Skip to main content

SOM Quality Measures: An Efficient Statistical Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 428))

Abstract

We are interested in practical tools for the quantitative evaluation of self-organizing maps (SOMs). Recently it has been argued that any quality measure for SOMs needs to evaluate the embedding or coverage of a map as well as its topological quality. Over the years many different quality measures for self-organizing maps have been proposed. However, many of these only measure one aspect of a SOM or are computationally very expensive or both. Here we present a novel, computationally efficient statistical approach to the evaluation of SOMs. Our approach measures both the embedding and the topological quality of a SOM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The 3.0 version should be available on CRAN by August 2015.

References

  1. UCI machine learning repository: Iris data set. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Iris, (Feb 2012)

  2. Beaton, D., Valova, I., MacLean, D.: Cqoco: a measure for comparative quality of coverage and organization for self-organizing maps. Neurocomputing 73(10), 2147–2159 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. De Bodt, E., Cottrell, M., Verleysen, M.: Statistical tools to assess the reliability of self-organizing maps. Neural Netw. 15(8–9), 967978 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hamel, L., Brown, C.W.: Bayesian probability approach to feature significance for infrared spectra of bacteria. Appl. Spectrosc. 66(1), 48–59 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamel, L., Ott, B.: A population based convergence criterion for self-organizing maps. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Data Mining, Las Vegas, Nevada (July 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hamel, L., Ott, B., Breard, G.: popsom: Self-Organizing Maps With Population Based Convergence Criterion. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=popsom (2015), r package version 3.0

  8. Justel, A., Peña, D., Zamar, R.: A multivariate Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of goodness of fit. Stat. Probab. Lett 35(3), 251–259 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kiviluoto, K.: Topology preservation in self-organizing maps. In: IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 294–299. IEEE (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kohonen, T.: Self-organizing maps. Springer series in information sciences. Springer, Berlin (2001)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Merényi, E., Tasdemir, K., Zhang, L.: Learning highly structured manifolds: harnessing the power of SOMs. In: Similarity-based clustering, pp. 138–168. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Miller, I., Miller, M.: John E. Freund’s Mathematical Statistics with Applications, 7th Edn. Prentice Hall (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ott, B.H.: A convergence criterion for self-organizing maps. Master’s thesis, University of Rhode Island (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pölzlbauer, G.: Survey and comparison of quality measures for self-organizing maps. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Data Analysis (WDA-04), pp. 67–82. Elfa Academic Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Team, R.C.: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2013). http://www.R-project.org/. ISBN:3-900051-07-0

  16. Thall, P.F., Vail, S.C.: Some covariance models for longitudinal count data with overdispersion. Biometrics 657–671 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ultsch, A.: Clustering with SOM: U* C. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Self-Organizing Maps, pp. 75–82. Paris, France (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Villmann, T., Der, R., Herrmann, M., Martinetz, T.M.: Topology preservation in self-organizing feature maps: exact definition and measurement. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 8(2), 256–266 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yin, H., Allinson, N.M.: On the distribution and convergence of feature space in self-organizing maps. Neural Comput. 7(6), 1178–1187 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Gavino Puggioni for suggesting the non-parametric goodness of fit tests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lutz Hamel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hamel, L. (2016). SOM Quality Measures: An Efficient Statistical Approach. In: Merényi, E., Mendenhall, M., O'Driscoll, P. (eds) Advances in Self-Organizing Maps and Learning Vector Quantization. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 428. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28518-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28518-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28517-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28518-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics