I run an infectious disease spread model similar to "VIRUS" model in the model library changing the "infectiousness".
I did 20 runs each for infectiousness values 98% , 95% , 93% and the Maximum infected count was 74.05 , 73 ,78.9 respectively. (peak was at tick 38 for all 3 infectiousness values)
[I took the average of the infected count for each tick and took the maximum of these averages as the "maximum infected".]
I was expecting the maximum infected count to decrease when the infectiousness is reduced, but it didn't. As per what I understood this happens, because I considered the average values of each simulation run. (It is like I am considering a new simulation run with average infected count for each tick ).
I want to say that, I am considering all 20 simulation runs. Is there a way to do that other than the way I used the average?
In the Models Library Virus model with default parameter settings at other values, and those high infectiousness values, what I see when I run the model is a periodic variation in the numbers three classes of person. Look at the plot in the lower left corner, and you'll see this. What is happening, I believe, is this:
When there are many healthy, non-immune people, that means that there are many people who can get infected, so the number of infected people goes up, and the number of healthy people goes down.
Soon after that, the number of sick, infectious people goes down, because they either die or become immune.
Since there are now more immune people, and fewer infectious people, the number of non-immune healthy grows; they are reproducing. (See "How it works" in the Info tab.) But now we have returned to the situation in step 1, ... so the cycle continues.
If your model is sufficiently similar to the Models Library Virus model, I'd bet that this is part of what's happening. If you don't have a plot window like the Virus model, I recommend adding it.
Also, you didn't say how many ticks you are running the model for. If you run it for a short number of ticks, you won't notice the periodic behavior, but that doesn't mean it hasn't begun.
What this all means that increasing infectiousness wouldn't necessarily increase the maximum number infected: a faster rate of infection means that the number of individuals who can infected drops faster. I'm not sure that the maximum number infected over the whole run is an interesting number, with this model and a high infectiousness value. It depends what you are trying to understand.
One of the great things about NetLogo and some other ABM systems is that you can watch the system evolve over time, using various tools such as plots, monitors, etc. as well as just looking at the agents move around or change states over time. This can help you understand what is going on in a way that a single number like an average won't. Then you can use this insight to figure out a more informative way of measuring what is happening.
Another model where you can see a similar kind of periodic pattern is Wolf-Sheep Predation. I recommend looking at that. It may be easier to understand the pattern. (If you are interested in mathematical models of this kind of phenomenon, look up Lotka-Volterra models.)
(Real virus transmission can be more complicated, because a person (or other animal) is a kind of big "island" where viruses can reproduce quickly. If they reproduce too quickly, this can kill the host, and prevent further transmission of the virus. Sometimes a virus that reproduces more slowly can harm more people, because there is time for them to infect others. This blog post by Elliott Sober gives a relatively simple mathematical introduction to some of the issues involved, but his simple mathematical models don't take into account all of the complications involved in real virus transmission.)
EDIT: You added a comment Lawan, saying that you are interested in modeling COVID-19 transmission. This paper, Variation and multilevel selection of SARS‐CoV‐2 by Blackstone, Blackstone, and Berg, suggests that some of the dynamics that I mentioned in the preceding remarks might be characteristic of COVID-19 transmission. That paper is about six months old now, and it offered some speculations based on limited information. There's probably more known now, but this might suggest avenues for further investigation.
If you're interested, you might also consider asking general questions about virus transmission on the Biology Stackexchange site.
Related
I have a problem that I don't have enough training data for my NN. It is trying to predict the result of a soccer game given the last games which I woulf say is a regression task.
The training data are results of soccer games of the last 15 seasons (which are about 4500 games). Getting to new data would be hard and would take a lot of time.
What should I do now?
Is it good to duplicate the data?
Should I input randomized data? (Maybe noise but I'm not quite sure what that is)
If there is no way of creating more data,
I should probably turn up the learning rate right? (I have it sitting at 0.01 and the momentum at 0.9)
I am using mini batches consisting of 32 training datas in training. Since I don't have a lot of training I don't have a lot of mini batches. Should I stop using them?
To start from the beginning: This is a very theoretical question and is not directly related to programming, which I recommend (in future) to post over at the Data Science Stackexchange.
To go into your problem: 4500 samples is not as bad as it sounds, depending on the exact task at hand. Are you trying to predict the match results (i.e. which team is the winner?), are you looking for more specific predictions (across a lot of different, specific teams)?
If you can make sure that you have a reasonable amount of data per class, one can work with a number of samples lower than what you have. Simply duplicating the data will not help you much, since you are very likely to just overfit on the samples you are seeing, without much of an improvement; Or rather, you will get the same results as training over a longer period (since essentially you see every sample twice per epoch, instead of one).
Again, what usually happens after long training periods is overfitting, so nothing gained here.
Your second suggestion is generally called data augmentation. Instead of simply copying samples, you alter them enough to make it look "different" to the network. But be careful! Data augmentation works well for some inputs, like images, since the change in input is significant enough to not represent the same sample, but still contains meaningful information about the class (a horizontally mirrored image of a cat still shows a "valid cat", unlike a vertically mirrored image, which is more unrealistic in the real world).
Essentially, it depends on your input features to determine where it makes sense to add noise. If you are only changing the results of the previous game, a minor change in input (adding/subtracting one goal at random) can significantly change the prediction you make.
If you slightly scramble ELO scores by a random number, on the other hand, the input value will not be too different, "but different enough" to use it as a novel example.
Turning up the learning rate is not a good idea, since you are essentially just letting the network converge more towards the specific samples. On the contrary, I would argue that the current learning rate is still too high, and you should certainly not increase it.
Regarding mini batches, I think I have referenced this a million times now, but always consider smaller minibatches. From a theoretical point of view, you are more likely to converge to a local minimum.
I am making an AI for a zero-sum 4-player board game. It's actually not zero-sum (the 4 players will "die" when they lose all their lives, so there will be a player who died first, second, third and a player who survived. However, I am telling the AI that only surviving counts as a win and anything else is a lose) After some research, I figured I would use a minimax algorithm in combination with a heuristic function. I came across this question and decided to do the same as the OP of that question - write an evolutionary algorithm that gives me the best weights.
However, my heuristic function is different from the one the OP of that question had. Mine takes 9 weights and is a lot slower, so I can't let the agents play 1000 games (takes too much time) or breed them with the crossover method (how do I do a crossover with 9 weights?).
So I decided to come up with my own method of determining fitness and breeding. And this question is only about the fitness function.
Here are my attempts at this.
First Attempt
For each agent A in a randomly generated population of 50 agents, select 3 more agents from the population (with replacement but not the same agent as A itself) and let the 4 agents play a game where A is the first player. Select another 3 and play a game where A is the second player, and so on. For each of these 4 games, if A died first, its fitness does not change. If A died second, its fitness is increased by 1. If it died third, its fitness is increased by 2. If it survived, its fitness is increased by 3. Therefore, I concluded that the highest fitness one can get is 12 (surviving/wining all 4 games -> 3 + 3 + 3 + 3).
I ran this for 7 generations and starting from the first generation, the highest fitness is as high as 10. And I calculated the average fitness of the top 10 agents, but the average didn't increase a bit throughout the 7 generations. It even decreased a little.
I think the reason why this didn't work is because there's gotta be a few agents that got lucky and got some poor performing agents as its opponents.
Second Attempt
The game setups are the same as my first attempt but instead of measuring the results of each game, I decided to measure how many moves did that agent make before it died.
After 7 generations the average fitness of top 10 does increase but still not increasing as much as I think it should.
I think the reason why this failed is that the game is finite, so there is a finite number of moves you can make before you die and the top performing agents pretty much reached that limit. There is no room for growth. Another reason is that the fitness of the player who survived and the fitness of the player who died third differs little.
What I want
From my understanding of EAs (correct me if I'm wrong), the average fitness should increase and the top performing individual's fitness should not decrease over time.
My two attempts failed at both of these. Since the opponents are randomly selected, the top performing agent in generation 1 might get stronger opponents in the next generation, and thus its fitness decreases.
Notes
In my attempts, the agents play 200 games each generation and each generation takes up to 3 hours, so I don't want to let them play too many games.
How can I write a fitness function like this?
Seven generations doesn't seem like nearly enough to get a useful result. Especially for a game, I would expect something like 200+ generations to be more realistic. You could do a number of things:
Implement elitism in order to ensure the survival of the best individual(s).
The strength of evolution stems from repeated mutation and crossover, so I'd recommend letting the agents play only a few games per generation (say, 5 ~ 10), at least at the beginning, and then evolve the population. You might even want to do only one game per generation.
In this regard, you could adopt a continuous evolution strategy. What this means is that as soon as an agent dies, they are subjected to mutation, and as soon as an agent wins, they can produce offspring. Or any combination of the two. The point is that the tournament is ongoing, everyone can play against anyone else. This is a little more "organic" in the sense that it does not have strictly defined generations, but it should speed up the process (especially if you can parallelise the evaluation).
I hope that helps. The accepted answer in the post you referenced has a good suggestion about the way you could implement crossover.
I'm making a simple electric circuit simulator. It will (at least initially) only feature batteries, wires and resistors in series and parallel. However, I'm at a loss how best to simulate said circuit in a good way.
Specifically, I will have batteries and resistors with two contact points each, and wires that go between two contact points. I assume that each component will have a field for its resistance, the current through it and the voltage across it (current and voltage will, of course, be signed). Each component is given a resistance, and the batteries are given a voltage. The goal of the simulation is to assign correct values to all the other fields in real time as the player connects and disconnects components and wires.
These are the requirements:
It must be correct, including Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws (I'm modeling real world circuits, and there is little point if the model does something completely different)
It must be numerically stable (we can't have uncontrolled oscillations or something just because two neighbouring resistors can't make up their minds together)
It should stabilize relatively quickly for, let's say, fewer than 30 components (having to wait a few seconds before the values are correct doesn't really satisfy "real time", but I really don't plan on using it for more than 10 or maybe 20 components)
The optimal formulation for me (how I envision this in my head) would be if I could assign a script to each component that took care of that component only, possibly by communicating field values with neighbouring components, and each component script works in parallel and adjusts as is needed
I only see problems here and no solutions. The biggest problem, I think, is Kirchhoff's voltage law (going around any sub-circuit, the voltage across all components, including signs, add up to 0), because that's a global law (it says somehting about a whole circuit and not just a single component / connection point). There is a mathematical reformulation saying that there exists a potential function on the points in the circuit (for instance, the voltage measured against the + pole of the battery), which is a bit more local, but I still don't see how to let a component know how much the voltage / potential drops across it.
Kirchhoff's current law (the net current flow into an intersection is 0) might also be trouble. It seems to force me to make intersections into separate objects to enforce it. I originally thought that I could just let each component have two lists (a left list and a right list) containing every other component that is connected to it at that point, but that might not make KCL easily enforcable.
I know there are circuit simulators out there, and they must have solved this exact problem somehow. I just can't find an explanation because if I try googling it, I only find the already made simulators and no explanations anywhere.
Just starting to play around with Neural Networks for fun after playing with some basic linear regression. I am an English teacher so don't have a math background and trying to read a book on this stuff is way over my head. I thought this would be a better avenue to get some basic questions answered (even though I suspect there is no easy answer). Just looking for some general guidance put in layman's terms. I am using a trial version of an Excel Add-In called NEURO XL. I apologize if these questions are too "elementary."
My first project is related to predicting a student's Verbal score on the SAT based on a number of test scores, GPA, practice exam scores, etc. as well as some qualitative data (gender: M=1, F=0; took SAT prep class: Y=1, N=0; plays varsity sports: Y=1, N=0).
In total, I have 21 variables that I would like to feed into the network, with the output being the actual score (200-800).
I have 9000 records of data spanning many years/students. Here are my questions:
How many records of the 9000 should I use to train the network?
1a. Should I completely randomize the selection of this training data or be more involved and make sure I include a variety of output scores and a wide range of each of the input variables?
If I split the data into an even number, say 9x1000 (or however many) and created a network for each one, then tested the results of each of these 9 on the other 8 sets to see which had the lowest MSE across the samples, would this be a valid way to "choose" the best network if I wanted to predict the scores for my incoming students (not included in this data at all)?
Since the scores on the tests that I am using as inputs vary in scale (some are on 1-100, and others 1-20 for example), should I normalize all of the inputs to their respective z-scores? When is this recommended vs not recommended?
I am predicting the actual score, but in reality, I'm NOT that concerned about the exact score but more of a range. Would my network be more accurate if I grouped the output scores into buckets and then tried to predict this number instead of the actual score?
E.g.
750-800 = 10
700-740 = 9
etc.
Is there any benefit to doing this or should I just go ahead and try to predict the exact score?
What if ALL I cared about was whether or not the score was above or below 600. Would I then just make the output 0(below 600) or 1(above 600)?
5a. I read somewhere that it's not good to use 0 and 1, but instead 0.1 and 0.9 - why is that?
5b. What about -1(below 600), 0(exactly 600), 1(above 600), would this work?
5c. Would the network always output -1, 0, 1 - or would it output fractions that I would then have to roundup or rounddown to finalize the prediction?
Once I have found the "best" network from Question #3, would I then play around with the different parameters (number of epochs, number of neurons in hidden layer, momentum, learning rate, etc.) to optimize this further?
6a. What about the Activation Function? Will Log-sigmoid do the trick or should I try the other options my software has as well (threshold, hyperbolic tangent, zero-based log-sigmoid).
6b. What is the difference between log-sigmoid and zero-based log-sigmoid?
Thanks!
First a little bit of meta content about the question itself (and not about the answers to your questions).
I have to laugh a little that you say 'I apologize if these questions are too "elementary."' and then proceed to ask the single most thorough and well thought out question I've seen as someone's first post on SO.
I wouldn't be too worried that you'll have people looking down their noses at you for asking this stuff.
This is a pretty big question in terms of the depth and range of knowledge required, especially the statistical knowledge needed and familiarity with Neural Networks.
You may want to try breaking this up into several questions distributed across the different StackExchange sites.
Off the top of my head, some of it definitely belongs on the statistics StackExchange, Cross Validated: https://stats.stackexchange.com/
You might also want to try out https://datascience.stackexchange.com/ , a beta site specifically targeting machine learning and related areas.
That said, there is some of this that I think I can help to answer.
Anything I haven't answered is something I don't feel qualified to help you with.
Question 1
How many records of the 9000 should I use to train the network? 1a. Should I completely randomize the selection of this training data or be more involved and make sure I include a variety of output scores and a wide range of each of the input variables?
Randomizing the selection of training data is probably not a good idea.
Keep in mind that truly random data includes clusters.
A random selection of students could happen to consist solely of those who scored above a 30 on the ACT exams, which could potentially result in a bias in your result.
Likewise, if you only select students whose SAT scores were below 700, the classifier you build won't have any capacity to distinguish between a student expected to score 720 and a student expected to score 780 -- they'll look the same to the classifier because it was trained without the relevant information.
You want to ensure a representative sample of your different inputs and your different outputs.
Because you're dealing with input variables that may be correlated, you shouldn't try to do anything too complex in selecting this data, or you could mistakenly introduce another bias in your inputs.
Namely, you don't want to select a training data set that consists largely of outliers.
I would recommend trying to ensure that your inputs cover all possible values for all of the variables you are observing, and all possible results for the output (the SAT scores), without constraining how these requirements are satisfied.
I'm sure there are algorithms out there designed to do exactly this, but I don't know them myself -- possibly a good question in and of itself for Cross Validated.
Question 3
Since the scores on the tests that I am using as inputs vary in scale (some are on 1-100, and others 1-20 for example), should I normalize all of the inputs to their respective z-scores? When is this recommended vs not recommended?
My understanding is that this is not recommended as the input to a Nerual Network, but I may be wrong.
The convergence of the network should handle this for you.
Every node in the network will assign a weight to its inputs, multiply them by their weights, and sum those products as a core part of its computation.
That means that every node in the network is searching for some coefficients for each of their inputs.
To do this, all inputs will be converted to numeric values -- so conditions like gender will be translated into "0=MALE,1=FEMALE" or something similar.
For example, a node's metric might look like this at a given point in time:
2*ACT_SCORE + 0*GENDER + (-5)*VARISTY_SPORTS ...
The coefficients for each values are exactly what the network is searching for as it converges.
If you change the scale of a value, like ACT_SCORE, you just change the scale of the coefficient that will be found by the reciporical of that scaling factor.
The result should still be the same.
There are other concerns in terms of accuracy (computers have limited capacity to represent small fractions) and speed that may enter this, but not being familiar with NEURO XL, I can't say whether or not they apply for this technology.
Question 4
I am predicting the actual score, but in reality, I'm NOT that concerned about the exact score but more of a range. Would my network be more accurate if I grouped the output scores into buckets and then tried to predict this number instead of the actual score?
This will reduce accuracy, although you should converge to a solution much faster with fewer possible outputs (scores).
Neural Networks actually describe very high-dimensional functions in their input variables.
If you reduce the granularity of that function's output space, you essentially state that you don't care about local minima and maxima in that function, especially around the borders between your output scores.
As a result, you are sacrificing information that may be an essential component of the "true" function that you are searching for.
I hope this has been helpful, but you really should break this question down into its many components and ask them separately on different sites -- potentially some of them do belong here on StackOverflow as well.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I was trying to find something original and fun to do with artificial neural networks (ANNs) as a personal/learning project and I though it would be cool if I could predict the results of sports games (especially NHL games).
I'm pretty sure it would be easy to evolve an ANN that can predict which team is most likely to win (usually the team with the better record). However, what I would like to do is create an ANN that would tell how likely the outcome is, similar to bookmaker odds.
Is this something an ANN can do? In the affirmative, what kind of success can I expect? I know I can't beat the bookmaker (at least not with a software solution). I want do this as a recreational project/challenge to myself. I don't expect to bet money on sports games with this project.
Way back in the days of the IBM XT I played with a shareware ANN program to try and improve my chances on the British football (soccer) pools. This is a form of betting where you try and predict which football matches will result in draws. I assigned each team a number then looked back thorough past results and from them generated a single digit for the result. From memory it was 0 from a home win , 1 for an away win and 2 for a draw. Each result went on a single line in a training file. I would then run the training file through the program and generate the ANN settings. I would then look up the following Saturdays matches and feed them into the ANN then look for matches predicted as draws.
As the weeks went on my predictions of draws did definetly become more and more accurate. However ...
1) The XT was so slow that by Christmas it was taking 24 hours to generate the ANN settings from the training data. I really had better things to do with my precious (and expensive) PC.
2) Although it was better at predicting draws it wasn't predicting enough to actually win any money. Looking back I suppose the program had just worked out that Manchester United would always beat Sheffield United. This was more football knowledge than I had but not enough to win any money.
3) Entering the results into the training data and then generating the forthcoming matches data was taking me ages and to be honest sport bores me rigid.
So I gave up and didn't become a millionaire.
These days however PC's are much faster and much of the training data could be scraped from the web. But I still doubt it is a route to a fortune but its certainly an interesting project.
Ian
A reply above stated:
I know that if the bookmakers odds could be beaten by an ANN,
bookmakers would already be using one to fix their odds.
Bookmakers don't set the line based on their analysis of the teams - they set it based on their analysis of the betting public's opinion of the teams. An ideal line for the bookie is where he has exactly the same amount bet on each side of the line - then he is guaranteed a profit = the 'juice' on the losers' bets. They move the line as game approaches to try to keep that 50/50 split. Bookie may think Home team -5 is accurate line based on game analysis, but if he expects that will draw 2x $$ on the Home team he will not set the line at -5 - he will set at -7 or -8 - to where he expects to draw equal $$ for both -5 and +5 bets.
ANNs are really good at pattern matching and prediction, so yes, odds are you could build an ANN that does what you want.
You'll need more than just team win/loss ratio to make it really effective however. Feed it stats for the players, too. For real effectiveness, try to include game-flow information... like which players are on the line for each play (for football, for example).
Ultimately, the biggest problem you'll run into (aside from the whole "writing the ANN" issue) is getting the data you need to feed it.
I've done some stock market predictions with an AI and my conclusion is that it is not very hard to make an AI that gets good results with the historical data.
Making winning transactions in the future is a different ballgame.
I have just worked on this very problem (predicting English Premier League games) for the past 10 days, and ended up with very similar results using 3 different methods: SVM, Logistic Regression, and NN.
LR and NN will give probabilities. SVM outputs 0/1 (but it can be tweaked for probas too (I haven't tried yet).
I needed a "massive" (by my standards at least) feature set though (almost 300) and a good chunk of data (13 years worth).
Re. data, I got it from the web, simply.
Conclusion: I can just about match the bookies in terms of accuracy (predicting victories in my case). If I add the pre-match odds to the feature set, I get the exact same accuracy as the bookies (as expected), but no better (surely meaning my feature set is summarized in the bookies odds, and they have a little extra knowledge on top).
I'm sure there is a way to get better accuracy, either by improving the algos, or more likely by having extremely granular data (as in which players play which games, for how many minutes, and a lot of player-level historical stats, so as to build bottom-up models of team performance).
But bottom line is I can testify NNs work quite well for that purpose. SVM is slightly better though, in my limited experience.
I think it's indeed all about data, but there's no end to what you could feed it with in order to be more accurate : winning/loosing streaks, players biorhythms, player's girlfriends mood before the game, minor/major injuries they suffered in the recent past, extra-sportive events that are bothering the players, etc, etc, etc.
But I don't think you can accurately predict which team is more likely to win, it would be just a more-or-less educated guess.
In my opinion and experience, because of the excessively large number of factors in play, designing and training the ANN will be unreasonably complex and time-consuming. ANNs are good at pattern matching, and game prediction takes much deductive reasoning rather than mere pattern matching.
But if you want to enjoy learning neural networks, it will be a good adventure. If you are successful, you might want to host your code somewhere for others to see and learn!
For game prediction, it would be much easier and faster with decision trees or a rules engine and so on. This will be no easy task either, but it will be another interesting activity.
My belief is that the unpredictability of an event is due to lack of information and understanding...If you have all the knowledge, then yes it could be done. Or, the more knowledge you have, the better it can be done.
So in theory, the answer is yes.
However, in practice, you can get a PhD and have a whole career working on this question and you still may not succeed.