I am using caffe , in detail pycaffe, to create my neuronal network. I noticed that I have to use BatchNormLayer to get a positive result. I am using the Kappa-Score as a result matrix.
I now have seen several different locations for the BatchNorm-Layers in my network. But I came across the ScaleLayer, too which is not in the Layer Catalogue but gets often mentioned with the BatchNorm Layer
Do you always need to put a ScaleLayer after a BatchNorm - Layer and what does it do?
From the original batch normalization paper by Ioffe & Szegedy: "we make sure that the transformation inserted in the network can represent the identity transform." Without the Scale layer after the BatchNorm layer, that would not be the case because the Caffe BatchNorm layer has no learnable parameters.
I learned this from the Deep Residual Networks git repo; see item 6 under disclaimers and known issues there.
In general, you will get no benefit from a scale layer juxtaposed with batch normalization. Each is a linear transformation. Where BatchNorm translates so that the new distribution has a mean of 0 and variance of 1, Scale compresses the entire range into a specified interval, typically [0,1]. Since they're both linear transformations, if you do them in sequence, the second will entirely undo the work of the first.
They also deal somewhat differently with outliers. Consider a set of data: ten values, five each of -1 and +1. BatchNorm will not change this at all: it already has mean 0 and variance 1. For consistency, let's specify the same interval for Scale, [-1, 1], which is also a popular choice.
Now, add an outlier of, say 99 to the mix. Scale will transform the set to the range [-1, 1] so that there are now five -1.00 values, one +1.00 value (the former 99), and five values of -0.96 (formerly +1).
BatchNorm worries about the mean standard deviation, not the max and min values. The new mean is +9; the S.D. is 28.48 (rounding everything to 2 decimal places). The numbers will be scaled to be roughly five values each of -.35 and -.28, and one value of 3.16
Whether one scaling works better than the other depends much on the skew and scatter of your distribution. I prefer BatchNorm, as it tends to differentiate better in dense regions of a distribution.
Related
I am trying to train a CNN model to classify images based on their aesthetic score. There are 2,00,000 images and every image is rated by more than 100 subjects. Mean score is calculated and the scores are normalized.
The distribution of the scores is approximately gaussian. So I have decided to build a 10 class classification model after assigning appropriate weight for each class as the data is imbalanced.
My question:
For this problem, the scores are continuous, ie, 0<0.2<0.3<0.4<0.5<..<1.
Then does that mean this is a regression problem? If so, how do I balance the data for a regression problem, as most of the datapoints are present in between 0.4 and 0.6.
Thanks!
Since your labels are continuous, you could divide them in to 10 equal quantiles using a technique like pandas.qcut() and provide label to each classes. This can turn a regression problem to a classification problem.
And as far as the imbalance is concerned, you may want to try to oversample the minority data. This will ensure your model is not biased towards majority data.
Hope this helps.
I would recommend you to do a Histogram Equalization over ALL data of your participants first, so that their ratings are destributed equaly.
Then for each image in your training set calculate the Expected Value (and if you also want to, the Variance) The Expected Value is just the mean of the votes. For the Variance there are standard functions in (almost) every programming language where you can input an array of votes which will output the Variance.
Now take the Expected Value (and if you want also the Variance) as your ground truth for your Network.
EDIT: Histogram Equalization:
Histogram equalization is a method to use the given numerical range as efficient as possible.
In the context of images, this would change the pixel values, so that the darkest pixel becomes the value 0 and the lightest value becomes 255. Furthermore every grayscale value gets destributed so that it occurs as often as each other (in average). For your dataset you want the same. Even though your values are not from 0 to 255 but from 0 to 10. Furthermore you don't need to (and shoudn't) round the resulting values to integers. In this way more often occurring votes are more spread and less often votes are contracted.
Maybe you should first calculate the expected value and than do the histogram equalization over the expected values of all images.
By this the CNN sould be able to better differentiate those small differences.
Im new with NN and i have this problem:
I have a dataset with 300 rows and 33 columns. Each row has 3 more columns for the results.
Im trying to use MLP for trainning a model so that when i have a new row, it estimates those 3 result columns.
I can easily reduce the error during trainning to 0.001 but when i use cross validation it keep estimating very poorly.
It estimates correctly if i use the same entry it used to train, but if i use another values that werent used for trainning the results are very wrong
Im using two hidden layers with 20 neurons each, so my architecture is [33 20 20 3]
For activation function im using biporlarsigmoid function.
Do you guys have some suggestion on where i could try to change to improve this?
Overfitting
As mentioned in the comments, this perfectly describes overfitting.
I strongly suggest reading the wikipedia article on overfitting, as it well describes causes, but I'll summarize some key points here.
Model complexity
Overfitting often happens when you model is needlessly complex for the problem. I don't know anything about your dataset, but I'm guessing [33 20 20 3] is more parameters than necessary for predicting.
Try running your cross-validation methods again, this time with either fewer layers, or fewer nodes per layer. Right now you are using 33*20 + 20*20 + 20*3 = 1120 parameters (weights) to make your prediction, is this necessary?
Regularization
A common solution to overfitting is regularization. The driving principle is KISS (keep it simple, stupid).
By applying an L1 regularizer to your weights, you keep preference for the smallest number of weights to solve your problem. The network will pull many weights to 0 as they aren't need.
By applying an L2 regularizer to your weights, you keep preference for lower rank solutions to your problem. This means that your network will prefer weights matrices that span lower dimensions. Practically this means your weights will be smaller numbers, and are less likely to be able to "memorize" the data.
What is L1 and L2? These are types of vector norms. L1 is the sum of the absolute value of your weights. L2 is the sqrt of the sum of squares of your weights. (L3 is the cubed root of the sum of cubes of weights, L4 ...).
Distortions
Another commonly used technique is to augment your training data with distorted versions of your training samples. This only makes sense with certain types of data. For instance images can be rotated, scaled, shifted, add gaussian noise, etc. without dramatically changing the content of the image.
By adding distortions, your network will no longer memorize your data, but will also learn when things look similar to your data. The number 1 rotated 2 degrees still looks like a 1, so the network should be able to learn from both of these.
Only you know your data. If this is something that can be done with your data (even just adding a little gaussian noise to each feature), then maybe this is worth looking into. But do not use this blindly without considering the implications it may have on your dataset.
Careful analysis of data
I put this last because it is an indirect response to the overfitting problem. Check your data before pumping it through a black-box algorithm (like a neural network). Here are a few questions worth answering if your network doesn't work:
Are any of my features strongly correlated with each other?
How do baseline algorithms perform? (Linear regression, logistic regression, etc.)
How are my training samples distributed among classes? Do I have 298 samples of one class and 1 sample of the other two?
How similar are my samples within a class? Maybe I have 100 samples for this class, but all of them are the same (or nearly the same).
I'm currently trying to preprocess my training data ready for a multi-layered perceptron. The data I downloaded consists of 20,000 instances and 16 attributes, all of which are coordinate values of pixels as part of letter recognition. The data itself has already been scaled from its original form into values between 0 - 15 before being published.
However since it's already been scaled, is it still necessary to perform normalization on it? I've tried to read around and look at previous examples but have come up with conflicting points. In some papers, it has stated that scaling is a form of normalization, where as others have said that normalization would be bringing that values to a range of 0-1.
Since I'm using WEKA I've attempted their normalize filter during a pre-processing stage and it caused the accuracy to decrease by around 2% which makes me think it could be unnecessary. But again, I've read that it may only have a positive effect later in training.
So my question is:
What is the difference between scaling to a range such as 0 - 15 and normalizing it? Should I still normalize it on top of this scaling thats already done?
In your case you do not need to. Normalizing data is done so that an attribute with a different scale will not decide outcome of distance operations, ultimately decide clustering or classification results.
An example you have two attributes weight and income. Weight will be 10 and 200kg at most. While income can be 10,000$ and 20,000,000$. But most of the people's income will be 10,000 and 120,000, while above this values will be outliers. If you do not normalize your data before using Multi Layer Perceptron, outcome of your neural network will be decided by these outliers.
In your case this situation is already mitigated due to your scaling therefore you do not need normalizing.
I'm looking to create a neural network for the first time in matlab. As such I'm just a little confused and need some quick guidance. Below is an image:
Now the problem I'm currently having/ needs verification is the values that are generated from my hidden layer that move to my outer layer are these values 0's and 1's? i.e from u0 to unh do these nodes output 0's and 1's or values in between 0 and 1 like 0.8,0.4 etc? Another question is then my output node that should be outputting for me a value in between 0 and 1, so that an error can be found and used in the back propagation?
Like I said it's my first time doing this so I just need some guidance.
Not quite, the output of the hidden layer is like any other layer and each node gives a ranged value. The output of any node in a neural network is thus usually restricted to the [0, 1] or the [-1, 1] range. Your output node will similarly output a range of values, but that range is oftentimes thresholded to snap to 0 or 1 for simplicity of interpretation.
This however, doesn't mean that the outputs are linearly distributed. Usually you have a sigmoid, or some other non-linear, distribution which spreads more information through the middle, [-0.5, 0.5], range rather than evenly across the domain. Sometimes specialty functions are used to detect certain patterns, such as sinusoids -- though generally this is rarer and usually unnecessary.
I have two datasets at the time (in the form of vectors) and I plot them on the same axis to see how they relate with each other, and I specifically note and look for places where both graphs have a similar shape (i.e places where both have seemingly positive/negative gradient at approximately the same intervals). Example:
So far I have been working through the data graphically but realize that since the amount of the data is so large plotting each time I want to check how two sets correlate graphically it will take far too much time.
Are there any ideas, scripts or functions that might be useful in order to automize this process somewhat?
The first thing you have to think about is the nature of the criteria you want to apply to establish the similarity. There is a wide variety of ways to measure similarity and the more precisely you can describe what you want for "similar" to mean in your problem the easiest it will be to implement it regardless of the programming language.
Having said that, here is some of the thing you could look at :
correlation of the two datasets
difference of the derivative of the datasets (but I don't think it would be robust enough)
spectral analysis as mentionned by #thron of three
etc. ...
Knowing the origin of the datasets and their variability can also help a lot in formulating robust enough algorithms.
Sure. Call your two vectors A and B.
1) (Optional) Smooth your data either with a simple averaging filter (Matlab 'smooth'), or the 'filter' command. This will get rid of local changes in velocity ("gradient") that appear to be essentially noise (as in the ascending component of the red trace.
2) Differentiate both A and B. Now you are directly representing the velocity of each vector (Matlab 'diff').
3) Add the two differentiated vectors together (element-wise). Call this C.
4) Look for all points in C whose absolute value is above a certain threshold (you'll have to eyeball the data to get a good idea of what this should be). Points above this threshold indicate highly similar velocity.
5) Now look for where a high positive value in C is followed by a high negative value, or vice versa. In between these two points you will have similar curves in A and B.
Note: a) You could do the smoothing after step 3 rather than after step 1. b) Re 5), you could have a situation in which a 'hill' in your data is at the edge of the vector and so is 'cut in half', and the vectors descend to baseline before ascending in the next hill. Then 5) would misidentify the hill as coming between the initial descent and subsequent ascent. To avoid this, you could also require that the points in A and B in between the two points of velocity similarity have high absolute values.