I know that using neural networks for anything text-related is difficult as they have problems with non-numerical input data.
But I'm not sure about mathematical sets. And sets of sets.
Like [0, 1, 2] and [3, 4, 5] or [[0, 1], [2, 3]] and [[4, 5], [6, 7]]
It should be possible to compute distances between these by computing the distances between all corresponding elements, right? I can't really find any information on that and don't want to start using neural networks without being sure.
(Googling anything with 'set' just isn't promising because all you get as result is the term 'data set'..)
EDIT:
First: The assignment specifically asks for a neural network, so I can't use k-means or any other clustering methods.
So the original question wasn't really addressing the actual problem. I don't have to think of a distance metric but of a way to add the sets to the activation function and for that of how to map them to a single value. But, regarding the distance metric, I'm actually not really sure at what point of the neural network I need it.. I guess that's a basic comprehension problem.
I will just write down some thoughts now.
The thing that confuses me is standardization of categories. Having three categories 'red', 'green' and 'blue' you can map them to numbers 1 to 3, but that would mean that 'red' would have a larger distance to 'blue' than 'green' does and that's not the case. So the categories are encoded as (1, 0, 0) and (0, 1, 0) and (0, 0, 1) which gives them all the same distance.
So it must be possible to add these to the activation function somehow. I could imagine that they are interpreted as binary numbers, so that (1,0,0)=100=4, (0,1,0)=010=2 and (0,0,1)=001=1. That would be a distinct mapping. But numbers 1 to 3 are distinct to, so as mentioned above, the distance metric must be necessary at some point.
So the problem still is how to map a set to a single value. I can do that right before I add it to the function, so I don't have to choose a mapping that also maintains a logical distance between the sets because when getting to the point of applying the distance metric I can still apply it to the original sets and don't have to use the mapped value. Is that correct? Or am I still missing something?
Neural nets, in general, have no such problem. Image recognition and language translation are well within their domains. What you do need is the metrics and manipulations to relate your inputs to the ground truth in a well-ordered fashion -- which your distance metric will do quite nicely.
Go right ahead and build your neural network. Supply it with the appropriate distance function, and let it train away. Do make sure to put in some tracking instrumentation (e.g. print statements) to trace the operation for a few iterations before you turn it entirely loose.
Related
I am pretty sure I understood' the principle of cnn and why they are prefered over just fully connected neural networks. What I try to comprehend is how to interpret the occuring patterns after training the model.
So let's assume I want to recognize the number "1" written on an 256x256 big image-plane (only 1 bit image, black/white) that is then forwared to the output that either says "is a one", or "is not a one".
If the model is untrained and the first handwritten "1" is forwared, the result could be "[0.28, 0.72] which is obiously wrong. I then calculate the error between [0.28, 0.72] and [1, 0] (for example based on the mean squared error), derive it and try to find the local minimas of the derivative (backpropagation). Then I calculate the delta values for each weight (by using chainrule and partial derivative) until I finally reach the convolutional layer for which delta values are also calculated.
But my question now is: What exactly do the patterns that will occur by adding up bunch of delta values to the convolutional layer "weights" mean? Why do they find certain features characteristical for the number "1"? Or is it more like, it does not find any specific features per se, but rather it "encodes" the relationship between handwritten "1"s and the desired output [1, 0] into the convolutional layers?
_
Occasionally I see some models are using SpatialDropout1D instead of Dropout. For example, in the Part of speech tagging neural network, they use:
model = Sequential()
model.add(Embedding(s_vocabsize, EMBED_SIZE,
input_length=MAX_SEQLEN))
model.add(SpatialDropout1D(0.2)) ##This
model.add(GRU(HIDDEN_SIZE, dropout=0.2, recurrent_dropout=0.2))
model.add(RepeatVector(MAX_SEQLEN))
model.add(GRU(HIDDEN_SIZE, return_sequences=True))
model.add(TimeDistributed(Dense(t_vocabsize)))
model.add(Activation("softmax"))
According to Keras' documentation, it says:
This version performs the same function as Dropout, however it drops
entire 1D feature maps instead of individual elements.
However, I am unable to understand the meaning of entrie 1D feature. More specifically, I am unable to visualize SpatialDropout1D in the same model explained in quora.
Can someone explain this concept by using the same model as in quora?
Also, under what situation we will use SpatialDropout1D instead of Dropout?
To make it simple, I would first note that so-called feature maps (1D, 2D, etc.) is our regular channels. Let's look at examples:
Dropout(): Let's define 2D input: [[1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2]]. Dropout will consider every element independently, and may result in something like [[1, 0, 1], [0, 2, 2]]
SpatialDropout1D(): In this case result will look like [[1, 0, 1], [2, 0, 2]]. Notice that 2nd element was zeroed along all channels.
The noise shape
In order to understand SpatialDropout1D, you should get used to the notion of the noise shape. In plain vanilla dropout, each element is kept or dropped independently. For example, if the tensor is [2, 2, 2], each of 8 elements can be zeroed out depending on random coin flip (with certain "heads" probability); in total, there will be 8 independent coin flips and any number of values may become zero, from 0 to 8.
Sometimes there is a need to do more than that. For example, one may need to drop the whole slice along 0 axis. The noise_shape in this case is [1, 2, 2] and the dropout involves only 4 independent random coin flips. The first component will either be kept together or be dropped together. The number of zeroed elements can be 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8. It cannot be 1 or 5.
Another way to view this is to imagine that input tensor is in fact [2, 2], but each value is double-precision (or multi-precision). Instead of dropping the bytes in the middle, the layer drops the full multi-byte value.
Why is it useful?
The example above is just for illustration and isn't common in real applications. More realistic example is this: shape(x) = [k, l, m, n] and noise_shape = [k, 1, 1, n]. In this case, each batch and channel component will be kept independently, but each row and column will be kept or not kept together. In other words, the whole [l, m] feature map will be either kept or dropped.
You may want to do this to account for adjacent pixels correlation, especially in the early convolutional layers. Effectively, you want to prevent co-adaptation of pixels with its neighbors across the feature maps, and make them learn as if no other feature maps exist. This is exactly what SpatialDropout2D is doing: it promotes independence between feature maps.
The SpatialDropout1D is very similar: given shape(x) = [k, l, m] it uses noise_shape = [k, 1, m] and drops entire 1-D feature maps.
Reference: Efficient Object Localization Using Convolutional Networks
by Jonathan Tompson at al.
I want to use KMeans clustering algorithm to analyze a profile data. The sample data is in the format of :
Features: name ISBN Date ID price ....
'A' '31NDB' '05/18/2014' 'CBDDN' 12.00
'B' '3241B' '08/19/2012/ 'ABCDE' 33.08
These are just examples, the real data is not necessarily in this format. But if need to apply clustering algorithm on this set of data, how can do the feature scaling aka, normalization part? How should I treat the string value and the date value and the price (double) value? Is there a relationship between these values? I'm confused...
Any idea?
K-means and EM are for numeric data only.
It does not make much sense to apply them on name/date/price typed data.
As the name indicates, the algorithm needs to compute means. How would you compute a mean in your "name" column? You can hack something for the date, but not for the name.
Wrong tool for your job.
You will have to encode the non-numeric features as numbers. This is the case for categorical or ordinal features.
Also, if certain features are unimportant to your analysis, consider throwing them away. For e.g., if you are trying to cluster books, then the purchase date might not be important (or it might be, depends on what you are concerned with), so adding the date won't make sense.
As an example for encoding a variable with 3 categories, you could for e.g., encode it as 3 variables [1, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1], or as 2 variables [0, 0], [1, 0], [0, 1].
There is a bit more discussion on this here.
Note that as your KMeans/GMM(since you eluded to EM) is going to compute the distances between points, proper encoding is especially important. Understand what they entails, especially when used with the different feature normalization schemes, and try different ones to see the result.
I am trying to create an ANN for calculating/classifying a/any formula.
I initially tried to replicate Fibonacci Sequence. I using the inputs:
[1,2] output [3]
[2,3] output [5]
[3,5] output [8]
etc...
The issue I am trying to overcome is how to normalize the data that could be potentially infinite or scale exponentially? I then tried to create an ANN to calculate the slope-intercept formula y = mx+b (2x+2) with inputs
[1] output [4]
[2] output [6]
etc...
Again I do not know how to normalize the data. If I normalize only the training data how would the network be able to calculate or classify with inputs outside of what was used for normalization?
So would it be possible to create an ANN to calculate/classify the formula ((a+2b+c^2+3d-5e) modulo 2), where the formula is unknown, but the inputs (some) a,b,c,d,and e are given as well as the output? Essentially classifying whether the calculations output is odd or even and the inputs are between -+infinity...
Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to do now. Basically, you are going to have a set of inputs representing the coefficients of a function. You want the ANN to tell you whether the function, with those coefficients, will produce an even or an odd output. Let me know if that's wrong. There are a few potential issues here:
First, while it is possible to use a neural network to do addition, it is not generally very efficient. You also need to set your ANN up in a very specific way, either by using a different node type than is usually used, or by setting up complicated recurrent topologies. This would explain your lack of success with the Fibonacci sequence and the line equation.
But there's a more fundamental problem. You might have heard that ANNs are general function approximators. However, in this case, the function that the ANN is learning won't be your formula. When you have an ANN that is learning to output either 0 or 1 in response to a set of inputs, it's actually trying to learn a function for a line (or set of lines, or hyperplane, depending on the topology) that separates all of the inputs for which the output should be 0 from all of the inputs for which the output should be 1. (see the answers to this question for a more thorough explanation, with pictures). So the question, then, is whether or not there is a hyperplane that separates coefficients that will result in an even output from coefficients that will result in an odd output.
I'm inclined to say that the answer to that question is no. If you consider the a coefficient in your example, for instance, you will see that every time you increment or decrement it by 1, the correct output switches. The same is true for the c, d, and e terms. This means that there aren't big clumps of relatively similar inputs that all return the same output.
Why do you need to know whether the output of an unknown function is even or odd? There might be other, more appropriate techniques.
I am using Non-negative Matrix Factorization and Non-negative Least Squares for predictions, and I want to evaluate how good the predictions are depending on the amount of data given. For example the original Data was
original = [1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0]
And now I want to see how good I can reconstruct the original data when the given data is incomplete:
incomplete1 = [1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0],
incomplete2 = [1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
incomplete3 = [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
And I want to do this for every example in a big dataset. Now the problem is, the original data varies in the amount of positive data, in the original above there are 4, but for other examples in the dataset it could be more or less. Let´s say I make an evaluation round with 4 positives given, but half of my dataset only has 4 positives, the other half has 5,6 or 7. Should I exclude the half with 4 positives, because they have no data missing which makes the "prediction" much better? On the other side I would change the trainingset if I excluded data. What can I do? Or shouldn´t I evaluate with 4 at all in this case?
EDIT:
Basically I want to see how good I can reconstruct the input matrix. For simplicity, say the "original" stands for a user who watched 4 movies. And then I want to know how good I can predict each user, based on just 1 movie that the user acually watched. I get a prediction for lots of movies. Then I plot a ROC and Precision-Recall curve (using top-k of the prediction). And I will repeat all of this with n movies that the users actually watched. I will get a ROC curve in my plot for every n. When I come to the point where I use e.g. 4 movies that the user actually watched, to predict all movies he watched, but he only watched those 4, the results get too good.
The reason why I am doing this is to see how many "watched movies" my system needs to make reasonable predictions. If it would return only good results when there are already 3 movies watched, It would not be so good in my application.
I think it's first important to be clear what you are trying to measure, and what your input is.
Are you really measuring ability to reconstruct the input matrix? In collaborative filtering, the input matrix itself is, by nature, very incomplete. The whole job of the recommender is to fill in some blanks. If it perfectly reconstructed the input, it would give no answers. Usually, your evaluation metric is something quite different from this when using NNMF for collaborative filtering.
FWIW I am commercializing exactly this -- CF based on matrix factorization -- as Myrrix. It is based on my work in Mahout. You can read the docs about some rudimentary support for tests like Area under curve (AUC) in the product already.
Is "original" here an example of one row, perhaps for one user, in your input matrix? When you talk about half, and excluding, what training/test split are you referring to? splitting each user, or taking a subset across users? Because you seem to be talking about measuring reconstruction error, but that doesn't require excluding anything. You just multiply your matrix factors back together and see how close they are to the input. "Close" means low L2 / Frobenius norm.
But for convention recommender tests (like AUC or precision recall), which are something else entirely, you would either split your data into test/training by time (recent data is the test data) or value (most-preferred or associated items are the test data). If I understand the 0s to be missing elements of the input matrix, then they are not really "data". You wouldn't ever have a situation where the test data were all the 0s, because they're not input to begin with. The question is, which 1s are for training and which 1s are for testing.