Research Article
The New and Computationally Efficient MIL-SOM Algorithm: Potential Benefits for Visualization and Analysis of a Large-Scale High-Dimensional Clinically Acquired Geographic Data
Table 2
Training parameters of standard SOM and MIL-SOM algorithms for experimental datasets.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Note. There was great improvement in map quality in terms of the quantization errors (Qe) for MIL-SOM for real-world datasets, but standard SOM appears to do better with the topological errors (Te), especially for the random dataset that is noisy. The initial neighborhood radii for the rough training phase and fine-tuning phase were set as max(m size)/ and max(m size)/4)/, respectively, until the fine-tuning radius reached 1, where max is the maximum value of the map size matrix. For all the datasets, the map size was (20 20), so max was 20. Some minor adjustments were initially made during the MIL-SOM training with respect to the specifications of map size, neighborhood radius, and the length of training to fine tune the training SOM parameters [40]. **Training parameters for the new training dataset—blood lead levels (BLLs). The results further confirm the trends reported in an earlier report [40]. |