i have quick simple question about neuron network. As we all know, it is better to make the network deeper instead of wider. So what will happen if i set each hidden layer to be just one neuron and expand my network really deep?
This question is raised because i had a lecture about CNN today. The reason why we use CNN is that we want to extract the features of images and decrease the dimensions of the input data. Since we keep making the input for each layer smaller and smaller, why not just use one neuron and make network deeper? Or something bad will happen?
thanks!
Obviously, the single-neuron example doesn't work -- otherwise, that's what we'd use.
The kernels of each layer in a CNN harness spatial relationships and evaluate those juxtapositions with non-linear functions, which are the main differentiation of a CNN over a simple linear-combination NN. Without those non-linear operations, the CNN layers are merely a programming convenience.
If you immediately collapse your input to a single value, you have a huge problem in trying to write the cascading non-linearities that comprise the output evaluation. Yes, it's theoretically possible to write a function with, say, 28x28x3 inputs and exactly the output you want -- and to train the multitiude of parameters in that function -- but it's very messy to code and nearly impossible to maintain.
For instance, imagine trying to code an entire income tax form in a single function, such that the input was the entire range of applicable monetary amounts, Boolean status info, scalar arguments (e.g. how many children are live at home), ... and have the output be the correct amount of your payment or refund. There are many Boolean equations to apply, step functions with changing tax rates, various categories of additional tax or relief, etc.
Now, parameterize all of the constant coefficients in that massive calculation. Get some 10^6 real-life observations, and train your model on only that input and labels (tax/refund amount). You don't get any intermediate results to check, only that final amount.
It's possible, but not easy to write, debug, or maintain.
Related
I have a question regarding cross validation in Linear regression model.
From my understanding, in cross validation, we split the data into (say) 10 folds and train the data from 9 folds and the remaining folds we use for testing. We repeat this process until we test all of the folds, so that every folds are tested exactly once.
When we are training the model from 9 folds, should we not get a different model (may be slightly different from the model that we have created when using the whole dataset)? I know that we take an average of all the "n" performances.
But, what about the model? Shouldn't the resulting model also be taken as the average of all the "n" models? I see that the resulting model is same as the model which we created using whole of the dataset before cross-validation. If we are considering the overall model even after cross-validation (and not taking avg of all the models), then what's the point of calculating average performance from n different models (because they are trained from different folds of data and are supposed to be different, right?)
I apologize if my question is not clear or too funny.
Thanks for reading, though!
I think that there is some confusion in some of the answers proposed because of the use of the word "model" in the question asked. If I am guessing correctly, you are referring to the fact that in K-fold cross-validation we learn K-different predictors (or decision functions), which you call "model" (this is a bad idea because in machine learning we also do model selection which is choosing between families of predictors and this is something which can be done using cross-validation). Cross-validation is typically used for hyperparameter selection or to choose between different algorithms or different families of predictors. Once these chosen, the most common approach is to relearn a predictor with the selected hyperparameter and algorithm from all the data.
However, if the loss function which is optimized is convex with respect to the predictor, than it is possible to simply average the different predictors obtained from each fold.
This is because for a convex risk, the risk of the average of the predictor is always smaller than the average of the individual risks.
The PROs and CONs of averaging (vs retraining) are as follows
PROs: (1) In each fold, the evaluation that you made on the held out set gives you an unbiased estimate of the risk for those very predictors that you have obtained, and for these estimates the only source of uncertainty is due to the estimate of the empirical risk (the average of the loss function) on the held out data.
This should be contrasted with the logic which is used when you are retraining and which is that the cross-validation risk is an estimate of the "expected value of the risk of a given learning algorithm" (and not of a given predictor) so that if you relearn from data from the same distribution, you should have in average the same level of performance. But note that this is in average and when retraining from the whole data this could go up or down. In other words, there is an additional source of uncertainty due to the fact that you will retrain.
(2) The hyperparameters have been selected exactly for the number of datapoints that you used in each fold to learn. If you relearn from the whole dataset, the optimal value of the hyperparameter is in theory and in practice not the same anymore, and so in the idea of retraining, you really cross your fingers and hope that the hyperparameters that you have chosen are still fine for your larger dataset.
If you used leave-one-out, there is obviously no concern there, and if the number of data point is large with 10 fold-CV you should be fine. But if you are learning from 25 data points with 5 fold CV, the hyperparameters for 20 points are not really the same as for 25 points...
CONs: Well, intuitively you don't benefit from training with all the data at once
There are unfortunately very little thorough theory on this but the following two papers especially the second paper consider precisely the averaging or aggregation of the predictors from K-fold CV.
Jung, Y. (2016). Efficient Tuning Parameter Selection by Cross-Validated Score in High Dimensional Models. International Journal of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, 10(1), 19-25.
Maillard, G., Arlot, S., & Lerasle, M. (2019). Aggregated Hold-Out. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.04890.
The answer is simple: you use the process of (repeated) cross validation (CV) to obtain a relatively stable performance estimate for a model instead of improving it.
Think of trying out different model types and parametrizations which are differently well suited for your problem. Using CV you obtain many different estimates on how each model type and parametrization would perform on unseen data. From those results you usually choose one well suited model type + parametrization which you will use, then train it again on all (training) data. The reason for doing this many times (different partitions with repeats, each using different partition splits) is to get a stable estimation of the performance - which will enable you to e.g. look at the mean/median performance and its spread (would give you information about how well the model usually performs and how likely it is to be lucky/unlucky and get better/worse results instead).
Two more things:
Usually, using CV will improve your results in the end - simply because you take a model that is better suited for the job.
You mentioned taking the "average" model. This actually exists as "model averaging", where you average the results of multiple, possibly differently trained models to obtain a single result. Its one way to use an ensemble of models instead of a single one. But also for those you want to use CV in the end for choosing reasonable model.
I like your thinking. I think you have just accidentally discovered Random Forest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_forest
Without repeated cv your seemingly best model is likely to be only a mediocre model when you score it on new data...
This is an on-going venture and some details are purposefully obfuscated.
I have a box that has several inputs and one output. The output voltage changes as the input voltages are changed. The desirability of the output sequence cannot be evaluated until many states pass and a look back process is evaluated.
I want to design a neural network that takes a number of outputs from the box as input and produce the correct input settings for the box to produce the optimal next output.
I cannot train this network using backpropagation. How do I train this network?
Genetic algorithm would be a good candidate here. A chromosome could encode the weights of the neural network. After evaluation you assign a fitness value to the chromosomes based on their performance. Chromosomes with higher fitness value have a higher chance to reproduce, helping to generate better performing chromosomes in the next generation.
Encoding the weights is a relatively simple solution, more complex ones could even define the topology of the network.
You might find some additional helpful information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroevolution
Hillclimbing is the simplest optimization algorithm to implement. Just randomly modify the weights, see if it does better, if not reset them and try again. It's also generally faster than genetic algorithms. However it is prone to getting stuck in local optima, so try running it several times and selecting the best result.
I'm trying to get started using neural networks for a classification problem. I chose to use the Encog 3.x library as I'm working on the JVM (in Scala). Please let me know if this problem is better handled by another library.
I've been using resilient backpropagation. I have 1 hidden layer, and e.g. 3 output neurons, one for each of the 3 target categories. So ideal outputs are either 1/0/0, 0/1/0 or 0/0/1. Now, the problem is that the training tries to minimize the error, e.g. turn 0.6/0.2/0.2 into 0.8/0.1/0.1 if the ideal output is 1/0/0. But since I'm picking the highest value as the predicted category, this doesn't matter for me, and I'd want the training to spend more effort in actually reducing the number of wrong predictions.
So I learnt that I should use a softmax function as the output (although it is unclear to me if this becomes a 4th layer or I should just replace the activation function of the 3rd layer with softmax), and then have the training reduce the cross entropy. Now I think that this cross entropy needs to be calculated either over the entire network or over the entire output layer, but the ErrorFunction that one can customize calculates the error on a neuron-by-neuron basis (reads array of ideal inputs and actual inputs, writes array of error values). So how does one actually do cross entropy minimization using Encog (or which other JVM-based library should I choose)?
I'm also working with Encog, but in Java, though I don't think it makes a real difference. I have similar problem and as far as I know you have to write your own function that minimizes cross entropy.
And as I understand it, softmax should just replace your 3rd layer.
I am new to image classification, currently working on SVM(support Vector Machine) method for classifying four groups of images by multisvm function, my algorithm every time the training and testing data are randomly selected and the performance is varies at every time. Some one suggested to do cross validation i did not understand why we need cross validation and what is the main purpose of this? . My actual data set consist training matrix size 28×40000 and testing matrix size 17×40000. how to do cross validation by this data set help me. thanks in advance .
Cross validation is used to select your model. The out-of-sample error can be estimated from your validation error. As a result, you would like to select the model with the least validation error. Here the model refers to the features you want to use, and of more importance, the gamma and C in your SVM. After cross validation, you will use the selected gamma and C with the least average validation error to train the whole training data.
You may also need to estimate the performance of your features and parameters to avoid both high-bias and high-variance. Whether your model suffers underfitting or overfitting can be observed from both in-sample-error and validation error.
Ideally 10-fold is often used for cross validation.
I'm not familiar with multiSVM but you may want to check out libSVM, it is a popular, free SVM library with support for a number of different programming languages.
Here they describe cross validation briefly. It is a way to avoid over-fitting the model by breaking up the training data into sub groups. In this way you can find a model (defined by a set of parameters) which fits both sub groups optimally.
For example, in the following picture they plot the validation accuracy contours for parameterized gamma and C values which are used to define the model. From this contour plot you can tell that the heuristically optimal values (from those tested) are those that give an accuracy closer to 84 instead of 81.
Refer to this link for more detailed information on cross-validation.
You always need to cross-validate your experiments in order to guarantee a correct scientific approach. For instance, if you don't cross-validate, the results you read (such as accuracy) might be highly biased by your test set. In an extreme case, your training step might have been very weak (in terms of fitting data) and your test step might have been very good. This applies to ALL machine learning and optimization experiments, not only SVMs.
To avoid such problems just divide your initial dataset in two (for instance), then train in the first set and test in the second, and repeat the process invesely, training in the second and testing in the first. This will guarantee that any biases to the data are visible to you. As someone suggested, you can perform this with even further division: 10-fold cross-validation, means dividing your data set in 10 parts, then training in 9 and testing in 1, then repeating the process until you have tested in all parts.
I am trying to solve classification problem using Matlab GPTIPS framework.
I managed to build reasonable data representation and fitness function so far and got an average accuracy per class near 65%.
What I need now is some help with two difficulties:
My data is biased. Basically I am solving binary classification problem and only 20% of data belongs to class 1, while other 80% belong to class 0. I used accuracy of prediction as my fitness function at first, but it was really bad. The best I have now is
Fitness = 0.5*(PositivePredictiveValue + NegativePredictiveValue) - const*ComplexityOfSolution
Please, advize, how can I improve my function to make correction for data bias.
Second problem is overfitting. I divided my data into three parts: training (70%), testing (20%), validation (10%). I train each chromosome on training set, then evaluate it's fitness function on testing set. This routine allows me to reach fitness of 0.82 on my test data for the best individual in population. But same individual's result on validation data is only 60%.
I added validation check for best individual each time before new population is generated. Then I compare fitness on validation set with fitness on test set. If difference is more then 5%, then I increase penalty for solution complexity in my fitness function. But it didn't help.
I could also try to evaluate all individuals with validation set during each generation, and simply remove overfitted ones. But then I don't see any difference between my test and validation data. What else can be done here?
UPDATE:
For my second question I've found great article "Experiments on Controlling Overtting
in Genetic Programming" Along with some article authors' ideas on dealing with overfitting in GP it has impressive review with a lot of references to many different approaches to the issue. Now I have a lot of new ideas I can try for my problem.
Unfortunately, still cant' find anything on selecting a proper fitness function which will take into account unbalanced class proportions in my data.
65% accuracy is very bad when the baseline (classify everything as the class with most samples) would be 80%. You need to achieve at least baseline classification in order to have a better model than the naive one.
I would not penalize complexity. Rather limit the tree size (if possible). You could identify simpler models during the run, like storing a pareto front of models with quality and complexity as its two fitness values.
In HeuristicLab we have integrated GP based classification that can do these things. There are several options: You can choose to use MSE for classification or R2. In the latest trunk build there is also an evaluator to optimize accuracy directly (exactly speaking it optimizes the classification penalties). Optimizing MSE means it assigns each class a value (1, 2, 3,...) and tries to minimize mean squared error from that value. This may not seem optimal at first, but works. Optimizing accuracy directly may lead to faster overfitting. There is also a formula simplifier which allows you to prune and shrink your formula (and view the effects of that).
Also, does it need to be GP? Have you tried Random Forest Classification or Support Vector Machines as well? RF are pretty fast and work pretty well usually.