I understand this decision depends on the task, but let me explain.
I'm designing a model that predicts steering angles from a given dashboard video frame using a convolutional neural network with dense layers at end. In my final dense layer, I only have a single unit that predicts a steering angle.
My question here is, for my task would either option below show a boost in performance?
a. Get ground truth steering angles, convert to radians, and squash them using tanh so they are between -1 and 1. In the final dense layer of my network, use a tanh activation function.
b. Get ground truth steering angles. These raw angles are between -420 and 420 degrees. In the final layer, use a linear activation.
I'm trying to think about it logically, where in option A the loss will likely be much smaller since the network is dealing with much smaller numbers. This would lead to smaller changes in weights.
Let me know your thoughts!
There are two types of variables in neural networks: weights and biases (mostly, there are additional variables, e.g. the moving mean and moving variance required for batchnorm). They behave a bit differently, for instance biases are not penalized by a regularizer as a result they don't tend to get small. So an assumption that the network is dealing only with small numbers is not accurate.
Still, biases need to be learned, and as can be seen from ResNet performance, it's easier to learn smaller values. In this sense, I'd rather pick [-1, 1] target range over [-420, 420]. But tanh is probably not an optimal activation function:
With tahn (just like with sigmoid), a saturated neuron kills the gradient during backprop. Choosing tahn with no specific reason is likely to hurt your training.
Forward and backward passes with tahn need to compute exp, which is also relatively expensive.
My option would be (at least initially, until some other variant proves to work better) to squeeze the ground truth values and have no activation at all (I think that's what you mean by a linear activation): let the network learn [-1, 1] range by itself.
In general, if you have any activation functions in the hidden layers, ReLu has proven to work better than sigmoid, though other modern functions have been proposed recently, e.g. leaky ReLu, PRelu, ELU, etc. You might try any of those.
Related
Iam a little bit confused about how to normalize/standarize image pixel values before training a convolutional autoencoder. The goal is to use the autoencoder for denoising, meaning that my traning images consists of noisy images and the original non-noisy images used as ground truth.
To my knowledge there are to options to pre-process the images:
- normalization
- standarization (z-score)
When normalizing using the MinMax approach (scaling between 0-1) the network works fine, but my question here is:
- When using the min max values of the training set for scaling, should I use the min/max values of the noisy images or of the ground truth images?
The second thing I observed when training my autoencoder:
- Using z-score standarization, the loss decreases for the two first epochs, after that it stops at about 0.030 and stays there (it gets stuck). Why is that? With normalization the loss decreases much more.
Thanks in advance,
cheers,
Mike
[Note: This answer is a compilation of the comments above, for the record]
MinMax is really sensitive to outliers and to some types of noise, so it shouldn't be used it in a denoising application. You can use quantiles 5% and 95% instead, or use z-score (for which ready-made implementations are more common).
For more realistic training, normalization should be performed on the noisy images.
Because the last layer uses sigmoid activation (info from your comments), the network's outputs will be forced between 0 and 1. Hence it is not suited for an autoencoder on z-score-transformed images (because target intensities can take arbitrary positive or negative values). The identity activation (called linear in Keras) is the right choice in this case.
Note however that this remark on activation only concerns the output layer, any activation function can be used in the hidden layers. Rationale: negative values in the output can be obtained through negative weights multiplying the ReLU output of hidden layers.
I am currently using sklearn's Logistic Regression function to work on a synthetic 2d problem. The dataset is shown as below:
I'm basic plugging the data into sklearn's model, and this is what I'm getting (the light green; disregard the dark green):
The code for this is only two lines; model = LogisticRegression(); model.fit(tr_data,tr_labels). I've checked the plotting function; that's fine as well. I'm using no regularizer (should that affect it?)
It seems really strange to me that the boundaries behave in this way. Intuitively I feel they should be more diagonal, as the data is (mostly) located top-right and bottom-left, and from testing some things out it seems a few stray datapoints are what's causing the boundaries to behave in this manner.
For example here's another dataset and its boundaries
Would anyone know what might be causing this? From my understanding Logistic Regression shouldn't be this sensitive to outliers.
Your model is overfitting the data (The decision regions it found perform indeed better on the training set than the diagonal line you would expect).
The loss is optimal when all the data is classified correctly with probability 1. The distances to the decision boundary enter in the probability computation. The unregularized algorithm can use large weights to make the decision region very sharp, so in your example it finds an optimal solution, where (some of) the outliers are classified correctly.
By a stronger regularization you prevent that and the distances play a bigger role. Try different values for the inverse regularization strength C, e.g.
model = LogisticRegression(C=0.1)
model.fit(tr_data,tr_labels)
Note: the default value C=1.0 corresponds already to a regularized version of logistic regression.
Let us further qualify why logistic regression overfits here: After all, there's just a few outliers, but hundreds of other data points. To see why it helps to note that
logistic loss is kind of a smoothed version of hinge loss (used in SVM).
SVM does not 'care' about samples on the correct side of the margin at all - as long as they do not cross the margin they inflict zero cost. Since logistic regression is a smoothed version of SVM, the far-away samples do inflict a cost but it is negligible compared to the cost inflicted by samples near the decision boundary.
So, unlike e.g. Linear Discriminant Analysis, samples close to the decision boundary have disproportionately more impact on the solution than far-away samples.
I'm trying to understand "Back Propagation" as it is used in Neural Nets that are optimized using Gradient Descent. Reading through the literature it seems to do a few things.
Use random weights to start with and get error values
Perform Gradient Descent on the loss function using these weights to arrive at new weights.
Update the weights with these new weights until the loss function is minimized.
The steps above seem to be the EXACT process to solve for Linear Models (Regression for e.g.)? Andrew Ng's excellent course on Coursera for Machine Learning does exactly that for Linear Regression.
So, I'm trying to understand if BackPropagation does anything more than gradient descent on the loss function.. and if not, why is it only referenced in the case of Neural Nets and why not for GLMs (Generalized Linear Models). They all seem to be doing the same thing- what might I be missing?
The main division happens to be hiding in plain sight: linearity. In fact, extend to question to continuity of the first derivative, and you'll encapsulate most of the difference.
First of all, take note of one basic principle of neural nets (NN): a NN with linear weights and linear dependencies is a GLM. Also, having multiple hidden layers is equivalent to a single hidden layer: it's still linear combinations from input to output.
A "modern' NN has non-linear layers: ReLUs (change negative values to 0), pooling (max, min, or mean of several values), dropouts (randomly remove some values), and other methods destroy our ability to smoothly apply Gradient Descent (GD) to the model. Instead, we take many of the principles and work backward, applying limited corrections layer by layer, all the way back to the weights at layer 1.
Lather, rinse, repeat until convergence.
Does that clear up the problem for you?
You got it!
A typical ReLU is
f(x) = x if x > 0,
0 otherwise
A typical pooling layer reduces the input length and width by a factor of 2; in each 2x2 square, only the maximum value is passed through. Dropout simply kills off random values to make the model retrain those weights from "primary sources". Each of these is a headache for GD, so we have to do it layer by layer.
So, I'm trying to understand if BackPropagation does anything more than gradient descent on the loss function.. and if not, why is it only referenced in the case of Neural Nets
I think (at least originally) back propagation of errors meant less than what you describe: the term "backpropagation of errors" only refered to the method of calculating derivatives of the loss function, instead of e.g. automatic differentiation, symbolic differentiation, or numerical differentiation. No matter what the gradient was then used for (e.g. Gradient Descent, or maybe Levenberg/Marquardt).
They all seem to be doing the same thing- what might I be missing?
They're using different models. If your neural network used linear neurons, it would be equivalent to linear regression.
I'm new to neural networks and trying to get the hang of it by solving the following task:
Given a semi circle which defines an area above the x-axis, I would like to teach an ANN to output the length of a vector pointing to any position within that area. In addition, I would also like to know the angle between it and the x-axis.
I thought of this as a classical example of supervised learning and used Backpropagation to train a feed-forward network. The network is built by two Input-, two Output-, and variable amount of Hidden-neurons organised in a variable amount of hidden layers.
My training data is a random and unsorted sample of points within that area and the respective desired values. The coordinates of the points serve as the input of the net while I use the calculated values to minimise the error.
However, even after thousands of training iterations and empirical changes of the networks topology, I am unable to produce results with an error below ~0.2 (Radius: 20.0, Topology: 2/4/2).
Are there any obvious pitfalls I'm failing to see or does the chosen approach just not fit the task? Which other network types and/or learning techniques could be used to complete the task?
I wouldn't use variable amounts of hidden layers, I would use just one.
Then, I wouldn't use two output neurons, I would use two separate ANNs, one for each of the values you're after. This should do better, since your outputs aren't clearly related in my opinion.
Then, I would experiment with number of hidden neurons between 2 and 10 and different activation functions (logistic and tanh, maybe ReLUs).
After that, do you scale your data? It might be worth scaling both your inputs and outputs. Sigmoid units return small numbers, so it is good if you can adapt your outputs to be small as well (in [-1 , 1] or [0, 1]). For example, if want your angles in degrees, divide all of your targets by 360 before training the ANN on them. Then when the ANN returns a result, multiply it by 360 and see if that helps.
Finally, there are a number of ways to train your neural network. Gradient descent is the classic, but probably not the best. Better methods are conjugate gradient, BFGS etc. See here for optimizers if you're using python - even if not, they might give you an idea of what to search for in your language.
I think I read somewhere that convolutional neural networks do not suffer from the vanishing gradient problem as much as standard sigmoid neural networks with increasing number of layers. But I have not been able to find a 'why'.
Does it truly not suffer from the problem or am I wrong and it depends on the activation function?
[I have been using Rectified Linear Units, so I have never tested the Sigmoid Units for Convolutional Neural Networks]
Convolutional neural networks (like standard sigmoid neural networks) do suffer from the vanishing gradient problem. The most recommended approaches to overcome the vanishing gradient problem are:
Layerwise pre-training
Choice of the activation function
You may see that the state-of-the-art deep neural network for computer vision problem (like the ImageNet winners) have used convolutional layers as the first few layers of the their network, but it is not the key for solving the vanishing gradient. The key is usually training the network greedily layer by layer. Using convolutional layers have several other important benefits of course. Especially in vision problems when the input size is large (the pixels of an image), using convolutional layers for the first layers are recommended because they have fewer parameters than fully-connected layers and you don't end up with billions of parameters for the first layer (which will make your network prone to overfitting).
However, it has been shown (like this paper) for several tasks that using Rectified linear units alleviates the problem of vanishing gradients (as oppose to conventional sigmoid functions).
Recent advances had alleviate the effects of vanishing gradients in deep neural networks. Among contributing advances include:
Usage of GPU for training deep neural networks
Usage of better activation functions. (At this point rectified linear units (ReLU) seems to work the best.)
With these advances, deep neural networks can be trained even without layerwise pretraining.
Source:
http://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/deep-learning-nutshell-history-training/
we do not use Sigmoid and Tanh as Activation functions which causes vanishing Gradient Problems. Mostly nowadays we use RELU based activation functions in training a Deep Neural Network Model to avoid such complications and improve the accuracy.
It’s because the gradient or slope of RELU activation if it’s over 0, is 1. Sigmoid derivative has a maximum slope of .25, which means that during the backward pass, you are multiplying gradients with values less than 1, and if you have more and more layers, you are multiplying it with values less than 1, making gradients smaller and smaller. RELU activation solves this by having a gradient slope of 1, so during backpropagation, there isn’t gradients passed back that are progressively getting smaller and smaller. but instead they are staying the same, which is how RELU solves the vanishing gradient problem.
One thing to note about RELU however is that if you have a value less than 0, that neuron is dead, and the gradient passed back is 0, meaning that during backpropagation, you will have 0 gradient being passed back if you had a value less than 0.
An alternative is Leaky RELU, which gives some gradient for values less than 0.
The first answer is from 2015 and a bit of age.
Today, CNNs typically also use batchnorm - while there is some debate why this helps: the inventors mention covariate shift: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03167
There are other theories like smoothing the loss landscape: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11604
Either way, it is a method that helps to deal significantly with vanishing/exploding gradient problem that is also relevant for CNNs. In CNNs you also apply the chain rule to get gradients. That is the update of the first layer is proportional to the product of N numbers, where N is the number of inputs. It is very likely that this number is either relatively big or small compared to the update of the last layer. This might be seen by looking at the variance of a product of random variables that quickly grows the more variables are being multiplied: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/52646/variance-of-product-of-multiple-random-variables
For recurrent networks that have long sequences of inputs, ie. of length L, the situation is often worse than for CNN, since there the product consists of L numbers. Often the sequence length L in a RNN is much larger than the number of layers N in a CNN.