NOTE: when you see (0) in the functions it represents Theta not Zero
I've been studying Andrew Ng's Machine Learning Course, and I have the following inquery:
(Short Version: If one were to look at all the mathematical expressions/calculations used for both Forward AND Backward propagation, then it appears to me that we never use the Cost Function directly, but its Derivative , so what is the importance of the cost function and its choice anyway? is it purely to evaluate our system whenever we feel like it?)
Andrew mentioned that for Logistic Regression, using the MSE (Mean Squared Error) Cost function
wouldn't be good, because applying it to our Sigmoid function would yield a non-convex cost function that has a lot of Local Optima, so it is best that we use the following logistic cost function:
Which will have 2 graphs (one for y=0 and one for y=1), both of which are convex.
My question is the following, since it is our objective to minimize the cost function (aka have the Derivative reach 0), which we achieve by using Gradient Descent, updating our weights using the Derivative of the Cost Function, which in both cases (both cost functions) is the same derivative:
dJ = (h0(x(i)) - y(i)) . x(i)
So how did the different choice of cost function in this case effect our algorithm in any way? because in forward propagation, all we need is
h0(x(i)) = Sigmoid(0Tx)
which can be calculated without ever needing to calculate the cost function, then in backward propagation and in updating the weights, we always use the derivative of the cost function, so when does the Cost Function itself come into play? is it just necessary when we want an indication of how well our network is doing? (then why not just depend on the derivative to know that)
The forward propagation does not need the cost function in any way because you just applying all your learned weights to the corresponding input.
The cost function is generally used to measure how good your algorihm is by comparing your models outcome (therefore applying your current weights to your input) with the true label of the input (in supervised algorithms). The main objective is therefore to minimize the cost function error as (in most cases) you want the difference of the prediction and the true label as small as possible. In optimization it is pretty helpful if your function you want to optimize is convex because it guarantees that if you find a local minimum it is at the same time the global minimum.
For minimizing the cost function, gradient descent is used to iteratively update your weights to get closer to the minimum. This is done w.r.t to the learned weights such that you are able to update your weights of the model for achieving the lowest possible costs. The backpropagation algorithm is used to adjust the weights using the cost function in the backward pass.
Technically, you are correct: we do not explicitly use the cost function in any of the calculations for forward propagation and back propagation.
You asked 'what is the importance of the cost function and its choice anyway?'. I have two answers:
The cost function is incredibly important because its gradient is what allows us to update our weights. Although we are only actually computing the gradient of the cost function and not the cost function itself, choosing a different cost function would mean we would have a different gradient, thus changing how we update our weights.
The cost function allows us to evaluate our model performance. It is common practice to plot cost vs epoch to understand how the cost decreases over time.
Your answer indicted you essentially understood all of this already but I hoped to clarify it a bit. Thanks!
I am a beginner in machine learning. So any help or suggestion would be of great help.
I have read that putting weights on features and Predicting is a very bad idea. But what if few features needs to be weighted.
In a classification problem let's say it's a common norm that age is most dependent, how do I give weights to this feature. I was thinking to normalize it but with a variance of 1.5 or 2 (other features with variance 1), I believe that this feature will have more weight. Is this fundamentally wrong ? If wrong any other method.
Does it effect differently for classification and regression problems ?
If we are talking specifically about random forests (as you tagged) then you can use the Weighted Subspace Random Forest algorithm (in R wsrf package). The algorithm determines a weight for each variable and then uses these during the model building.
The informativeness of a variable with respect to the class is
measured by an information gain ratio. The measure is used as the
probability of that variable being selected for inclusion in the
variable subspace when splitting a specific node during the tree
building process. Therefore, variables with higher values by the
measure are more likely to be chosen as candidates during variable
selection and a stronger tree can be built.
Generally if a feature has more Importance compared to other features and the model is Dense enough, with enough training sample, your model will automatically give it more Importance by optimizing weight matrices to account for that because we have partial derivatives in back propagation which calculate change by each connection, so it learns to give more importance to that feature on itself. If you don't normalize it, but scale it to a higher scale, you might have overstated it's important.
In practice a neural network works best if the inputs are centered and white. That means that their covariance is diagonal and the mean is the zero vector. This improves optimization of the neural net, since the hidden activation functions don't saturate that fast and thus do not give you near zero gradients early on in learning.
If you do scale just one feature up by a small value, it may or may not have desired effects, but the higher probability is of saturated gradients, so we avoid it.
I am uncertain if this is the case both in general:
does logistic regression always find global optimum?
and in particular
does logistic regression always find global optimum when that the optimisation converges?
When the data are separable, the optimum is at infinity, so you will never reach it. Normally, though, any optimization algorithm you are using will reach a point from which no noticeable improvement can be attained by iterating further.
An adequately tuned algorithm will eventually find the global optimum if this is not the case, because the loss function is convex.
Im personally studying theories of neural network and got some questions.
In many books and references, for activation function of hidden layer, hyper-tangent functions were used.
Books came up with really simple reason that linear combinations of tanh functions can describe nearly all shape of functions with given error.
But, there came a question.
Is this a real reason why tanh function is used?
If then, is it the only reason why tanh function is used?
if then, is tanh function the only function that can do that?
if not, what is the real reason?..
I stock here keep thinking... please help me out of this mental(?...) trap!
Most of time tanh is quickly converge than sigmoid and logistic function, and performs better accuracy [1]. However, recently rectified linear unit (ReLU) is proposed by Hinton [2] which shows ReLU train six times fast than tanh [3] to reach same training error. And you can refer to [4] to see what benefits ReLU provides.
Accordining to about 2 years machine learning experience. I want to share some stratrgies the most paper used and my experience about computer vision.
Normalizing input is very important
Normalizing well could get better performance and converge quickly. Most of time we will subtract mean value to make input mean to be zero to prevent weights change same directions so that converge slowly [5] .Recently google also points that phenomenon as internal covariate shift out when training deep learning, and they proposed batch normalization [6] so as to normalize each vector having zero mean and unit variance.
More data more accuracy
More training data could generize feature space well and prevent overfitting. In computer vision if training data is not enough, most of used skill to increase training dataset is data argumentation and synthesis training data.
Choosing a good activation function allows training better and efficiently.
ReLU nonlinear acitivation worked better and performed state-of-art results in deep learning and MLP. Moreover, it has some benefits e.g. simple to implementation and cheaper computation in back-propagation to efficiently train more deep neural net. However, ReLU will get zero gradient and do not train when the unit is zero active. Hence some modified ReLUs are proposed e.g. Leaky ReLU, and Noise ReLU, and most popular method is PReLU [7] proposed by Microsoft which generalized the traditional recitifed unit.
Others
choose large initial learning rate if it will not oscillate or diverge so as to find a better global minimum.
shuffling data
In truth both tanh and logistic functions can be used. The idea is that you can map any real number ( [-Inf, Inf] ) to a number between [-1 1] or [0 1] for the tanh and logistic respectively. In this way, it can be shown that a combination of such functions can approximate any non-linear function.
Now regarding the preference for the tanh over the logistic function is that the first is symmetric regarding the 0 while the second is not. This makes the second one more prone to saturation of the later layers, making training more difficult.
To add up to the the already existing answer, the preference for symmetry around 0 isn't just a matter of esthetics. An excellent text by LeCun et al "Efficient BackProp" shows in great details why it is a good idea that the input, output and hidden layers have mean values of 0 and standard deviation of 1.
Update in attempt to appease commenters: based purely on observation, rather than the theory that is covered above, Tanh and ReLU activation functions are more performant than sigmoid. Sigmoid also seems to be more prone to local optima, or a least extended 'flat line' issues. For example, try limiting the number of features to force logic into network nodes in XOR and sigmoid rarely succeeds whereas Tanh and ReLU have more success.
Tanh seems maybe slower than ReLU for many of the given examples, but produces more natural looking fits for the data using only linear inputs, as you describe. For example a circle vs a square/hexagon thing.
http://playground.tensorflow.org/ <- this site is a fantastic visualisation of activation functions and other parameters to neural network. Not a direct answer to your question but the tool 'provides intuition' as Andrew Ng would say.
Many of the answers here describe why tanh (i.e. (1 - e^2x) / (1 + e^2x)) is preferable to the sigmoid/logistic function (1 / (1 + e^-x)), but it should noted that there is a good reason why these are the two most common alternatives that should be understood, which is that during training of an MLP using the back propagation algorithm, the algorithm requires the value of the derivative of the activation function at the point of activation of each node in the network. While this could generally be calculated for most plausible activation functions (except those with discontinuities, which is a bit of a problem for those), doing so often requires expensive computations and/or storing additional data (e.g. the value of input to the activation function, which is not otherwise required after the output of each node is calculated). Tanh and the logistic function, however, both have very simple and efficient calculations for their derivatives that can be calculated from the output of the functions; i.e. if the node's weighted sum of inputs is v and its output is u, we need to know du/dv which can be calculated from u rather than the more traditional v: for tanh it is 1 - u^2 and for the logistic function it is u * (1 - u). This fact makes these two functions more efficient to use in a back propagation network than most alternatives, so a compelling reason would usually be required to deviate from them.
In theory I in accord with above responses. In my experience, some problems have a preference for sigmoid rather than tanh, probably due to the nature of these problems (since there are non-linear effects, is difficult understand why).
Given a problem, I generally optimize networks using a genetic algorithm. The activation function of each element of the population is choosen randonm between a set of possibilities (sigmoid, tanh, linear, ...). For a 30% of problems of classification, best element found by genetic algorithm has sigmoid as activation function.
In deep learning the ReLU has become the activation function of choice because the math is much simpler from sigmoid activation functions such as tanh or logit, especially if you have many layers. To assign weights using backpropagation, you normally calculate the gradient of the loss function and apply the chain rule for hidden layers, meaning you need the derivative of the activation functions. ReLU is a ramp function where you have a flat part where the derivative is 0, and a skewed part where the derivative is 1. This makes the math really easy. If you use the hyperbolic tangent you might run into the fading gradient problem, meaning if x is smaller than -2 or bigger than 2, the derivative gets really small and your network might not converge, or you might end up having a dead neuron that does not fire anymore.
Why isn't the 0-1 loss function (being the most obvious and informative from the standpoint of conceptual binary classification models) used in the perceptron or Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms?
In the case of perceptrons, most of the time they are trained using gradient descent (or something similar) and the 0-1 loss function is flat so it doesn't converge well (not to mention that it's not differentiable at 0)
SVM is based on solving an optimization problem that maximize the margin between classes. So in this context a convex loss function is preferable so we can use several general convex optimization methods. The 0-1 loss function is not convex so it is not very useful either. Note that this is due the current state of art, but if a new method that optimize non convex functions efficiently is discovered then that would change.
Edit: typo