I have 20 output neurons on a feed-forward neural network, for which I have already tried varying the number of hidden layers and number of neurons per hidden layer. When testing, I've noticed that while the outputs are not always exactly the same, they vary from test case to case very little, especially in respect to one another. It seems to be outputting nearly (within 0.0005 depending on the initial weights) the same output on every test case; the one that is the highest is always the highest. Is there a reason for this?
Note: I'm using a feed-forward neural network, with resilient and common backpropagation, separating training/validation/testing and shuffling in between training sets.
UPDATE: I'm using the network to categorize patterns from 4 inputs into one of twenty output possibilities. I have 5000 training sets, 800 validation sets, and 1500 testing sets. Number of rounds can vary depending on what I'm doing, on my current training case, the training error seems to converge too quickly (under 20 epochs). However, I have noticed this non-variance at other times when the error will decrease over a period of 1000 epochs. I have also adjusted the learning rate and momentum for the regular propagation. Resilient propagation does not use a learning rate or momentum for updates. This is being implemented using Encog.
Your dataset seems problematic to begin with. 20 outputs for 4 inputs seem too many. The number of output is generally much smaller than the number of inputs. Most probably, either the dataset is wrongly formulated, or you have misunderstood something in the problem you are trying to solve. Anyway, some things regarding your other comments:
First of all, you don't use 1500 training sets, but one set with 1500 training patterns. The same goes for validation and testing.
Second, the output can't be exactly the same on each run, since the weights are initialized randomly and the outputs depend on them. However, we want them to be similar on each run. If they weren't it would mean that they depend too much on the random initialization, so the network wouldn't work well.
In your case, the highest output is the selected category, so if the same output is the highest every time your network is working well.
If the network output is almost the same for different input patterns, the network is unable to categorize input well.
You say your network has 4 input nodes and 20 output nodes (right?). So there are 2*2*2*2 = 16 different possible input patterns. Why the hell you need 800 validation sets?
Your training data may be corrupt.
Related
Suppose we want to make a neural network to predict the outcome of a race between some number of participants.
Each participant in the race has various statistics: Engine Power, Max Speed, Driver Experience, etc.
Now imagine we have been asked to build a system which can handle any number of participants from 2 to 400 participants (just to pick a concrete number).
From what I have learned about "traditional" Neural Nets so far, our choices are:
Build many different neural nets for each number of participants: n = 2, 3, 4, 5, ... , 400.
Train one neural network taking input from 400 participants. When a piece of data refers to a race with less that 400 participants (this will be a large percentage of the data) just set all remaining statistic inputs to 0.
Assuming this would work, is there any reason to expect one method to perform better than the other?
The former is more specialized, but you have much less training data per net, so my guess is that it would work out roughly the same?
Is there a standard way to approach problems similar to this?
We could imagine (simplistically) that the neural network first classifies the strength of each participant, and therefore, each time a new participant is added, it needs to apply this same analysis to these new inputs, potentially hinting that there might be a "smart" way to reduce the total amount of work required.
Is this just screaming for a convolutional neural network?
Between your two options, option 1 would involve repeating a lot of effort to train for different sizes, and would probably be very slow to train as a result.
Option 2 is a bit more workable, but the network would need extra training on different sized inputs.
Another option, which I think would be the most likely to work, would be to only train a neural net to choose a winner between two participants, and use this to create a ranking via many comparisons between pairs. Such an approach is described here.
We could imagine (simplistically) that the neural network first classifies the strength of each participant, and therefore, each time a new participant is added, it needs to apply this same analysis to these new inputs, potentially hinting that there might be a "smart" way to reduce the total amount of work required.
I think you've got the key idea here. Since we want to perform exactly the same analysis on each participants (assuming it makes no difference whether they're participant 1 or participant 400), this is an ideal problem for Weight Sharing. This means that the weights on the neurons doing the initial analysis on a participant are identical for each participant. When these weights change for one participant, they change for all participants.
While CNNs do use weight sharing, we don't need to use a CNN to use this technique. The details of how you'd go about doing this would depend on your framework.
I am using Jason Brownlee's tutorial (mirror) to apply LSTM network on some syslog/network log data. He's a master!
I have syslog data(a specific event) for each day for last 1 year and so I am using LSTM network for time series analysis. I am using LSTM from Keras deep learning library.
As I understand -
About Batch_size
A batch of data is a fixed-sized number of rows from the training
dataset that defines how many patterns to process before updating
the weights of the network. Based on the batch_size the Model
takes random samples from the data for the analysis. For time series
this is not desirable, hence the batch_size should always be 1.
About setting value for shuffle value
By default, the samples within an epoch are shuffled prior to being exposed to the network. This is undesirable for the LSTM
because we want the network to build up state as it learns across
the sequence of observations. We can disable the shuffling of
samples by setting “shuffle” to “False“.
Scenario1 -
Using above two rules/guidelines - I ran several trials with different number of neurons, epoch size and different layers and got better results from the baseline model(persistence model).
Scenario2-
Without using above guidelines/rules - I ran several trials with different number of neurons, epoch size and different layers and got even better results than Scenario 1.
Query - Setting shuffle to True and Batch_size values to 1 for time series. Is this a rule or a guideline?
It seems logical reading the tutorial that the data for time series should not be shuffled as we do not want to change the sequence of data, but for my data the results are better if I let the data be shuffled.
At the end what I think, what matters is how I get better predictions with my runs.
I think I should try and put away "theory" over concrete evidence, such as metrics, elbows, RMSEs,etc.
Kindly enlighten.
It depends a lot on the size of your data, also in the number of variables, decreasing batch size in my experience gives better results since the update is more frequent but in huge datasets it is very expensive. And you have to play with this trade-off (training time vs result).
About your shuffle it may be the case that your data is not that correlated with the past, if that is the case shuffling the data helps the network to learn and be able to generalize (like ordered by label) check reason 7 of the following 37 reasons your neural network not working
Batch size the larger the difficult it is to generalize (reason 11). When data clearly depends on the past you can declare your LSTM in Keras to stateful, this means: "that the states computed for the samples in one batch will be reused as initial states for the samples in the next batch" according to Keras API. Hope this helps.
I am using a Bike Sharing dataset to predict the number of rentals in a day, given the input. I will use 2011 data to train and 2012 data to validate. I successfully built a linear regression model, but now I am trying to figure out how to predict time series by using Recurrent Neural Networks.
Data set has 10 attributes (such as month, working day or not, temperature, humidity, windspeed), all numerical, though an attribute is day (Sunday: 0, Monday:1 etc.).
I assume that one day can and probably will depend on previous days (and I will not need all 10 attributes), so I thought about using RNN. I don't know much, but I read some stuff and also this. I think about a structure like this.
I will have 10 input neurons, a hidden layer and 1 output neuron. I don't know how to decide on how many neurons the hidden layer will have.
I guess that I need a matrix to connect input layer to hidden layer, a matrix to connect hidden layer to output layer, and a matrix to connect hidden layers in neighbouring time-steps, t-1 to t, t to t+1. That's total of 3 matrices.
In one tutorial, activation function was sigmoid, although I'm not sure exactly, if I use sigmoid function, I will only get output between 0 and 1. What should I use as activation function? My plan is to repeat this for n times:
For each training data:
Forward propagate
Propagate the input to hidden layer, add it to propagation of previous hidden layer to current hidden layer. And pass this to activation function.
Propagate the hidden layer to output.
Find error and its derivative, store it in a list
Back propagate
Find current layers and errors from list
Find current hidden layer error
Store weight updates
Update weights (matrices) by multiplying them by learning rate.
Is this the correct way to do it? I want real numerical values as output, instead of a number between 0-1.
It seems to be the correct way to do it, if you are just wanting to learn the basics. If you want to build a neural network for practical use, this is a very poor approach and as Marcin's comment says, almost everyone who constructs neural nets for practical use do so by using packages which have an ready simulation of neural network available. Let me answer your questions one by one...
I don't know how to decide on how many neurons the hidden layer will have.
There is no golden rule to choose the right architecture for your neural network. There are many empirical rules people have established out of experience, and the right number of neurons are decided by trying out various combinations and comparing the output. A good starting point would be (3/2 times your input plus output neurons, i.e. (10+1)*(3/2)... so you could start with a 15/16 neurons in hidden layer, and then go on reducing the number based on your output.)
What should I use as activation function?
Again, there is no 'right' function. It totally depends on what suits your data. Additionally, there are many types of sigmoid functions like hyperbolic tangent, logistic, RBF, etc. A good starting point would be logistic function, but again you will only find the right function through trial and error.
Is this the correct way to do it? I want real numerical values as output, instead of a number between 0-1.
All activation functions(including the one assigned to output neuron) will give you an output of 0 to 1, and you will have to use multiplier to convert it to real values, or have some kind of encoding with multiple output neurons. Coding this manually will be complicated.
Another aspect to consider would be your training iterations. Doing it 'n' times doesn't help. You need to find the optimal training iterations with trial and error as well to avoid both under-fitting and over-fitting.
The correct way to do it would be to use packages in Python or R, which will allow you to train neural nets with large amount of customization quickly, where you can train and test multiple nets with different activation functions (and even different training algorithms) and network architecture without too much hassle. With some amount of trial and error, you will eventually find the net that gives you desirable output.
I trained a neural network using the Backpropagation algorithm. I ran the network 30 times manually, each time changing the inputs and the desired output. The outcome is that of a traditional classifier.
I tried it out with 3 different classifications. Since I ran the network 30 times with 10 inputs for each class I ended up with 3 distinct weights but the same classification had very similar weights with a very small amount of error. The network has therefore proven itself to have learned successfully.
My question is, now that the learning is complete and I have 3 distinct type of weights (1 for each classification), how could I use these in a regular feed forward network so it can classify the input automatically. I searched around to check if you can somewhat average out the weights but it looks like this is not possible. Some people mentioned bootstrapping the data:
Have I done something wrong during the backpropagation learning process? Or is there an extra step which needs to be done post the learning process with these different weights for different classes?
One way how I am imaging this is by implementing a regular feed forward network which will have all of these 3 types of weights. There will be 3 outputs and for any given input, one of the output neurons will fire which will result that the given input is mapped to that particular class.
The network architecture is as follows:
3 inputs, 2 hidden neurons, 1 output neuron
Thanks in advance
It does not make sense if you only train one class in your neural network each time, since the hidden layer can make weight combinations to 'learn' which class the input data may belong to. Learn separately will make the weights independent. The network won't know which learned weight to use if a new test input is given.
Use a vector as the output to represent the three different classes, and train the data altogether.
EDIT
P.S, I don't think the link post you provide is relevant with your case. The question in that post arises from different weights initialization (randomly) in neural network training. Sometimes people apply some seed methods to make the weight learning reproducible to avoid such a problem.
In addition to response by nikie, another possibility is to represent output as one (unique) output unit with continuous values. For example, ann classify for first class if output is in the [0, 1) interval, for second if is in the [1, 2) interval and third classes in [2, 3). This architecture is declared in letterature (and verified in my experience) to be less efficient that discrete represetnation with 3 neurons.
Is anyone here who is familiar with echo state networks? I created an echo state network in c#. The aim was just to classify inputs into GOOD and NOT GOOD ones. The input is an array of double numbers. I know that maybe for this classification echo state network isn't the best choice, but i have to do it with this method.
My problem is, that after training the network, it cannot generalize. When i run the network with foreign data (not the teaching input), i get only around 50-60% good result.
More details: My echo state network must work like a function approximator. The input of the function is an array of 17 double values, and the output is 0 or 1 (i have to classify the input into bad or good input).
So i have created a network. It contains an input layer with 17 neurons, a reservoir layer, which neron number is adjustable, and output layer containing 1 neuron for the output needed 0 or 1. In a simpler example, no output feedback is used (i tried to use output feedback as well, but nothing changed).
The inner matrix of the reservoir layer is adjustable too. I generate weights between two double values (min, max) with an adjustable sparseness ratio. IF the values are too big, it normlites the matrix to have a spectral radius lower then 1. The reservoir layer can have sigmoid and tanh activaton functions.
The input layer is fully connected to the reservoir layer with random values. So in the training state i run calculate the inner X(n) reservor activations with training data, collecting them into a matrix rowvise. Using the desired output data matrix (which is now a vector with 1 ot 0 values), i calculate the output weigths (from reservoir to output). Reservoir is fully connected to the output. If someone used echo state networks nows what im talking about. I ise pseudo inverse method for this.
The question is, how can i adjust the network so it would generalize better? To hit more than 50-60% of the desired outputs with a foreign dataset (not the training one). If i run the network again with the training dataset, it gives very good reults, 80-90%, but that i want is to generalize better.
I hope someone had this issue too with echo state networks.
If I understand correctly, you have a set of known, classified data that you train on, then you have some unknown data which you subsequently classify. You find that after training, you can reclassify your known data well, but can't do well on the unknown data. This is, I believe, called overfitting - you might want to think about being less stringent with your network, reducing node number, and/or training based on a hidden dataset.
The way people do it is, they have a training set A, a validation set B, and a test set C. You know the correct classification of A and B but not C (because you split up your known data into A and B, and C are the values you want the network to find for you). When training, you only show the network A, but at each iteration, to calculate success you use both A and B. So while training, the network tries to understand a relationship present in both A and B, by looking only at A. Because it can't see the actual input and output values in B, but only knows if its current state describes B accurately or not, this helps reduce overfitting.
Usually people seem to split 4/5 of data into A and 1/5 of it into B, but of course you can try different ratios.
In the end, you finish training, and see what the network will say about your unknown set C.
Sorry for the very general and basic answer, but perhaps it will help describe the problem better.
If your network doesn't generalize that means it's overfitting.
To reduce overfitting on a neural network, there are two ways:
get more training data
decrease the number of neurons
You also might think about the features you are feeding the network. For example, if it is a time series that repeats every week, then one feature is something like the 'day of the week' or the 'hour of the week' or the 'minute of the week'.
Neural networks need lots of data. Lots and lots of examples. Thousands. If you don't have thousands, you should choose a network with just a handful of neurons, or else use something else, like regression, that has fewer parameters, and is therefore less prone to overfitting.
Like the other answers here have suggested, this is a classic case of overfitting: your model performs well on your training data, but it does not generalize well to new test data.
Hugh's answer has a good suggestion, which is to reduce the number of parameters in your model (i.e., by shrinking the size of the reservoir), but I'm not sure whether it would be effective for an ESN, because the problem complexity that an ESN can solve grows proportional to the logarithm of the size of the reservoir. Reducing the size of your model might actually make the model not work as well, though this might be necessary to avoid overfitting for this type of model.
Superbest's solution is to use a validation set to stop training as soon as performance on the validation set stops improving, a technique called early stopping. But, as you noted, because you use offline regression to compute the output weights of your ESN, you cannot use a validation set to determine when to stop updating your model parameters---early stopping only works for online training algorithms.
However, you can use a validation set in another way: to regularize the coefficients of your regression! Here's how it works:
Split your training data into a "training" part (usually 80-90% of the data you have available) and a "validation" part (the remaining 10-20%).
When you compute your regression, instead of using vanilla linear regression, use a regularized technique like ridge regression, lasso regression, or elastic net regression. Use only the "training" part of your dataset for computing the regression.
All of these regularized regression techniques have one or more "hyperparameters" that balance the model fit against its complexity. The "validation" dataset is used to set these parameter values: you can do this using grid search, evolutionary methods, or any other hyperparameter optimization technique. Generally speaking, these methods work by choosing values for the hyperparameters, fitting the model using the "training" dataset, and measuring the fitted model's performance on the "validation" dataset. Repeat N times and choose the model that performs best on the "validation" set.
You can learn more about regularization and regression at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares#Regularized_versions, or by looking it up in a machine learning or statistics textbook.
Also, read more about cross-validation techniques at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics).