Every time I read about Word2vec, the embedding is obtained with a very simple Autoencoder: just one hidden layer, linear activation for the initial layer, and softmax for the output layer.
My question is: why can't I train some Word2vec model using a stacked Autoencoder, with several hidden layers with fancier activation functions? (The softmax at the output would be kept, of course.)
I never found any explanation about this, therefore any hint is welcome.
Word vectors are noting but hidden states of a neural network trying to get good at something.
To answer your question
Of course you can.
If you are going to do it why not use fancier networks/encoders as well like BiLSTM or Transformers.
This is what people who created things like ElMo and BERT did(though their networks were a lot fancier).
Related
I have used the neural network software for predicting the continous data. Obviously the prediction was better than the results obtained through regression analysis. Now i would like to derive a model expression from the trained weights obtained from the training of the continous data through the software, as suggested by many researchers on how to interpret the trained weights and biases for deriving the model equation i tried to derive one from the similar lines.
After deriving the equation i found that the equation was not able to replicate the same results as given by the neural network software. so i am exploring the new methods to derive the equation. I want to know where i am going wrong and if any one can provide me steps for deriving one it will be helpful.
I have read sometime ago about what you're talking about, but with some diferences. It would probably be useful to you. It's called 'knowledge distilling', if I remember well, and it is a way of extracting the knowledge inside the blackbox that a neural network is. It consists, roughly speaking, in training a simpler model that is easier to interpret, but preserving al the predictive power of the original neural network. I'm speaking from memory, so I'm sorry about the lack of detail. A search on Google will provide the exact references for it.
Hope to have helped.
I've recently been delving into artificial neural networks again, both evolved and trained. I had a question regarding what methods, if any, to solve for inputs that would result in a target output set. Is there a name for this? Everything I try to look for leads me to backpropagation which isn't necessarily what I need. In my search, the closest thing I've come to expressing my question is
Is it possible to run a neural network in reverse?
Which told me that there, indeed, would be many solutions for networks that had varying numbers of nodes for the layers and they would not be trivial to solve for. I had the idea of just marching toward an ideal set of inputs using the weights that have been established during learning. Does anyone else have experience doing something like this?
In order to elaborate:
Say you have a network with 401 input nodes which represents a 20x20 grayscale image and a bias, two hidden layers consisting of 100+25 nodes, as well as 6 output nodes representing a classification (symbols, roman numerals, etc).
After training a neural network so that it can classify with an acceptable error, I would like to run the network backwards. This would mean I would input a classification in the output that I would like to see, and the network would imagine a set of inputs that would result in the expected output. So for the roman numeral example, this could mean that I would request it to run the net in reverse for the symbol 'X' and it would generate an image that would resemble what the net thought an 'X' looked like. In this way, I could get a good idea of the features it learned to separate the classifications. I feel as it would be very beneficial in understanding how ANNs function and learn in the grand scheme of things.
For a simple feed-forward fully connected NN, it is possible to project hidden unit activation into pixel space by taking inverse of activation function (for example Logit for sigmoid units), dividing it by sum of incoming weights and then multiplying that value by weight of each pixel. That will give visualization of average pattern, recognized by this hidden unit. Summing up these patterns for each hidden unit will result in average pattern, that corresponds to this particular set of hidden unit activities.Same procedure can be in principle be applied to to project output activations into hidden unit activity patterns.
This is indeed useful for analyzing what features NN learned in image recognition. For more complex methods you can take a look at this paper (besides everything it contains examples of patterns that NN can learn).
You can not exactly run NN in reverse, because it does not remember all information from source image - only patterns that it learned to detect. So network cannot "imagine a set inputs". However, it possible to sample probability distribution (taking weight as probability of activation of each pixel) and produce a set of patterns that can be recognized by particular neuron.
I know that you can, and I am working on a solution now. I have some code on my github here for imagining the inputs of a neural network that classifies the handwritten digits of the MNIST dataset, but I don't think it is entirely correct. Right now, I simply take a trained network and my desired output and multiply backwards by the learned weights at each layer until I have a value for inputs. This is skipping over the activation function and may have some other errors, but I am getting pretty reasonable images out of it. For example, this is the result of the trained network imagining a 3: number 3
Yes, you can run a probabilistic NN in reverse to get it to 'imagine' inputs that would match an output it's been trained to categorise.
I highly recommend Geoffrey Hinton's coursera course on NN's here:
https://www.coursera.org/course/neuralnets
He demonstrates in his introductory video a NN imagining various "2"s that it would recognise having been trained to identify the numerals 0 through 9. It's very impressive!
I think it's basically doing exactly what you're looking to do.
Gruff
I have just been set an assignment to calculate some ANN outputs and write an ANN. Simple stuff, done it before, so I don't need any help with general ANN stuff. However, there is something that is puzzling me. In the assignment, the topology is as follows(wont upload the diagram as it is his intellectual property):-
2 layers, 3 hiddens and one output.
Input x1 goes to 2 hidden nodes and the output node.
Input x2 goes to 2 hidden nodes.
The problem is the ever so usual XOR. He has NOT mentioned anything about this kind of topology before, and I have definitely attended each lecture and listened intently. I am a good student like that :)
I don't think this counts as homework as I need no help with the actual tasks in hand.
Any insight as to why one would use a network with a topology like this would be brilliant.
Regards
Does the neural net look like the above picture? It looks like a common XOR topology with one hidden layer and a bias neuron. The bias neuron basically helps you shift the values of the activation function to the left or the right.
For more information on the role of the bias neuron, take a look at the following answers:
Role of Bias in Neural Networks
XOR problem solvable with 2x2x1 neural network without bias?
Why is a bias neuron necessary for a backpropagating neural network that recognizes the XOR operator?
Update
I was able to find some literature about this. Apparently it is possible for an input to skip the hidden layer and go to the output layer. This is called a skip layer and is used to model traditional linear regression in a neural network. This page from the book Neural Network Modeling Using Sas Enterprise Miner describes the concept. This page from the same book goes into a little more detail about the concept as well.
My last lecture on ANN's was a while ago but I'm currently facing a project where I would want to use one.
So, the basics - like what type (a mutli-layer feedforward network), trained by an evolutionary algorithm (thats a given by the project), how many input-neurons (8) and how many ouput-neurons (7) - are set.
But I'm currently trying to figure out how many hidden layers I should use and how many neurons in each of these layers (the ea doesn't modify the network itself, but only the weights).
Is there a general rule or maybe a guideline on how to figure this out?
The best approach for this problem is to implement the cascade correlation algorithm, in which hidden nodes are sequentially added as necessary to reduce the error rate of the network. This has been demonstrated to be very useful in practice.
An alternative, of course, is a brute-force test of various values. I don't think simple answers such as "10 or 20 is good" are meaningful because you are directly addressing the separability of the data in high-dimensional space by the basis function.
A typical neural net relies on hidden layers in order to converge on a particular problem solution. A hidden layer of about 10 neurons is standard for networks with few input and output neurons. However, a trial an error approach often works best. Since the neural net will be trained by a genetic algorithm the number of hidden neurons may not play a significant role especially in training since its the weights and biases on the neurons which would be modified by an algorithm like back propogation.
As rcarter suggests, trial and error might do fine, but there's another thing you could try.
You could use genetic algorithms in order to determine the number of hidden layers or and the number of neurons in them.
I did similar things with a bunch of random forests, to try and find the best number of trees, branches, and parameters given to each tree, etc.
I'm trying to build an app to detect images which are advertisements from the webpages. Once I detect those I`ll not be allowing those to be displayed on the client side.
Basically I'm using Back-propagation algorithm to train the neural network using the dataset given here: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Internet+Advertisements.
But in that dataset no. of attributes are very high. In fact one of the mentors of the project told me that If you train the Neural Network with that many attributes, it'll take lots of time to get trained. So is there a way to optimize the input dataset? Or I just have to use that many attributes?
1558 is actually a modest number of features/attributes. The # of instances(3279) is also small. The problem is not on the dataset side, but on the training algorithm side.
ANN is slow in training, I'd suggest you to use a logistic regression or svm. Both of them are very fast to train. Especially, svm has a lot of fast algorithms.
In this dataset, you are actually analyzing text, but not image. I think a linear family classifier, i.e. logistic regression or svm, is better for your job.
If you are using for production and you cannot use open source code. Logistic regression is very easy to implement compared to a good ANN and SVM.
If you decide to use logistic regression or SVM, I can future recommend some articles or source code for you to refer.
If you're actually using a backpropagation network with 1558 input nodes and only 3279 samples, then the training time is the least of your problems: Even if you have a very small network with only one hidden layer containing 10 neurons, you have 1558*10 weights between the input layer and the hidden layer. How can you expect to get a good estimate for 15580 degrees of freedom from only 3279 samples? (And that simple calculation doesn't even take the "curse of dimensionality" into account)
You have to analyze your data to find out how to optimize it. Try to understand your input data: Which (tuples of) features are (jointly) statistically significant? (use standard statistical methods for this) Are some features redundant? (Principal component analysis is a good stating point for this.) Don't expect the artificial neural network to do that work for you.
Also: remeber Duda&Hart's famous "no-free-lunch-theorem": No classification algorithm works for every problem. And for any classification algorithm X, there is a problem where flipping a coin leads to better results than X. If you take this into account, deciding what algorithm to use before analyzing your data might not be a smart idea. You might well have picked the algorithm that actually performs worse than blind guessing on your specific problem! (By the way: Duda&Hart&Storks's book about pattern classification is a great starting point to learn about this, if you haven't read it yet.)
aplly a seperate ANN for each category of features
for example
457 inputs 1 output for url terms ( ANN1 )
495 inputs 1 output for origurl ( ANN2 )
...
then train all of them
use another main ANN to join results