11.07.2015 Views

2DkcTXceO

2DkcTXceO

2DkcTXceO

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

L. Billard 327TABLE 29.1Airline data (continued).Y 1 [270, 310) [310, 350) [350, 390) [390, 430) [430, 470) [470, 540]1 .07831 .07556 .02685 .00034 .00000 .000002 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .000003 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .000004 .03425 .02272 .00729 .00000 .00000 .000005 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .000006 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .000007 .34299 .21494 .08384 .01220 .00000 .000008 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .000009 .00523 .00174 .00348 .00000 .00000 .0017410 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000Y 2 [80, 100) [100, 120) [120, 140) [140, 160) [160, 200) [200, 240]1 .01773 .01411 .00637 .00654 .01532 .000002 .01403 .00281 .00281 .00000 .00281 .000003 .02094 .01440 .01276 .00884 .02716 .000004 .00797 .00661 .00356 .00051 .00220 .000005 .00865 .00576 .00576 .00576 .00865 .000006 .02883 .00835 .01366 .00835 .00531 .000007 .00762 .00305 .00152 .00762 .01372 .000008 .00817 .00635 .00227 .00136 .00318 .000009 .01916 .01394 .00871 .01220 .02091 .0000010 .00286 .00143 .00167 .00095 .00143 .00000Y 3 [105, 125) [125, 145) [145, 165) [165, 185) [185, 225) [225, 265]1 .00878 .00000 .00361 .00947 .00775 .000002 .00281 .00000 .00000 .00140 .00140 .000003 .01407 .00000 .01014 .01407 .01538 .000004 .00305 .00000 .00085 .00068 .00153 .000005 .00865 .00000 .00865 .00000 .00865 .000006 .01897 .00000 .00986 .00607 .00152 .000007 .00457 .00000 .00152 .00762 .00915 .000008 .00227 .00000 .00136 .00045 .00182 .000009 .01045 .00000 .01742 .01394 .00871 .0000010 .00095 .00000 .00072 .00048 .00024 .00000while airlines (1, 2) have comparable means, they differ from those for airline 4.That is, the classical surrogate analysis is based on the means only.ApolytheticdivisivetreebuiltontheEuclideanextendedIchino–Yaguchidistances for the histograms is shown in Figure 29.3; see Kim and Billard(2011) for this algorithm. The corresponding monothetic divisive tree is comparable.This tree is different again from those of Figures 29.1 and 29.2; thesedifferences reflect the fact that different clustering algorithms, along with differentdistance matrices and different methods, can construct quite differenttrees.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!