**Hodgeman County Study, part 4 of 12**

Table 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the method for a simple case involving a single attribute. At the beginning each measurement coincides with its centroid and both the error per cluster and consequently the total error are zero. In the first round of mergers, only the merging sites contribute to the total sum, so .

For large numbers of clusters, instead of computing the new total sum of errors directly as the sum of all clusters in Definition 2, there are savings in the calculations by computing the new total sum of errors as the lowest sum from the previous round, plus the new error for the new merging clusters, minus the individual cluster errors for the merging clusters. Even larger savings arise by working directly with the square distances between centroids instead of the within square distances (Anderberg, 1973, p. 142-145; Kendall, 1986, p. 37).

**Table 1.** Example illustrating the application of
the Ward's method showing the error sum of squares and the total
within group error sum of squares only for the **bold**, new
partitions plus the mean for the best mergers.

Number of clusters | Possible partitions of the measurements | |||

6 | (0.1) (1) (3) (7) (8) (10) | |||

5 | (0.1, 1) (3) (7) (8) (10) | 0.405 | 0.405 | 0.55 |

(0.1, 3) (1) (7) (8) (10) | 4.205 | 4.205 | ||

(0.1, 7) (1) (3) (8) (10) | 23.805 | 23.805 | ||

(0.1, 8) (1) (3) (7) (10) | 31.205 | 31.205 | ||

(0.1, 10) (1) (3) (7) (8) | 49.005 | 49.005 | ||

(0.1) (1, 3) (7) (8) (10) | 2 | 2 | ||

(0.1) (1, 7) (3) (8) (10) | 1 | 18 | ||

(0.1) (1, 8) (3) (7) (10) | 24.5 | 24.5 | ||

(0.1) (1, 10) (3) (7) (8) | 40.5 | 40.5 | ||

(0.1) (1) (3, 7) (8) (10) | 8 | 8 | ||

(0.1) (1) (3, 8) (7) (10) | 12.5 | 12.5 | ||

(0.1) (1) (3, 10) (7) (8) | 24.5 | 24.5 | ||

(0.1) (1) (3) (7, 8) (10) | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||

(0.1) (1) (3) (7, 10) (8) | 4.5 | 4.5 | ||

(0.1) (1) (3) (7) (8, 10) | 2 | 2 | ||

4 | (0.1, 1, 3) (7) (8) (10) | 4.407 | 4.407 | |

(0.1, 1, 7) (3) (8) (10) | 28.14 | 28.14 | ||

(0.1, 1, 8) (3) (7) (10) | 37.407 | 37.407 | ||

(0.1, 1, 10) (3) (7) (8) | 59.94 | 59.94 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3, 7) (8) (10) | 8 | 8.405 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3, 8) (7) (10) | 12.5 | 12.905 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3, 10) (7) (8) | 24.5 | 24.905 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3) (7, 8) (10) | 0.5 | 0.905 | 7.5 | |

(0.1, 1) (3) (7, 10) (8) | 4.5 | 4.905 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3) (7) (8, 10) | 2 | 2.405 | ||

3 | (0.1, 1, 3) (7, 8) (10) | 4.407 | 4.907 | 1.367 |

(0.1, 1, 7, 8) (3) (10) | 49.208 | 49.208 | ||

(0.1, 1, 10) (3) (7, 8) | 59.94 | 60.44 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3, 7, 8) (10) | 14 | 14.405 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3, 10) (7, 8) | 24.5 | 24.905 | ||

(0.1, 1) (3) (7, 8, 10) | 4.667 | 5.077 | ||

2 | (0.1, 1, 3, 7, 8) (10) | 50.048 | 50.048 | |

(0.1, 1, 3 , 10) (7, 8) | 60.308 | 60.808 | ||

(0.1, 1, 3) (7, 8, 10) | 4.667 | 9.074 | 8.333 | |

1 | (0.1, 1, 3, 7, 8, 10) | 81.875 | 81.875 | 4.85 |

**Figure 2.** The Ward's method tree for the example in Table 1.

- Start with as many clusters as sites, each cluster consisting of exactly one site. At this stage the value of in Definition 2 is zero.
- Reduce the number of clusters by one by merging those two that minimize the increase of the total error .
- If the sites are in more than one cluster, go back to step 2.
- Display the results in the form of an inverted tree showing at each stage which two clusters were merged and its corresponding total error or total number of clusters .

Most statistical packages include implementations of several methods for cluster analysis, including Ward's (IMSL, 1987; SAS Institute, 1990). Among the properties of Ward's method one has:

(a) The method is biased toward finding clusters with the same number of sites in each cluster (SAS, 1990, p. 56).

(b) Because sites clustered at a previous clustering step are never unmerged, the calculations are relatively simple, but they often result in suboptimal partitions conditioned to the previous steps. For example, at the three cluster level the method produces the clusters (1, 2), (4, 6), (9, 10) for this univariate sampling of size 6. In the next stage the method produces the clusters (1, 2, 4, 6) and (9, 10) with total error =15.25, which is larger than the smallest total error =13.333 associated with clusters (1, 2, 4) and (6, 9, 10), an unfeasible partition after selecting (1, 2), (4, 6), (9, 10) in the previous stage.

Despite its suboptimality, the method has been quite successful reproducing clusters in blind tests.

(c) Ward's method is unable to avoid calculations for the partitions involving small clusters when they are of no interest. For example for a sampling of size 1,000, if the interest is restricted to partitions with 5 to 20 clusters, it is possible to stop the calculations after completing the partition into 5 clusters, but it is not possible to avoid the more numerous calculations for partitioning the sampling from 999 to 21 clusters.

(d) The total sum of errors increases monotonically as the number of clusters decreases.

(e) The method is not robust with respect to survey errors and outliers (Mojena, 1988).

Previous Page--Typification ||
Next Page--Discriminant Analysis

Dakota Home ||
Start of Hodgeman County Study

Kansas Geological Survey, Dakota Aquifer Program

Updated Sept. 16, 1996.

Scientific comments to P. Allen Macfarlane

Web comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu

The URL for this page is HTTP://www.kgs.ku.edu/Dakota/vol1/geo/hodge4.htm