I just wanted to test how good can neural network approximate multiplication function (regression task).
I am using Azure Machine Learning Studio. I have 6500 samples, 1 hidden layer
(I have tested 5 /30 /100 neurons per hidden layer), no normalization. And default parameters
Learning rate - 0.005, Number of learning iterations - 200, The initial learning weigh - 0.1,
The momentum - 0 [description]. I got extremely bad accuracy, close to 0.
At the same time boosted Decision forest regression shows very good approximation.
What am I doing wrong? This task should be very easy for NN.
Big multiplication function gradient forces the net probably almost immediately into some horrifying state where all its hidden nodes have zero gradient.
We can use two approaches:
1) Devide by constant. We are just deviding everything before the learning and multiply after.
2) Make log-normalization. It makes multiplication into addition:
m = x*y => ln(m) = ln(x) + ln(y).
Some things to check:
Your output layer should have a linear activation function. If it's sigmoidal, it won't be able to represent values outside it's range (e.g. -1 to 1)
You should use a loss function that's appropriate for regression (e.g. squared error)
If your hidden layer uses sigmoidal activation functions, check that you're not saturating them. Multiplication can work on arbitrarily small/large values. And, if you pass a large number as input you can get saturation, which will lose information. If using ReLUs, make sure they're not getting stuck at 0 on all examples (although activations will generally be sparse on any given example).
Check that your training procedure is working as intended. Plot the error over time during training. How does it look? Are your gradients well behaved or are they blowing up? One source of problems can be the learning rate being set too high (unstable error, exploding gradients) or too low (very slow progress, error doesn't decrease quickly enough).
This is how I do multiplication with neural network:
import numpy as np
from keras import layers
from keras import models
model = models.Sequential()
model.add(layers.Dense(150, activation='relu', input_shape=(2,)))
model.add(layers.Dense(1, activation='relu'))
data = np.random.random((10000, 2))
results = np.asarray([a * b for a, b in data])
model.compile(optimizer='sgd', loss='mae')
model.fit(data, results, epochs=1, batch_size=1)
model.predict([[0.8, 0.5]])
It works.
"Two approaches: divide by constant, or make log normalization"
I'm tried both approaches. Certainly, log normalization works since as you rightly point out it forces an implementation of addition. Dividing by constant -- or similarly normalizing across any range -- seems not to succeed in my extensive testing.
The log approach is fine, but if you have two datasets with a set of inputs and a target y value where:
In dataset one the target is consistently a sum of two of the inputs
In dataset two the target is consistently the product of two of the inputs
Then it's not clear to me how to design a neural network which will find the target y in both datasets using backpropogation. If this isn't possible, then I find it a surprising limitation in the ability of a neural network to find the "an approximation to any function". But I'm new to this game, and my expectations may be unrealistic.
Here is one way you could approximate the multiplication function using one hidden layer. It uses a sigmoidal activation in the hidden layer, and it works quite nicely until a certain range of numbers. This is the gist link
m = x*y => ln(m) = ln(x) + ln(y), but only if x, y > 0
Related
I am facing a peculiar problem and I was wondering if there is an explanation. I am trying to run a linear regression problem and test different optimization methods and two of them have a strange outcome when comparing to each other. I build a data set that satisfies y=2x+5 and I add a random noise to that.
xtrain=np.range(0,50,1).reshape(50,1)
ytrain=2*train+5+np.random.normal(0,2,(50,1))
opt1=torch.optim.SGD(model.parameters(),lr=1e-5,momentum=0.8))
opt2=torch.optim.Rprop(model.parameters(),lr=1e-5)
F_loss=F.mse_loss
from torch.utils.data import TensorDataset,DataLoader
train_d=TensorDataset(xtrain,ytrain)
train=DataLoader(train_d,50,shuffle=True)
model1=nn.Linear(1,1)
loss=F_loss(model1(xtrain),ytrain)
def fit(nepoch, model1, F_loss, opt):
for epoch in range(nepoch):
for i,j in train:
predict = model1(i)
loss = F_loss(predict, j)
loss.backward()
opt.step()
opt.zero_grad()
When i compare the results of the following commands:
fit(500000, model1, F_loss, opt1)
fit(500000, model1, F_loss, opt2)
In the last epoch for opt1:loss=2.86,weight=2.02,bias=4.46
In the last epoch for opt2:loss=3.47,weight=2.02,bias=4.68
These results do not make sense to me, shouldn't opt2 have a smaller loss than opt1 since the weight and bias it finds is closer to the real value? opt2's method finds weights and biases to be closer to the real value (they are respectively 2 and 5). Am i doing something wrong?
This has to do with the fact that you are drawing the training samples themselves from a random distribution.
By doing so, you inherently randomized the ground truth to some extent. Sure, you will get values that are inherently distributed around 2x+5, but you do not guarantee that 2x+5 will also be the best fit to this data distribution.
It could thus happen that you accidentally end up with values that deviate quite significantly from the original function, and, since you use a mean squared error, these values get weighted quite significantly.
In expectation (i.e., for the number of samples going towards infinity), you will likely get closer and closer to the expected parameters.
A way to verify this would be to plot your training samples against the parameter set, as well as the (ideal) underlying function.
Also note that Linear Regression does have a direct solution - something that is very uncommon in Machine Learning - meaning you can directly calculate an optimal solution, e.g., with sklearn's function
I'm using Matlab ( github code repository ). The details of the network are:
Hidden units: 100 ( variable )
Epochs : 500
Batch size: 100
The weights are being updated using Back propagation algorithm.
I've been able to recognize 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,8 which I have drawn in photoshop.
However 7,9 are not recognized, but upon running on the test set I get only 749/10000 wrong and it correctly classifies 9251/10000.
Any idea what might be wrong? Because it is learning and based on the test set results its learning correctly.
I don't see anything downright incorrect in your code, but there is a lot that can be improved:
You use this to set the initial weights:
hiddenWeights = rand(hiddenUnits,inputVectorSize);
outputWeights = rand(outputVectorSize,hiddenUnits);
hiddenWeights = hiddenWeights./size(hiddenWeights, 2);
outputWeights = outputWeights./size(outputWeights, 2);
This will make your weights very small I think. Not only that, but you will have no negative values, so you'll throw away half of the sigmoid's range of values. I suggest you try:
weights = 2*rand(x, y) - 1
Which will generate random numbers in [-1, 1]. You can then try dividing this interval to get smaller weights (try dividing by the sqrt of the size).
You use this as the output delta:
outputDelta = dactivation(outputActualInput).*(outputVector - targetVector) % (tk-yk)*f'(yin)
Multiplying by the derivative is done if you use the square loss function. For log loss (which is usually the one used in classification), you should have just outputVector - targetVector. It might not make that big of a difference, but you might want to try.
You say in the comments that the network doesn't detect your own sevens and nines. This can suggest overfitting on the MNIST data. To address this, you'll need to add some form of regularization to your network: either weight decay or dropout.
You should try different learning rates as well, if you haven't already.
You don't seem to have any bias neurons. Each layer, except the output layer, should have a neuron that only returns the value 1 to the next layer. You can implement this by adding another feature to your input data that is always 1.
MNIST is a big data set for which better algorithms are still being researched. Your networks is very basic, small, with no regularization, no bias neurons and no improvements to classic gradient descent. It's not surprising that it's not working too well: you'll likely need a more complex network for better results.
Nothing to do with neural nets or your code,
but this picture of KNN-nearest digits shows that some MNIST digits
are simply hard to recognize:
I am new to using Matlab and am trying to follow the example in the Bioinformatics Toolbox documentation (SVM Classification with Cross Validation) to handle a classification problem.
However, I am not able to understand Step 9, which says:
Set up a function that takes an input z=[rbf_sigma,boxconstraint], and returns the cross-validation value of exp(z).
The reason to take exp(z) is twofold:
rbf_sigma and boxconstraint must be positive.
You should look at points spaced approximately exponentially apart.
This function handle computes the cross validation at parameters
exp([rbf_sigma,boxconstraint]):
minfn = #(z)crossval('mcr',cdata,grp,'Predfun', ...
#(xtrain,ytrain,xtest)crossfun(xtrain,ytrain,...
xtest,exp(z(1)),exp(z(2))),'partition',c);
What is the function that I should be implementing here? Is it exp or minfn? I will appreciate if you can give me the code for this section. Thanks.
I will like to know what does it mean when it says exp([rbf_sigma,boxconstraint])
rbf_sigma: The svm is using a gaussian kernel, the rbf_sigma set the standard deviation (~size) of the kernel. To understand how kernels work, the SVM is putting the kernel around every sample (so that you have a gaussian around every sample). Then the kernels are added up (sumed) for the samples of each category/type. At each point the type which sum is higher would be the "winner". For example if type A has a higher sum of these kernels at point X, then if you have a new datum to classify in point X, it will be classified as type A. (there are other configuration parameters that may change the actual threshold where a category is selected over another)
Fig. Analyze this figure from the webpage you gave us. You can see how by adding up the gaussian kernels on the red samples "sumA", and on the green samples "sumB"; it is logical that sumA>sumB in the center part of the figure. It is also logical that sumB>sumA in the outer part of the image.
boxconstraint: it is a cost/penalty over miss-classified data. During the training stage of the classifier, where you use the training data to adjust the SVM parameters, the training algorithm is using an error function to decide how to optimize the SVM parameters in an iterative fashion. The cost for a miss-classified sample is proportional to how far it is from the boundary where it would have been classified correctly. In the figure that I am attaching the boundary is the inner blue circumference.
Taking into account BGreene indications and from what I understand of the tutorial:
In the tutorial they advice to try values for rbf_sigma and boxconstraint that are exponentially apart. This means that you should compare values like {0.2, 2, 20, ...} (note that this is {2*10^(i-2), i=1,2,3,...}), and NOT like {0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5} (which would be linearly apart). They advice this to try a wide range of values first. You can further optimize later FROM the first optimum that you obtained before.
The command "[searchmin fval] = fminsearch(minfn,randn(2,1),opts)" will give you back the optimum values for rbf_sigma and boxconstraint. Probably you have to use exp(z) because it affects how fminsearch increments the values of z(1) and z(2) during the search for the optimum value. I suppose that when you put exp(z(1)) in the definition of #minfn, then fminsearch will take 'exponentially' big steps.
In machine learning, always try to understand that there are three subsets in your data: training data, cross-validation data, and test data. The training set is used to optimize the parameters of the SVM classifier for EACH value of rbf_sigma and boxconstraint. Then the cross validation set is used to select the optimum value of the parameters rbf_sigma and boxconstraint. And finally the test data is used to obtain an idea of the performance of your classifier (the efficiency of the classifier is determined upon the test set).
So, if you start with 10000 samples you may divide the data for example as training(50%), cross-validation(25%), test(25%). So that you will sample randomly 5000 samples for the training set, then 2500 samples from the 5000 remaining samples for the cross-validation set, and the rest of samples (that is 2500) would be separated for the test set.
I hope that I could clarify your doubts. By the way, if you are interested in the optimization of the parameters of classifiers and machine learning algorithms I strongly suggest that you follow this free course -> www.ml-class.org (it is awesome, really).
You need to implement a function called crossfun (see example).
The function handle minfn is passed to fminsearch to be minimized.
exp([rbf_sigma,boxconstraint]) is the quantity being optimized to minimize classification error.
There are a number of functions nested within this function handle:
- crossval is producing the classification error based on cross validation using partition c
- crossfun - classifies data using an SVM
- fminsearch - optimizes SVM hyperparameters to minimize classification error
Hope this helps
I am currently working on an indoor navigation system using a Zigbee WSN in star topology.
I currently have signal strength data for 60 positions in an area of 15m by 10 approximately. I want to use ANN to help predict the coordinates for other positions. After going through a number of threads, I realized that normalizing the data would give me better results.
I tried that and re-trained my network a few times. I managed to get the goal parameter in the nntool of MATLAB to the value .000745, but still after I give a training sample as a test input, and then scaling it back, it is giving a value way-off.
A value of .000745 means that my data has been very closely fit, right? If yes, why this anomaly? I am dividing and multiplying by the maximum value to normalize and scale the value back respectively.
Can someone please explain me where I might be going wrong? Am I using the wrong training parameters? (I am using TRAINRP, 4 layers with 15 neurons in each layer and giving a goal of 1e-8, gradient of 1e-6 and 100000 epochs)
Should I consider methods other than ANN for this purpose?
Please help.
For spatial data you can always use Gaussian Process Regression. With a proper kernel you can predict pretty well and GP regression is a pretty simple thing to do (just matrix inversion and matrix vector multiplication) You don't have much data so exact GP regression can be easily done. For a nice source on GP Regression check this.
What did you scale? Inputs or outputs? Did scale input+output for your trainingset and only the output while testing?
What kind of error measure do you use? I assume your "goal parameter" is an error measure. Is it SSE (sum of squared errors) or MSE (mean squared errors)? 0.000745 seems to be very small and usually you should have almost no error on your training data.
Your ANN architecture might be too deep with too few hidden units for an initial test. Try different architectures like 40-20 hidden units, 60 HU, 30-20-10 HU, ...
You should generate a test set to verify your ANN's generalization. Otherwise overfitting might be a problem.
edit:
A more pointed question:
What is the derivative of softmax to be used in my gradient descent?
This is more or less a research project for a course, and my understanding of NN is very/fairly limited, so please be patient :)
I am currently in the process of building a neural network that attempts to examine an input dataset and output the probability/likelihood of each classification (there are 5 different classifications). Naturally, the sum of all output nodes should add up to 1.
Currently, I have two layers, and I set the hidden layer to contain 10 nodes.
I came up with two different types of implementations
Logistic sigmoid for hidden layer activation, softmax for output activation
Softmax for both hidden layer and output activation
I am using gradient descent to find local maximums in order to adjust the hidden nodes' weights and the output nodes' weights. I am certain in that I have this correct for sigmoid. I am less certain with softmax (or whether I can use gradient descent at all), after a bit of researching, I couldn't find the answer and decided to compute the derivative myself and obtained softmax'(x) = softmax(x) - softmax(x)^2 (this returns an column vector of size n). I have also looked into the MATLAB NN toolkit, the derivative of softmax provided by the toolkit returned a square matrix of size nxn, where the diagonal coincides with the softmax'(x) that I calculated by hand; and I am not sure how to interpret the output matrix.
I ran each implementation with a learning rate of 0.001 and 1000 iterations of back propagation. However, my NN returns 0.2 (an even distribution) for all five output nodes, for any subset of the input dataset.
My conclusions:
I am fairly certain that my gradient of descent is incorrectly done, but I have no idea how to fix this.
Perhaps I am not using enough hidden nodes
Perhaps I should increase the number of layers
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
The dataset I am working with can be found here (processed Cleveland):
http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Heart+Disease
The gradient you use is actually the same as with squared error: output - target. This might seem surprising at first, but the trick is that a different error function is minimized:
(- \sum^N_{n=1}\sum^K_{k=1} t_{kn} log(y_{kn}))
where log is the natural logarithm, N depicts the number of training examples and K the number of classes (and thus units in the output layer). t_kn depicts the binary coding (0 or 1) of the k'th class in the n'th training example. y_kn the corresponding network output.
Showing that the gradient is correct might be a good exercise, I haven't done it myself, though.
To your problem: You can check whether your gradient is correct by numerical differentiation. Say you have a function f and an implementation of f and f'. Then the following should hold:
(f'(x) = \frac{f(x - \epsilon) - f(x + \epsilon)}{2\epsilon} + O(\epsilon^2))
please look at sites.google.com/site/gatmkorn for the open-source Desire simulation program.
For the Windows version, /mydesire/neural folder has several softmax classifiers, some with softmax-specific gradient-descent algorithm.
In the examples, this works nicely for a simplemcharacter-recognition task.
ASee also
Korn, G.A.: Advanced dynamic-system Simulation, Wiley 2007
GAK
look at the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOt3M5IuD5s
the softmax derivative is: dyi/dzi= yi * (1.0 - yi);