I developed a image processing program that identifies what a number is given an image of numbers. Each image was 27x27 pixels = 729 pixels. I take each R, G and B value which means I have 2187 variables from each image (+1 for the intercept = total of 2188).
I used the below gradient descent formula:
Repeat {
θj = θj−α/m∑(hθ(x)−y)xj
}
Where θj is the coefficient on variable j; α is the learning rate; hθ(x) is the hypothesis; y is real value and xj is the value of variable j. m is the number of training sets. hθ(x), y are for each training set (i.e. that's what the summation sign is for). Further the hypothesis is defined as:
hθ(x) = 1/(1+ e^-z)
z= θo + θ1X1+θ2X2 +θ3X3...θnXn
With this, and 3000 training images, I was able to train my program in just over an hour and when tested on a cross validation set, it was able to identify the correct image ~ 67% of the time.
I wanted to improve that so I decided to attempt a polynomial of degree 2.
However the number of variables jumps from 2188 to 2,394,766 per image! It takes me an hour just to do 1 step of gradient descent.
So my question is, how is this vast number of variables handled in machine learning? On the one hand, I don't have enough space to even hold that many variables for each training set. On the other hand, I am currently storing 2188 variables per training sample, but I have to perform O(n^2) just to get the values of each variable multiplied by another variable (i.e. the polynomial to degree 2 values).
So any suggestions / advice is greatly appreciated.
try to use some dimensionality reduction first (PCA, kernel PCA, or LDA if you are classifying the images)
vectorize your gradient descent - with most math libraries or in matlab etc. it will run much faster
parallelize the algorithm and then run in on multiple CPUs (but maybe your library for multiplying vectors already supports parallel computations)
Along with Jirka-x1's answer, I would first say that this is one of the key differences in working with image data than say text data for ML: high dimensionality.
Second... this is a duplicate, see How to approach machine learning problems with high dimensional input space?
Related
I have 38 variables, like oxygen, temperature, pressure, etc and have a task to determine the total yield produced every day from these variables. When I calculate the regression coefficients and intercept value, they seem to be abnormal and very high (Impractical). For example, if 'temperature' coefficient was found to be +375.456, I could not give a meaning to them saying an increase in one unit in temperature would increase yield by 375.456g. That's impractical in my scenario. However, the prediction accuracy seems right. I would like to know, how to interpret these huge intercept( -5341.27355) and huge beta values shown below. One other important point is that I removed multicolinear columns and also, I am not scaling the variables/normalizing them because I need beta coefficients to have meaning such that I could say, increase in temperature by one unit increases yield by 10g or so. Your inputs are highly appreciated!
modl.intercept_
Out[375]: -5341.27354961415
modl.coef_
Out[376]:
array([ 1.38096017e+00, -7.62388829e+00, 5.64611255e+00, 2.26124164e-01,
4.21908571e-01, 4.50695302e-01, -8.15167717e-01, 1.82390184e+00,
-3.32849969e+02, 3.31942553e+02, 3.58830763e+02, -2.05076898e-01,
-3.06404757e+02, 7.86012402e+00, 3.21339318e+02, -7.00817205e-01,
-1.09676321e+04, 1.91481734e+00, 6.02929848e+01, 8.33731416e+00,
-6.23433431e+01, -1.88442804e+00, 6.86526274e+00, -6.76103795e+01,
-1.11406021e+02, 2.48270706e+02, 2.94836048e+01, 1.00279016e+02,
1.42906659e-02, -2.13019683e-03, -6.71427100e+02, -2.03158515e+02,
9.32094007e-03, 5.56457014e+01, -2.91724945e+00, 4.78691176e-01,
8.78121854e+00, -4.93696073e+00])
It's very unlikely that all of these variables are linearly correlated, so I would suggest that you have a look at simple non-linear regression techniques, such as Decision Trees or Kernel Ridge Regression. These are however more difficult to interpret.
Going back to your issue, these high weights might well be due to there being some high amount of correlation between the variables, or that you simply don't have very much training data.
If you instead of linear regression use Lasso Regression, the solution is biased away from high regression coefficients, and the fit will likely improve as well.
A small example on how to do this in scikit-learn, including cross validation of the regularization hyper-parameter:
from sklearn.linear_model LassoCV
# Make up some data
n_samples = 100
n_features = 5
X = np.random.random((n_samples, n_features))
# Make y linear dependent on the features
y = np.sum(np.random.random((1,n_features)) * X, axis=1)
model = LassoCV(cv=5, n_alphas=100, fit_intercept=True)
model.fit(X,y)
print(model.intercept_)
If you have a linear regression, the formula looks like this (y= target, x= features inputs):
y= x1*b1 +x2*b2 + x3*b3 + x4*b4...+ c
where b1,b2,b3,b4... are your modl.coef_. AS you already realized one of your bigges number is 3.319+02 = 331 and the intercept is also quite big with -5431.
As you already mentioned the coeffiecient variables means how much the target variable changes, if the coeffiecient feature changes with 1 unit and all others features are constant.
so for your interpretation, the higher the absoult coeffienct, the higher the influence of your analysis. But it is important to note that the model is using a lot of high coefficient, that means your model is not depending only of one variable
For my deep learning assignment I need to design a image classification network. There this constraint in the assignment I can have 500,000 number of hidden/tunable parameters at most in this design.
How can I count or observe the number of these hidden parameters especially if I am using this tensor flow tutorial as initial code/design.
Thanks in advance
How can I count or observe the number of these hidden parameters especially if I am using this tensor flow tutorial as initial code/design.
Instead of me doing the work for you I'll show you how to count free parameters
Glancing quickly it looks like the code at cifar10 uses layers of max pooling, convolution, bias, fully connected weights. Let's review how many free parameters each of these layers adds to your architecture.
max pooling : FREE! That's right, there are no "free parameters" from max pooling.
conv : Convolutions are defined using parameters like [1,3,3,1] where the numbers correspond to your tensor like so [batch_size, CONV_SIZE, CONV_SIZE, FEATURE_DEPTH]. Multiply all the dimension sizes together to find the total size of your free parameters. In the case of [1,3,3,1], the total is 1x3x3x1 = 9.
bias : A Bias is similar to convolutions in that it is defined by a shape like [10] or [1,342,342,3]. Same thing, just multiply all dimension sizes together to get the total free parameters. Sometimes a bias is just a single number, which means a size of 1.
fully connected : A fully connected layer usually has a 2d shape like [1024,32]. This means that it is a 2d matrix, and you calculate the total free parameters just like the convolution. In this example [1024,32] has 1024x32 = 32,768 free parameters.
Finally you add up all the free parameters from all the layers and that is your total number of free parameters.
500 000 parmeters? You use an R, G and B value of each pixel? If yes there is some problems
1. too much data (long calculating time)
2. in image clasification companys always use some other image analysis technique(preprocesing) befor throwing data into NN. if you have to identical images. Second is moved by one piksel. For the network they can be very diffrend.
Imagine other neural network. Use two parameters maybe weight and height. If you swap this parametrs what will happend.
Yes during learning of your image network can decrease this effect but when I made experiments with 5x5 binary images that was very hard to network. I start using 4 layers but this help only a little.
The image used to lerning can be good clasified, after destoring also but mooving for one pixel and you have a problem.
If no make eksperiments or use genetic algoritm to find it.
After laerning you should use some algoritm to find dates with network recognize as "no important"(big differnce beetwen weight of this input and the rest, If this input weight are too close to 0 network "think" it is no important)
I am working on a project where I have to implement SVM machine learning algorithm. I am trying to predict the forearm movement intention. I am using accelometer (attached to my forearm) for measuring the angle change for x,y,z axes. I have never used machine before. The problem I am having is I do not exactly know how to structure the training set. I know the angle changes for each of the axis and I know i.e if x=45 degrees, y = 65 degrees, z=30 degrees gesture performed i performed is flexion. I would like to implement 3 gestures.So the data I am having is :
x y z Target
20 60 90 flexion
100 63 23 internal rotation
89 23 74 twist
.
.
.
.
I have a file with around 2000 entries. I know, I have to normalize the training set so the data are scaled. I would like to scale it so they are in range [0.9, 0.1]. The problem is that I do not know how to represent the target in my training set. Can I just use random numbers as 1 for flexion, 2 for internal rotation, 3 for twist??
Also once the training is completed, can I do the predictions based on values for x,y,z only?? without having to supply the target value. Is my understanding correct??
First of all, I suggest that you not scale or code your data. Leave it in human-readable form. Rather, write front-end routines to perform these tasks, and back-end routines to reverse the process. Also have internal routines that can display the data in the internal forms. Doing these up front will greatly enhance your debugging later on.
Yes, you will likely want to code your classifications as 1, 2, 3. Another possibility is to have a "one-hot" ordered triple: (1,0,0) or (0,1,0) or (0,0,1). However, most SVM algorithms are set up for scalar output. Also, note that the typical treatment for a multi-class algorithm is to run three separate SVM calculations, "one against all". For each class, you take that class as "plus" data and all the others as "minus" data.
Scaling data is important for regression convergence. If you're building your SVM via complete and direct computation of the support vectors, you don't need to scale numbers that are in compatible ranges, such as these. If you're doing it by some sort of iterative approximation, you still won't need it for this data -- but keep it in mind for the future.
Yes, prediction gives only the inputs: x, y, z. It will return the target classification. That's the purpose of supervised learning: summarize experience to classify the future.
I use libsvm to classify a data base that contain 1000 labels. I am new in libsvm and I found a problem to choose the parameters c and g to improve performance. First, here is the program that I use to set the parameters:
bestcv = 0;
for log2c = -1:3,
for log2g = -4:1,
cmd = ['-v 5 -c ', num2str(2^log2c), ' -g ', num2str(2^log2g)];
cv = svmtrain(yapp, xapp, cmd);
if (cv >= bestcv),
bestcv = cv; bestc = 2^log2c; bestg = 2^log2g;
end
fprintf('%g %g %g (best c=%g, g=%g, rate=%g)\n', log2c, log2g, cv, bestc, bestg, bestcv);
end
end
as a result, this program gives c = 8 and g = 2 and when I use these values
c and g, I found an accuracy rate of 55%. for classification, I use svm one against all.
numLabels=max(yapp);
numTest=size(ytest,1);
%# train one-against-all models
model = cell(numLabels,1);
for k=1:numLabels
model{k} = svmtrain(double(yapp==k),xapp, ' -c 1000 -g 10 -b 1 ');
end
%# get probability estimates of test instances using each model
prob_black = zeros(numTest,numLabels);
for k=1:numLabels
[~,~,p] = svmpredict(double(ytest==k), xtest, model{k}, '-b 1');
prob_black(:,k) = p(:,model{k}.Label==1); %# probability of class==k
end
%# predict the class with the highest probability
[~,pred_black] = max(prob_black,[],2);
acc = sum(pred_black == ytest) ./ numel(ytest) %# accuracy
The problem is that I need to change these parameters to increase performance. for example, when I put randomly c = 10000 and g = 100, I found a better accuracy rate: 70%.
Please I need help, how can I set theses parameters ( c and g) so to find the optimum accuracy rate? thank you in advance
Hyperparameter tuning is a nontrivial problem in machine learning. The simplest approach is what you've already implemented: define a grid of values, and compute the model on the grid until you find some optimal combination. A key assumption is that the grid itself is a good approximation of the surface: that it's fine enough to not miss anything important, but not so fine that you waste time computing values that are essentially the same as neighboring values. I'm not aware of any method to, in general, know ahead of time how fine a grid is necessary. As illustration: imagine that the global optimum is at $(5,5)$ and the function is basically flat elsewhere. If your grid is $(0,0),(0,10),(10,10),(0,10)$, you'll miss the optimum completely. Likewise, if the grid is $(0,0), (-10,-10),(-10,0),(0,-10)$, you'll never be anywhere near the optimum. In both cases, you have no hope of finding the optimum itself.
Some rules of thumb exist for SVM with RBF kernels, though: a grid of $\gamma\in\{2^{-15},2^{-14},...,2^5\}$ and $C \in \{2^{-5}, 2^{-4},...,2^{15}\}$ is one such recommendation.
If you found a better solution outside of the range of grid values that you tested, this suggests you should define a larger grid. But larger grids take more time to evaluate, so you'll either have to commit to waiting a while for your results, or move to a more efficient method of exploring the hyperparameter space.
Another alternative is random search: define a "budget" of the number of SVMs that you want to try out, and generate that many random tuples to test. This approach is mostly just useful for benchmarking purposes, since it's entirely unintelligent.
Both grid search and random search have the advantage of being stupidly easy to implement in parallel.
Better options fall in the domain of global optimization. Marc Claeson et al have devised the Optunity package, which uses particle swarm optimization. My research focuses on refinements of the Efficient Global Optimization algorithm (EGO), which builds up a Gaussian process as an approximation of the hyperparameter response surface and uses that to make educated predictions about which hyperparameter tuples are most likely to improve upon the current best estimate.
Imagine that you've evaluated the SVM at some hyperparameter tuple $(\gamma, C)$ and it has some out-of-sample performance metric $y$. An advantage to EGO-inspired methods is that it assumes that the values $y^*$ nearby $(\gamma,C)$ will be "close" to $y$, so we don't necessarily need to spend time exploring those tuples nearby, especially if $y-y_{min}$ is very large (where $y_{min}$ is the smallest $y$ value we've discovered). EGO will identify and evaluate the SVM at points where it estimates there is a high probability of improvement, so it will intelligently move through the hyper-parameter space: in the ideal case, it will skip over regions of low performance in favor of focusing on regions of high performance.
My dataset has m features and n data points. Let w be a vector (to be estimated). I'm trying to implement gradient descent with stochastic update method. My minimizing function is least mean square.
The update algorithm is shown below:
for i = 1 ... n data:
for t = 1 ... m features:
w_t = w_t - alpha * (<w>.<x_i> - <y_i>) * x_t
where <x> is a raw vector of m features, <y> is a column vector of true labels, and alpha is a constant.
My questions:
Now according to wiki, I don't need to go through all data points and I can stop when error is small enough. Is it true?
I don't understand what should be the stopping criterion here. If anyone can help with this that would be great.
With this formula - which I used in for loop - is it correct? I believe (<w>.<x_i> - <y_i>) * x_t is my ∆Q(w).
Now according to wiki, I don't need to go through all data points and I can stop when error is small enough. Is it true?
This is especially true when you have a really huge training set and going through all the data points is so expensive. Then, you would check the convergence criterion after K stochastic updates (i.e. after processing K training examples). While it's possible, it doesn't make much sense to do this with a small training set. Another thing people do is randomizing the order in which training examples are processed to avoid having too many correlated examples in a raw which may result in "fake" convergence.
I don't understand what should be the stopping criterion here. If anyone can help with this that would be great.
There are a few options. I recommend trying as many of them and deciding based on empirical results.
difference in the objective function for the training data is smaller than a threshold.
difference in the objective function for held-out data (aka. development data, validation data) is smaller than a threshold. The held-out examples should NOT include any of the examples used for training (i.e. for stochastic updates) nor include any of the examples in the test set used for evaluation.
the total absolute difference in parameters w is smaller than a threshold.
in 1, 2, and 3 above, instead of specifying a threshold, you could specify a percentage. For example, a reasonable stopping criterion is to stop training when |squared_error(w) - squared_error(previous_w)| < 0.01 * squared_error(previous_w) $$.
sometimes, we don't care if we have the optimal parameters. We just want to improve the parameters we originally had. In such case, it's reasonable to preset a number of iterations over the training data and stop after that regardless of whether the objective function actually converged.
With this formula - which I used in for loop - is it correct? I believe (w.x_i - y_i) * x_t is my ∆Q(w).
It should be 2 * (w.x_i - y_i) * x_t but it's not a big deal given that you're multiplying by the learning rate alpha anyway.