versus non-responders. This visualization not only confirms but also uncovers co-expression modules for downstream statistical modeling. Unlike ultrametric trees that assume equal evolutionary rates (as in methods like ), dendrograms in statistical can be non-ultrametric depending on the linkage criterion (such as single or complete linkage), permitting unequal branch lengths to accurately reflect varying dissimilarities between merged clusters, which enhances flexibility in representing real-world data heterogeneity. Such dendrograms find application in , where they cluster based on co-occurrence patterns in surveys to identify community assemblages, and in , grouping consumers by behavioral metrics like purchase history to inform targeted strategies. In contexts, libraries like implement these techniques for customer segmentation, as seen in post-2010s applications analyzing retail data to derive actionable clusters from dendrograms, bridging statistical foundations with practical analytics.

Construction Techniques

Agglomerative Approaches

Agglomerative approaches construct dendrograms through a bottom-up , starting with each individual data point treated as its own singleton cluster and iteratively merging the closest pairs of clusters until all points form a single encompassing cluster. This method builds the hierarchical structure from the leaves (individual observations) upward, producing a tree-like that reflects the sequence and similarity of merges. The fundamental for agglomerative clustering follows these steps: first, compute an initial capturing pairwise dissimilarities between all data points, typically using a metric such as ; second, identify the pair of clusters with the minimum inter-cluster distance; third, merge these into a new cluster; fourth, update the by recalculating distances from the new cluster to all remaining clusters based on a specified linkage criterion; and repeat the process until only one cluster remains. This procedure generates the dendrogram's branching pattern, with merge heights corresponding to the distances at which unions occur. Linkage criteria define how inter-cluster distances are measured during updates, influencing the resulting hierarchy's shape and interpretation. Single linkage uses the minimum between any point in one cluster and any point in the other, which can produce elongated, chain-like structures sensitive to outliers. Complete linkage employs the maximum pairwise between clusters, favoring the formation of compact, spherical groups by penalizing merges with distant outliers. Average linkage, known as the unweighted pair group method with (UPGMA), computes the as the of all pairwise distances between points in the two clusters: d(A,B)=1∣A∣⋅∣B∣∑a∈A∑b∈Bd(a,b)d(A, B) = \frac{1}{|A| \cdot |B|} \sum_{a \in A} \sum_{b \in B} d(a, b) This approach, originally proposed for taxonomic analysis, provides a balanced alternative that mitigates while avoiding excessive compactness. , in contrast, selects merges that minimize the increase in total within-cluster variance (error ), promoting clusters with low internal dispersion and often yielding results akin to k-means partitioning at various levels. Many linkage criteria, including single, complete, average, and , can be implemented efficiently using the recursive Lance-Williams formula to update distances after each merge without recomputing the full matrix: d((A∪B),C)=αA d(A,C)+αB d(B,C)+β d(A,B)+γ ∣d(A,C)−d(B,C)∣d((A \cup B), C) = \alpha_A \, d(A, C) + \alpha_B \, d(B, C) + \beta \, d(A, B) + \gamma \, |d(A, C) - d(B, C)| The parameters αA\alpha_A, αB\alpha_B, β\beta, and γ\gamma vary by method—for single linkage, αA=αB=0.5\alpha_A = \alpha_B = 0.5, β=0\beta = 0, γ=−0.5\gamma = -0.5; for complete linkage, αA=αB=0.5\alpha_A = \alpha_B = 0.5, β=0\beta = 0, γ=0.5\gamma = 0.5; for average linkage (), αA=∣A∣∣A∣+∣B∣\alpha_A = \frac{|A|}{|A| + |B|}, αB=∣B∣∣A∣+∣B∣\alpha_B = \frac{|B|}{|A| + |B|}, β=0\beta = 0, γ=0\gamma = 0; and for , αA=∣A∣∣A∣+∣B∣\alpha_A = \frac{|A|}{|A| + |B|}, αB=∣B∣∣A∣+∣B∣\alpha_B = \frac{|B|}{|A| + |B|}, β=−∣A∣⋅∣B∣(∣A∣+∣B∣)2\beta = -\frac{|A| \cdot |B|}{(|A| + |B|)^2}, γ=0\gamma = 0, with distances scaled by cluster sizes to account for variance. This formulation enables O(n²) for the entire process, making it practical for moderate-sized datasets.

Divisive Approaches

Divisive approaches to dendrogram utilize a top-down strategy, starting with the entire consolidated into a single cluster and recursively partitioning it into smaller subclusters until each data point constitutes its own singleton. These methods are categorized as either monothetic or polythetic: monothetic divisive clustering employs a single attribute at each splitting step to optimize criteria such as cluster homogeneity or association, making it computationally simpler and particularly suited for , while polythetic methods evaluate all attributes simultaneously via a dissimilarity matrix to form partitions that consider multivariate relationships. A key in this domain is DIANA (Divisive Analysis), introduced by Kaufman and Rousseeuw as the inverse of agglomerative techniques. The process initiates with all objects in one cluster, then iteratively identifies the most heterogeneous cluster—measured by overall dissimilarity—and divides it into two subgroups by selecting the partition that maximizes the average dissimilarity between objects assigned to each subgroup. Recursion continues on these subgroups until singletons are achieved, producing a dendrogram that reflects the hierarchical splits. Compared to agglomerative methods, divisive approaches are less prevalent owing to their elevated computational demands, which involve exhaustive split evaluations across the dataset at deeper levels. Nonetheless, they offer advantages in scenarios with large datasets exhibiting pronounced top-level divisions, enabling rapid delineation of overarching cluster structures before finer subdivisions. In phylogenetics, divisive methods facilitate the generation of hierarchical trees from molecular or biochemical data; for instance, they have been used to classify Bacillus species based on fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiles, yielding dendrograms that approximate evolutionary relationships through successive splits. A representative split criterion in such contexts aims to minimize the total within-cluster sum of squared distances for the resulting subgroups, formulated as: WCSS=∑i∈A∥xi−xˉA∥2+∑j∈B∥xj−xˉB∥2\text{WCSS} = \sum_{i \in A} \|x_i - \bar{x}_A\|^2 + \sum_{j \in B} \|x_j - \bar{x}_B\|^2 where AA and BB denote the two new clusters, xˉA\bar{x}_A and xˉB\bar{x}_B are their respective centroids, and ∥⋅∥2\| \cdot \|^2 represents the squared . This criterion promotes compact, internally cohesive subclusters by penalizing high internal variance.

Visualization and Interpretation

Reading and Analyzing Dendrograms

Reading a dendrogram begins by tracing from the leaves, which represent individual data points or taxa, upward to the , where the vertical height of each merge indicates the dissimilarity or distance at which clusters are joined. The closer two leaves are horizontally and the lower their joining branch, the more similar they are considered. To extract a specific number of clusters kk, a horizontal line is drawn across the dendrogram at a chosen height hh; all branches below this height form the within-cluster groups, yielding kk distinct clusters. Determining the optimal number of clusters involves analyzing the dendrogram's structure, such as using the elbow method, where the fusion heights are plotted against the corresponding number of clusters to identify a point of in height increase, often visualized as an "" in the curve. For validation, the silhouette score can be computed for partitions obtained by cutting the dendrogram at various heights; this metric, ranging from -1 to 1, measures how well each point fits its cluster compared to others, with higher average scores indicating better-defined clusters. Common pitfalls in interpretation include the chaining effect in single-linkage dendrograms, where outliers or can cause elongated, snake-like clusters by linking through a of nearby points rather than forming compact groups. Additionally, dendrograms in often assume an ultrametric structure, implying a where all leaves are equidistant from the root, whereas those in general clustering follow an additive metric without this equidistance requirement. To compare multiple dendrograms, such as from different data partitions, the incongruence length difference (ILD) test assesses topological congruence by measuring the difference in parsimony tree lengths between combined and separate analyses, with significance evaluated via . For example, in a dendrogram for five taxa (A, B, C, D, E) based on a where A and B join at height 0.2, D and E at 0.3, and the group with C at 0.45, cutting at height 0.45 yields two clusters: {A, B} and {C, D, E}.

Tools and Software

Several open-source tools facilitate the creation and visualization of dendrograms through algorithms. In , the hclust() function from the base stats package performs agglomerative on a , producing a dendrogram object that can be plotted using the plot() method to display the with branch heights representing dissimilarity levels. Similarly, Python's library provides the scipy.cluster.hierarchy module, where the linkage() function computes the linkage matrix from condensed distance data, and the dendrogram() function generates a plot illustrating cluster merges as a U-shaped . Specialized software packages extend dendrogram capabilities for phylogenetic applications. PHYLIP, a free suite developed since the , includes programs like NEIGHBOR for constructing neighbor-joining trees and DRAWTREE for rendering dendrogram-style outputs from distance matrices or sequences. MEGA supports evolutionary analysis by generating phylogenetic trees with bootstrap resampling to assess branch reliability, displaying results as dendrograms with support values overlaid on nodes. For programmable workflows, BioPython's Phylo module handles reading, writing, and manipulating phylogenetic trees in formats like Newick, enabling dendrogram construction from alignments via distance-based methods. The ETE Toolkit, a Python library, offers advanced tree manipulation and visualization, including programmable rendering of phylogenetic dendrograms with annotations and layouts. Complementing these, DendroPy is a dedicated Python library for phylogenetic computing, supporting tree simulation, processing, and dendrogram export in various formats for post-2010s analyses. Web-based platforms provide accessible options for interactive dendrogram visualization without local installation. iTOL (Interactive ) allows users to upload phylogenetic trees in and generate customizable, zoomable dendrograms with annotations, colors, and datasets; its version 6, released in 2024, introduced a rewritten interface with enhanced export options for high-resolution figures. In bioinformatics applications, tools often integrate dendrograms with other visualizations. The heatmap.2() function from R's gplots package combines dendrograms with color-coded heatmaps, commonly used for data to cluster samples and genes by expression similarity, with options for reordering rows and columns based on the . For contexts, 's AgglomerativeClustering computes the linkage matrix, which can be passed to SciPy's dendrogram() for plotting via , producing customizable figures of hierarchical clusters.

References

  1. https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~kumar/dmbook/ch8.pdf
  2. https://www.stata.com/manuals/mvclusterdendrogram.pdf
  3. https://archive.org/details/principlesofnume0000unse
  4. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/dendrogram_n
  5. https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/hierarchical-clustering.html
  6. https://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/papers/volume17/11-198/11-198.pdf
  7. https://cicerocq.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/cluster-analysis_5ed_everitt.pdf
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/phylogenetic-tree
  9. https://currentprotocols.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471250953.bi0601s00
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/phylogenetic-tree
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3783897/
  12. https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/charles_darwin/tree-of-life-origin_of_species-1859.html
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138516302023
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/213774892_Trees_before_and_after_Darwin
  15. https://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_Numerical_Taxonomy.html?id=tCRti_BidpcC
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/numerical-taxonomy
  17. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863
  18. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576
  19. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035105
  20. https://beast.community/clocks
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57001-5
  22. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/clustering.html
  23. https://franknielsen.github.io/Clustering/BookChapter-HierarchicalClustering.pdf
  24. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4589
  25. https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~kumar001/dmbook/ch7_clustering.pdf
  26. https://zenodo.org/records/16435757/files/Sokal%20and%20Michener%201958.pdf
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/divisive-clustering
  28. https://www.datanovia.com/en/lessons/divisive-hierarchical-clustering/
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Divisive-clustering-tree-Phylogenetic-tree-resulting-from-the-divisive-clustering-of-the_fig4_41188360
  30. http://mitran-lab.amath.unc.edu/courses/MATH590/biblio/Clustering.ch7.HierarchicalClustering.pdf
  31. https://wheatoncollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/How-to-Read-a-Dendrogram-Web-Ready.pdf
  32. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall18/cos324/files/hierarchical-clustering.pdf
  33. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat505/book/export/html/742
  34. https://www.datanovia.com/en/lessons/determining-the-optimal-number-of-clusters-3-must-know-methods/
  35. https://wis.kuleuven.be/stat/robust/papers/publications-1987/rousseeuw-silhouettes-jcam-sciencedirectopenarchiv.pdf
  36. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring19/cos324/files/hierarchical-clustering.pdf
  37. https://ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/280/tree.html
  38. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article-pdf/47/4/545/19502160/47-4-545.pdf
  39. https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_UPGMA.htm
  40. https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/stats/versions/3.6.2/topics/hclust
  41. https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/stats/html/hclust.html
  42. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.cluster.hierarchy.linkage.html
  43. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.cluster.hierarchy.dendrogram.html
  44. https://phylipweb.github.io/phylip/
  45. https://www.megasoftware.net/
  46. https://www.megasoftware.net/web_help_12/Bootstrap_Test_of_Phylogeny.htm
  47. https://biopython.org/wiki/Phylo
  48. http://etetoolkit.org/
  49. https://jeetsukumaran.github.io/DendroPy/
  50. https://itol.embl.de/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38613393/
  52. https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/gplots/versions/3.2.0/topics/heatmap.2
  53. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/auto_examples/cluster/plot_agglomerative_dendrogram.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.