Skip to main content

Self organizing MAPS: understanding, measuring and reducing variability

  • Conference paper
Compstat 2006 - Proceedings in Computational Statistics
  • 1531 Accesses

Abstract

In classification self-organizing maps is used as a generalisation of the K-means method including a neighbourhood organization between clusters. The correspondence between this clusters organization and the input proximity is called the topology preservation. The aim of this paper is to measure, reduce and understand variability of SOM. Considering the property of topology preservation, a local approach of variability (at an individual level) is preferred to a global one. A complementary visualising tool, called Map of Distances between Classes (MDC), is presented to complete this local approach relating variability to the complexity of the data’s intrinsic structure. It basically allows the main information to be extracted from a very large matrix of distances between Self-Organizing Maps’ classes. In the presence of a complex structure, it enlarges the information set, linking the variability of acceptable representations to the data structure complexity. To reduce variability, a stochastic method based on a bootstrap process aims to increase the reliability of the induced neighbourhood structure. The resulting (robust) map, called R-Map, is more robust relative to the sensitivities of the outputs to the sampling method and to some of the learning options of the SOM’ algorithm (initialisation and order of data presentation). This method consists of selecting one map from a group of several solutions resulting from the same self-organizing map algorithm, but obtained with various inputs. The R-map can be perceived as the map, among the group of solutions, and corresponds to the most common interpretation of the data set structure. When an R-map can be perceived as the representative of a given SOM network, the relevance of the chosen network depends on R-map’s ability to adjust the data structure. As an application, a criterion to validate the network size is proposed comparing its ability of adjustment with SOM outputs of a larger network.

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

Access this chapter

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 PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cottrell, M., Fort, J.C., Pages, G. (1998), Theoretical Aspects of the SOM Algorithm, Neurocomputing, 21, p. 119–138.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. De Bodt E., Cottrell M., Verleysen M. (2002) Statistical tools to assess the reliability of self-organizing maps, Neural Networks, vol. 15, n 8–9, p.967–978.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Demartines P., Herault J., (1997) Curvilinear component analysis: A self-organizing neural network for non-linear mapping of data sets, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 8:1, January 1997, pp. 148–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R. (1993), An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kohonen, T. (1995), Self-Organising Maps, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martinetz T., Schulten K. (1991) A “neural gas” network learns topologies. In Teuvo Kohonen, Kai Mäkisara, Olli Simula, and Jari Kangas, editors, Artificial Neural Networks, pp. 397–402. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rousset P., Guinot C., Maillet B., Understanding and reducing Variability of SOM’ Neighbourhood Structure, Proc. WSOM 2005, Paris, p. 521–528

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rousset, P., Guinot, C. (2001) Distance between Kohonen Classes: Visualization Tool to Use SOM in Data Set Analysis and representation, International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks 2, p. 119–126.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Villmann T., Der R., Herrmann M., Martinetz T.M., Topology preservation in self-organizing feature maps: exact definition and measurement, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 8:2, March 1997, pp. 256–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rousset, P. (2006). Self organizing MAPS: understanding, measuring and reducing variability. In: Rizzi, A., Vichi, M. (eds) Compstat 2006 - Proceedings in Computational Statistics. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1709-6_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics