I have finished two neural network courses and done loads of reading on the subject. I am comfortable with Tensorflow and Keras and building advanced neural networks (multiple inputs, large data, special layers...). I also have a fairly deep understanding of the underlying mathematics.
My problem is that I know how to build neural networks but don't know the process by which an "expert" would create one for a specific application.
I can:
Collect loads of data and clean it up.
Train the neural network.
Fine tune hyper parameters.
Export it for actual applications.
What I am missing is how to come up with the layers in the neural network (how wide, what kind...). I know it is somewhat trial and error and looking at what has worked for others. But there must be a process that people can use to come up with architectures* that actually work very well. For example state of the art neural networks.
I am looking for a free resource that would help me understand this process of creating a very good architecture*.
*by architecture I mean the different layers that make up the network and their properties
I wrote my masters thesis about the topic:
Thoma, Martin. "Analysis and Optimization of Convolutional Neural Network Architectures." arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09725 (2017).
Long story short: There are a couple of techniques for analysis (chapter 2.5) and algorithms that learn topoligies (chapter 3), but in practice it is mostly trial and error / gut feeling.
I'm in the overtures of designing a prose imitation system. It will read a bunch of prose, then mimic it. It's mostly for fun so the mimicking prose doesn't need to make too much sense, but I'd like to make it as good as I can, with a minimal amount of effort.
My first idea is to use my example prose to train a classifying feed-forward neural network, which classifies its input as either part of the training data or not part. Then I'd like to somehow invert the neural network, finding new random inputs that also get classified by the trained network as being part of the training data. The obvious and stupid way of doing this is to randomly generate word lists and only output the ones that get classified above a certain threshold, but I think there is a better way, using the network itself to limit the search to certain regions of the input space. For example, maybe you could start with a random vector and do gradient descent optimisation to find a local maximum around the random starting point. Is there a word for this kind of imitation process? What are some of the known methods?
How about Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN, Goodfellow 2014) and their more advanced siblings like Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networks? There are plenty of proper research articles out there, and also more gentle introductions like this one on DCGAN and this on GAN. To quote the latter:
GANs are an interesting idea that were first introduced in 2014 by a
group of researchers at the University of Montreal lead by Ian
Goodfellow (now at OpenAI). The main idea behind a GAN is to have two
competing neural network models. One takes noise as input and
generates samples (and so is called the generator). The other model
(called the discriminator) receives samples from both the generator
and the training data, and has to be able to distinguish between the
two sources. These two networks play a continuous game, where the
generator is learning to produce more and more realistic samples, and
the discriminator is learning to get better and better at
distinguishing generated data from real data. These two networks are
trained simultaneously, and the hope is that the competition will
drive the generated samples to be indistinguishable from real data.
(DC)GAN should fit your task quite well.
I wrote a neural network and made a small application with things eating other things.
But I don't really know, how to make the thing genetic.
Currently I'm recording all the inputs and outputs from every individual every frame.
At the end of an generation, I then teach every knew individual the data from the top 10 best fitting individuals from prevous generations.
But the problem is, that the recorded data from a a pool of top 10 individuals at 100 generations, is about 50MB large. When I now start a new generation with 20 individuals I have to teach them 20x50MB.
This process takes longer than 3 minutes, and I am not sure if this is what I am supposed to do in genetic neural networks.
My approach works kind of good actually. Only the inefficiency bugs me. (Of course I know, I could just reduce the population.)
And I could't find me a solution to what I have to crossover and what to mutate.
Crossovering and mutating biases and weights is nonsense, isn't it? It only would break the network, would't it? I saw examples doing just this. Mutating the weight vector. But I just can't see, how this would make the network progress reaching it's desired outputs.
Can somebody show me how the network would become better at what it is doing by randomly switching and mutating weights and connections?
Would't it be the same, just randomly generating networks and hoping they start doing what they are supposed to do?
Are there other algorithms for genetic neural networks?
Thank you.
Typically, genetic algorithms for neural networks are used as an alternative to training with back-propagation. So there is no training phase (trying to combine various kinds of supervised training with evolution is an interesting idea, but isn't done commonly enough for there to be any standard methods that I know of).
In this context, crossover and mutation of weights and biases makes sense. It provides variation in the population. A lot of the resulting neural networks (especially early on) won't do much of anything interesting, but some will be better. As you keep selecting these better networks, you will continue to get better offspring. Eventually (assuming your task is reasonable and such) you'll have neural networks that are really good at what you want them to do. This is substantially better than random search, because evolution will explore the search space of potential neural networks in a much more intelligent manner.
So yes, just about any genetic neural network algorithm will involve mutating the weights, and perhaps crossing them over as well. Some, such as NEAT, also evolve the topology of the neural network and so allow mutations and crossovers that add or remove nodes and connections between nodes.
Why do we use neural networks? It's biologic. Aren't there any more solutions that're more "suitable" for computers?
In other words: Why do we use the human brain as a model for inspiration for artifical intelligence?
Neural networks aren't really very biological. They resemble, at a very general level, the architecture of neurons, but it's a great exaggeration to say that they work "just like the brain" (an exaggeration that's encouraged by some neural-net advocates, alas).
Neural nets are mostly used for fuzzy, difficult problems that don't yield to traditional algorithmic approaches. IOWs, there are more "suitable" solutions for computers, but sometimes those solutions don't work, and in those cases one approach is a neural network.
Why do we use neural networks?
Because they're simple to construct, and often appear to be a good approach to certain classes of problems, such as pattern recognition.
Aren't there any more solutions that're more "suitable" for computers?
Yes, implementations that more closely match a computer's architecture can be more suitable for the computer, but then can be less suitable for an effective solution.
Why do we use the human brain as a model for inspiration for artifical intelligence?
Because our brain is the superior example we have of something intelligent.
Neural Networks are still used for two reasons.
They are easy to understand for people who don't want to delve into the math of a more complicated algorithm.
They have a really good name. I mean when you role into a CEO's office to sell him your model which would you rather say, Neural Network or Support Vector Machine. When he asks how it works you can just say "just like the neurons in your brain", which is something most people understand. If you try and explain a support vector machine Mr. CEO is going to be lost (Not because he is dumb but because SVMs are harder to understand).
Sometimes they are still useful however I think that the training time is often just too long.
I don't understand the question. Neural nets are suitable for certain functions, and not others. The same is true for various other sorts of classes of algorithms, regardless of what they might have been inspired by.
If we have a good many inputs to something, and we want some outputs, and we have a set of example inputs with known desired outputs, and we don't want to calculate a function ourselves, neural nets are excellent. We feed in the example inputs, compare the output to the example outputs, and adjust the inner workings of the NN in an automatic fashion, to make the NN output closer to the desired output.
This sort of function derivation is very useful in various forms of pattern recognition and general classification. It isn't a panacea, of course. It has no explanatory power (in that you can't look at the innards to see why it classifies something in a particular way), it doesn't offer guarantees of correctness within certain limits, validating how well it works is difficult, and gathering enough examples for training and validation can be expensive or even impossible. The trick is to know when to use a NN and what sort to use.
There are, of course, people who oversell the things as some sort of super solution or even an explanation of human thought, and you might be reacting to them.
Neural network are only "inspired" by the neural structure of our brain, but they are not even close to the complexity of the behaviour of a real neuron (to date there is no neuron model that captures the complexity of a SINGLE neuron, don't even think about a neuronal population...)
Although "neural", machine "learning" and other "pseudo-bio" (like "genetic algorithms") terms are very "cool", that does not mean that they are actually based on real biological processes.
Just that they may very approximatively remind of a biological situation.
NB: of course this does not make them useless! They're very very important in many fields!
Neural networks have been around for a while, and originally were developed to model as close an understanding as we had at the time to the way neurons work in the brain. They represent a network of neurons, hence "neural network." Since computers and brains are very different hardware-wise, implementing anything like a brain with a computer is going to be rather clunky. However, as others have stated so far, neural networks can be useful for some things that are vague such as pattern recognition, facial recognition, and other similar uses. They are also still useful as a basic model of how neurons connect and are often used in Cognitive Science and other fields of artificial intelligence to try to understand how small parts of the complex human brain might make simple decisions. Unfortunately, once a neural network "learns" something, it is very difficult to understand how it actually makes its decisions.
There are, of course, many misuses of neural networks and in most non-research applications, other algorithms have been developed that are much more accurate. If a piece of business software proudly proclaims it uses a neural network, chances are it probably doesn't need it, and might be using it to inefficiently perform a task that could be performed in a much easier way. Unless the software is actually "learning" on the fly, which is very rare, neural networks are pretty much useless. And even when the software is "learning", sometimes neural networks aren't the best way to go.
While I admit, I tinker with Neural Networks because of my hopes in creating high level AI, however, you can look at a Neural Network as being more than just just an artificial representation of a human brain, but as a Mathematical construct.
For example Let's say you have a function y = f(x) or more abstractly y = f(x1, x2, ..., xn-1, xn), Neural networks themselves act as functions, or even a set of functions, taking in a large input and producing some output [y1, y2, ..., yn-1, yn] = f(x1, x2, ..., xn-1, xn)
Furthermore, they are not static, but instead can continue adapting and learning and eventually extrapolate(predict) interesting things. Their abstractness can even result in them coming up with unique solutions to problems that haven't haven't been thought up yet. For example the TDGammon program learned to play backgammon and beat the world champion. The world champion stated that the program play a unique end game that he had never seen. (that's pretty awesome if you ask me considering the complexity of NNs)
And then when you look at recurrent neural networks (i.e. can have internal feedback loops, or pipe their output back into their input, while consuming new input) they can solve even more interesting problems, and map even more complex functions.
In a nutshell Neural Networks are like a very very abstract high dimensional function and capable of mapping/learning very interesting things that would be otherwise impossible to program programmatically. For example, the energy needed to calculate the total net Forces of Gravity on a large number of objects is intense (you have to calculate it for each object, and against each object), but once a neural network learns how to map it they can do these complex calculations that would run in exponential or combinatoric? time in polynomial time. Just look at how fast your brain processes physics data, spatial data/ images / sound when you dream. That's the potential computation power of Neural Networks. And to also mention the way they store data is very clever as well (in synaptics patterns, i.e. memories)
Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science devoted to making computers more 'biologic.' This is useful when you want a computer to do human(biologic) things like play chess, or imitate casual conversation.
Human brains are much more efficient and powerful in some ways than the most powerful computers, so it makes sense to try to imitate a biological way of processing information.
Most neural networks I'm aware of are nothing more than flexible interpolators. Backpropagating of errors is easy and fast, here are some possible uses :
Classification of data
Some games (modern backgammon AIs beat the best players in the world, the evaluation function is a neural net)
Pattern recognition (OCR ?)
There is nothing particularly related to human intelligence. There are other uses of neural nets, I have seen an implementation of associative memory which allowed for degradation without (much) data loss, pretty much like the brain which sees some neurons die with time.
Seeing that as as far as we know, one half of your brain is logical and the other half of your brain is emotional, and that the wants of the emotional side are fed to the logical side in order to fulfill those wants; has there been any research done in connecting two separate neural networks to one another (one trained to be emotional, and one trained to be logical) to see if it would result in almost a free-will sort of "brain"?
I don't really know anything about neural networks except that they were modeled after the biological synapses in the human brain, which is why I ask.
I'm not even sure if this would be possible considering that even a trained neural network sometimes doesn't act logically (a.k.a. do what you thought you trained it to do).
First, most modern neural networks aren't really modeled after biological synapses. They use an Artificial Neuron which allowed Back Propagation to work rather than a Perceptron which is a much more accurate representation.
When you feed the output of one network into the input of another network, you've really just created one larger network, not two separate networks. It just happens that in this case portions of the networks would be trained independently.
That said, all neural networks have to be trained. Which means you need sample input and sample output. You are looking to create a decision engine of sorts I suppose. So you would need to create a dataset where it makes sense that there might be an emotional and rational response, such as purchasing an item. You'd have to train the 'rational' network to accept as a set of inputs the output of an 'emotional' network. Which means you are really just training the rational decision engine to be responsive based on the leve of 'distress' caused by the emotional network.
Just my two cents.
I have also heard of one hemisphere being called "divergent" and one "convergent". This may not make any more sense than emotional vs logical, but it does hint at how you might model it more easily. I don't know how the brain achieves some of the impressive computational feats it does, but I wouldn't be very surprised if all revolved around balance, but maybe that is just one of the baises you have when you are a brain with two hemipheres (or any even number) :D
A balance between convergence and divergence is the crux of the creativity inherent in evolution. Replicating this with neural nets sounds promising to me. Suppose you make one learning system that generalizes and keeps representations of only the typical groups of patterns it is shown. Then you take another and make it generate all the in-betweens and mutants of the patterns it is shown. Then you feed them to eachother in a circle, and poof, you have made something really interesting!
It's even more complex than that, unbelievably. The left hemisphere works on a set of logical rules, it uses these to predict its environment and categorize input. It also infers rules and stores them for future use. The right hemisphere is based, as you said, on emotion, but also on memory of single, unique or emotionally relevant occurrences. A software implementation should also be able to retrieve and store these two data types and exchange "opinions" about them.
While the left hemisphere of the brain may be more involved in making emotional decisions, emotion itself is unlikely to occur exclusively in one side of the brain, and the interplay between emotions and rational thought within the brain is likely to be substantially more complex than having two completely separate circuits. For instance, a study on rhesus macaques found that dopamine and other hormones associated with emotional responses essentially implements temporal difference learning within the brain (I'm still looking for a link to it). This suggests that separating emotional and rational thought into two separate neural networks probably wouldn't be practical, even if we had the resources to build neural networks on the scale of brain hemispheres (which we don't, or at least not within most research budgets).
This idea is supported by Sloman and Croucher's suggestion that emotion will likely be an unavoidable emergent property of a sufficiently advanced intelligent system. Such systems (discussed in detail in the paper) will be much more complex than straight-up neural nets. More importantly, though, the emotions won't be something that you can localize to one part of the system.