I find genetic algorithm simulations like this to be incredibly entrancing and I think it'd be fun to make my own. But the problem with most simulations like this is that they're usually just hill climbing to a predictable ideal result that could have been crafted with human guidance pretty easily. An interesting simulation would have countless different solutions that would be significantly different from each other and surprising to the human observing them.
So how would I go about trying to create something like that? Is it even reasonable to expect to achieve what I'm describing? Are there any "standard" simulations (in the sense that the game of life is sort of standardized) that I could draw inspiration from?
Depends on what you mean by interesting. That's a pretty subjective term. I once programmed a graph analyzer for fun. The program would first let you plot any f(x) of your choice and set the bounds. The second step was creating a tree holding the most common binary operators (+-*/) in a random generated function of x. The program would create a pool of such random functions, test how well they fit to the original curve in question, then crossbreed and mutate some of the functions in the pool.
The results were quite cool. A totally weird function would often be a pretty good approximation to the query function. Perhaps not the most useful program, but fun nonetheless.
Well, for starters that genetic algorithm is not doing hill-climbing, otherwise it would get stuck at the first local maxima/minima.
Also, how can you say it doesn't produce surprising results? Look at this vehicle here for example produced around generation 7 for one of the runs I tried. It's a very old model of a bicycle. How can you say that's not a surprising result when it took humans millennia to come up with the same model?
To get interesting emergent behavior (that is unpredictable yet useful) it is probably necessary to give the genetic algorithm an interesting task to learn and not just a simple optimisation problem.
For instance, the Car Builder that you referred to (although quite nice in itself) is just using a fixed road as the fitness function. This makes it easy for the genetic algorithm to find an optimal solution, however if the road would change slightly, that optimal solution may not work anymore because the fitness of a solution may have grown dependent on trivially small details in the landscape and not be robust to changes to it. In real, cars did not evolve on one fixed test road either but on many different roads and terrains. Using an ever changing road as the (dynamic) fitness function, generated by random factors but within certain realistic boundaries for slopes etc. would be a more realistic and useful fitness function.
I think EvoLisa is a GA that produces interesting results. In one sense, the output is predictable, as you are trying to match a known image. On the other hand, the details of the output are pretty cool.
Related
I have seen MICE implemented with different types of algorithms e.g. RandomForest or Stochastic Regression etc.
My question is that does it matter which type of algorithm i.e. does one perform the best? Is there any empirical evidence?
I am struggling to find any info on the web
Thank you
Yes, (depending on your task) it can matter quite a lot, which algorithm you choose.
You also can be sure, the mice developers wouldn't out effort into providing different algorithms, if there was one algorithm that anyway always performs best. Because, of course like in machine learning the "No free lunch theorem" is also relevant for imputation.
In general you can say, that the default settings of mice are often a good choice.
Look at this example from the miceRanger Vignette to see, how far imputations can differ for different algorithms. (the real distribution is marked in red, the respective multiple imputations in black)
The Predictive Mean Matching (pmm) algorithm e.g. makes sure that only imputed values appear, that were really in the dataset. This is for example useful, where only integer values like 0,1,2,3 appear in the data (and no values in between). Other algorithms won't do this, so while doing their regression they will also provide interpolated values like on the picture to the right ( so they will provide imputations that are e.g. 1.1, 1.3, ...) Both solutions can come with certain drawbacks.
That is why it is important to actually assess imputation performance afterwards. There are several diagnostic plots in mice to do this.
I am currently developing a deep reinforcement learning network however, I have a small doubt about the number of q-values I will have at the output of the NN. I will have a total of 150 q-values, which personally seems excessive to me. I have read on several papers and books that this could be a problem. I know that it will depend from the kind of NN I will build, but do you guys think that the number of q-values is too high? should I reduce it?
There is no general principle what is "too much". Everything depends solely on the problem and throughput one can get in learning. In particular number of actions does not have to matter as long as internal parametrisation of Q(a, s) is efficient. To give some example lets assume that the neural network is actually of form NN(a, s) = Q(a, s), in other words it accepts action as an input, together with the state, and outputs the Q value. If such an architecture can be trained in a problem considered, than it might be able to scale to big action spaces; on the other hand if the neural net basically has independent output per action, something of form NN(s)[a] = Q(a, s) then many actions can lead to relatively sparse learning signal for the model and thus lead to slow convergence.
Since you are asking about reducing action space it sounds like the true problem has complex control (maybe it is a continuous control domain?) and you are looking for some discretization to make it simpler to learn. If this is the case you will have to follow the typical approach of trial and error - try with simple action space, observe the dynamics, and if the results are not satisfactory - increase the complexity of the problem. This allows making iterative improvements, as opposed to going in the opposite direction - starting with too complex setting to get any results and than having to reduce it without knowing what are the "reasonable values".
I recently started learning neural networks, and I thought that creating a sudoku solver would be a nice application for NN. I started learning them with backward propagation neural network, but later I figured that there are tens of neural networks. At this point, I find it hard to learn all of them and then pick an appropriate one for my purpose. Hence, I am asking what would be a good choice for creating this solver. Can back propagation NN work here? If not, can you explain why and tell me which one can work.
Thanks!
Neural networks don't really seem to be the best way to solve sudoku, as others have already pointed out. I think a better (but also not really good/efficient) way would be to use an genetic algorithm. Genetic algorithms don't directly relate to NNs but its very useful to know how they work.
Better (with better i mean more likely to be sussessful and probably better for you to learn something new) ideas would include:
If you use a library:
Play around with the networks, try to train them to different datasets, maybe random numbers and see what you get and how you have to tune the parameters to get better results.
Try to write an image generator. I wrote a few of them and they are stil my favourite projects, with one of them i used backprop to teach a NN what x/y coordinate of the image has which color, and the other aproach combines random generated images with ine another (GAN/NEAT).
Try to use create a movie (series of images) of the network learning to create a picture. It will show you very well how backprop works and what parameter tuning does to the results and how it changes how the network gets to the result.
If you are not using a library:
Try to solve easy problems, one after the other. Use backprop or a genetic algorithm for training (whatever you have implemented).
Try to improove your implementation and change some things that nobody else cares about and see how it changes the results.
List of 'tasks' for your Network:
XOR (basically the hello world of NN)
Pole balancing problem
Simple games like pong
More complex games like flappy bird, agar.io etc.
Choose more problems that you find interesting, maybe you are into image recognition, maybe text, audio, who knows. Think of something you can/would like to be able to do and find a way to make you computer do it for you.
It's not advisable to only use your own NN implemetation, since it will probably not work properly the first few times and you'll get frustratet. Experiment with librarys and your own implementation.
Good way to find almost endless resources:
Use google search and add 'filetype:pdf' in the end in order to only show pdf files. Search for neural network, genetic algorithm, evolutional neural network.
Neither neural nets not GAs are close to ideal solutions for Sudoku. I would advise to look into Constraint Programming (eg. the Choco or Gecode solver). See https://gist.github.com/marioosh/9188179 for example. Should solve any 9x9 sudoku in a matter of milliseconds (the daily Sudokus of "Le monde" journal are created using this type of technology BTW).
There is also a famous "Dancing links" algorithm for this problem by Knuth that works very well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Links
Just like was mentioned in the comments, you probably want to take a look at convolutional networks. You basically input the sudoku bord as an two dimensional 'image'. I think using a receptive field of 3x3 would be quite interesting, and I don't really think you need more than one filter.
The harder thing is normalization: the numbers 1-9 don't have an underlying relation in sudoku, you could easily replace them by A-I for example. So they are categories, not numbers. However, one-hot encoding every output would mean a lot of inputs, so i'd stick to numerical normalization (1=0.1, 2 = 0.2, etc.)
The output of your network should be a softmax with of some kind: if you don't use softmax, and instead outupt just an x and y coordinate, then you can't assure that the outputedd square has not been filled in yet.
A numerical value should be passed along with the output, to show what number the network wants to fill in.
As PLEXATIC mentionned, neural-nets aren't really well suited for these kind of task. Genetic algorithm sounds good indeed.
However, if you still want to stick with neural-nets you could have a look at https://github.com/Kyubyong/sudoku. As answered Thomas W, 3x3 looks nice.
If you don't want to deal with CNN, you could find some answers here as well. https://www.kaggle.com/dithyrambe/neural-nets-as-sudoku-solvers
I am reading people's implementation of DCGAN, especially this one in tensorflow.
In that implementation, the author draws the losses of the discriminator and of the generator, which is shown below (images come from https://github.com/carpedm20/DCGAN-tensorflow):
Both the losses of the discriminator and of the generator don't seem to follow any pattern. Unlike general neural networks, whose loss decreases along with the increase of training iteration. How to interpret the loss when training GANs?
Unfortunately, like you've said for GANs the losses are very non-intuitive. Mostly it happens down to the fact that generator and discriminator are competing against each other, hence improvement on the one means the higher loss on the other, until this other learns better on the received loss, which screws up its competitor, etc.
Now one thing that should happen often enough (depending on your data and initialisation) is that both discriminator and generator losses are converging to some permanent numbers, like this:
(it's ok for loss to bounce around a bit - it's just the evidence of the model trying to improve itself)
This loss convergence would normally signify that the GAN model found some optimum, where it can't improve more, which also should mean that it has learned well enough. (Also note, that the numbers themselves usually aren't very informative.)
Here are a few side notes, that I hope would be of help:
if loss haven't converged very well, it doesn't necessarily mean that the model hasn't learned anything - check the generated examples, sometimes they come out good enough. Alternatively, can try changing learning rate and other parameters.
if the model converged well, still check the generated examples - sometimes the generator finds one/few examples that discriminator can't distinguish from the genuine data. The trouble is it always gives out these few, not creating anything new, this is called mode collapse. Usually introducing some diversity to your data helps.
as vanilla GANs are rather unstable, I'd suggest to use some version
of the DCGAN models, as they contain some features like convolutional
layers and batch normalisation, that are supposed to help with the
stability of the convergence. (the picture above is a result of the DCGAN rather than vanilla GAN)
This is some common sense but still: like with most neural net structures tweaking the model, i.e. changing its parameters or/and architecture to fit your certain needs/data can improve the model or screw it.
Hello guys I'd like to know the answer to the question that is the titled named by.
For example if I have physical system described in differential equation(s), how should I know when I should use step, pulse or ramp generator?
What exactly does it do?
Thank you for your answers.
They are mostly the remnants of the classical control times. The main reason why they are so famous is because of their simple Laplace transform terms. 1,1/s and 1/s^2. Then you can multiply these with the plant and you would get the Laplace transform of the output.
Back in the day, what you only had was partial fraction expansion and Laplace transform tables to get an idea what the response would look like. And today, you can basically simulate whatever input you like. So they are not really neeeded which is the answer to your question.
But since people used these signals so often they have spotted certain properties. For example, step response is good for assessing the transients and the steady state tracking error value, ramp response is good for assessing (reference) following error (which introduces double integrators) and so on. Hence, some consider these signals as the characteristic functions though it is far from the truth. Especially, you should keep in mind that, just because the these responses are OK, the system is not necessarily stable.
However, keep in mind that these are extremely primitive ways of assessing the system. Currently, they are taught because they are good for giving homeworks and making people acquainted with Simulink etc.
They are used to determine system characteristics. If you are studying a system of differential equations you would want to know different characteristics from the response of the system from these kinds of inputs since these inputs are the very fundamental ones. For example a system whose output blows up for a pulse input is unstable, and you would not want to have such a system in real life(except in rare situations). It's too difficult for me to explain it all in an answer, you should start with this wiki page.