Is there a theoretical argument in favor of or against using a single multi-output NN to do multi-class classification vs. using several one-vs-all NNs ?
In both cases once all output values are obtained, the same decision rule is used: the output with highest activation "wins" and decides which class the prediction returns.
But I wonder whether -and why- it's better or worse to have all outputs calculated on the same NN rather than separately.
Mostly I am against doing multiple classifications using the same neural network structure. This is very uncommon in other AI constructs. You don't do this with a Support Vector Machine, or Decision Tree. I think that it somewhat muddles the problem.
The argument in favor of it is that your hidden layers are simply lower level feature detectors. Your multiple classification (or regression too for that matter) output neurons are now independently using the lower-level features that your input and hidden layers are passing up.
I have not experimented with combining these into the same ANN vs separate. My guess is that the degree of success will have to do with the similarity between what the multiple classifications are trying to accomplish.
Related
If a dataset contains multi categories, e.g. 0-class, 1-class and 2-class. Now the goal is to divide new samples into 0-class or non-0-class.
One can
combine 1,2-class into a unified non-0-class and train a binary classifier,
or train a multi-class classifier to do binary classification.
How is the performance of these two approaches?
I think more categories will bring about a more accurate discriminant surface, however the weights of 1- and 2- classes are both lower than non-0-class, resulting in less samples be judged as non-0-class.
Short answer: You would have to try both and see.
Why?: It would really depend on your data and the algorithm you use (just like for many other machine learning questions..)
For many classification algorithms (e.g. SVM, Logistic Regression), even if you want to do a multi-class classification, you would have to perform a one-vs-all classification, which means you would have to treat class 1 and class 2 as the same class. Therefore, there is no point running a multi-class scenario if you just need to separate out the 0.
For algorithms such as Neural Networks, where having multiple output classes is more natural, I think training a multi-class classifier might be more beneficial if your classes 0, 1 and 2 are very distinct. However, this means you would have to choose a more complex algorithm to fit all three. But the fit would possibly be nicer. Therefore, as already mentioned, you would really have to try both approaches and use a good metric to evaluate the performance (e.g. confusion matrices, F-score, etc..)
I hope this is somewhat helpful.
I understand all the computational steps of training a neural network with gradient descent using forwardprop and backprop, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why they work so much better than logistic regression.
For now all I can think of is:
A) the neural network can learn it's own parameters
B) there are many more weights than simple logistic regression thus allowing for more complex hypotheses
Can someone explain why a neural network works so well in general? I am a relative beginner.
Neural Networks can have a large number of free parameters (the weights and biases between interconnected units) and this gives them the flexibility to fit highly complex data (when trained correctly) that other models are too simple to fit. This model complexity brings with it the problems of training such a complex network and ensuring the resultant model generalises to the examples it’s trained on (typically neural networks require large volumes of training data, that other models don't).
Classically logistic regression has been limited to binary classification using a linear classifier (although multi-class classification can easily be achieved with one-vs-all, one-vs-one approaches etc. and there are kernalised variants of logistic regression that allow for non-linear classification tasks). In general therefore, logistic regression is typically applied to more simple, linearly-separable classification tasks, where small amounts of training data are available.
Models such as logistic regression and linear regression can be thought of as simple multi-layer perceptrons (check out this site for one explanation of how).
To conclude, it’s the model complexity that allows neural nets to solve more complex classification tasks, and to have a broader application (particularly when applied to raw data such as image pixel intensities etc.), but their complexity means that large volumes of training data are required and training them can be a difficult task.
Recently Dr. Naftali Tishby's idea of Information Bottleneck to explain the effectiveness of deep neural networks is making the rounds in the academic circles.
His video explaining the idea (link below) can be rather dense so I'll try to give the distilled/general form of the core idea to help build intuition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL07WEc2TRI
To ground your thinking, vizualize the MNIST task of classifying the digit in the image. For this, I am only talking about simple fully-connected neural networks (not Convolutional NN as is typically used for MNIST)
The input to a NN contains information about the output hidden inside of it. Some function is needed to transform the input to the output form. Pretty obvious.
The key difference in thinking needed to build better intuition is to think of the input as a signal with "information" in it (I won't go into information theory here). Some of this information is relevant for the task at hand (predicting the output). Think of the output as also a signal with a certain amount of "information". The neural network tries to "successively refine" and compress the input signal's information to match the desired output signal. Think of each layer as cutting away at the unneccessary parts of the input information, and
keeping and/or transforming the output information along the way through the network.
The fully-connected neural network will transform the input information into a form in the final hidden layer, such that it is linearly separable by the output layer.
This is a very high-level and fundamental interpretation of the NN, and I hope it will help you see it clearer. If there are parts you'd like me to clarify, let me know.
There are other essential pieces in Dr.Tishby's work, such as how minibatch noise helps training, and how the weights of a neural network layer can be seen as doing a random walk within the constraints of the problem.
These parts are a little more detailed, and I'd recommend first toying with neural networks and taking a course on Information Theory to help build your understanding.
Consider you have a large dataset and you want to build a binary classification model for that, Now you have two options that you have pointed out
Logistic Regression
Neural Networks ( Consider FFN for now )
Each node in a neural network will be associated with an activation function for example let's choose Sigmoid since Logistic regression also uses sigmoid internally to make decision.
Let's see how the decision of logistic regression looks when applied on the data
See some of the green spots present in the red boundary?
Now let's see the decision boundary of neural network (Forgive me for using a different color)
Why this happens? Why does the decision boundary of neural network is so flexible which gives more accurate results than Logistic regression?
or the question you asked is "Why neural networks works so well ?" is because of it's hidden units or hidden layers and their representation power.
Let me put it this way.
You have a logistic regression model and a Neural network which has say 100 neurons each of Sigmoid activation. Now each neuron will be equivalent to one logistic regression.
Now assume a hundred logistic units trained together to solve one problem versus one logistic regression model. Because of these hidden layers the decision boundary expands and yields better results.
While you are experimenting you can add more number of neurons and see how the decision boundary is changing. A logistic regression is same as a neural network with single neuron.
The above given is just an example. Neural networks can be trained to get very complex decision boundaries
Neural networks allow the person training them to algorithmically discover features, as you pointed out. However, they also allow for very general nonlinearity. If you wish, you can use polynomial terms in logistic regression to achieve some degree of nonlinearity, however, you must decide which terms you will use. That is you must decide a priori which model will work. Neural networks can discover the nonlinear model that is needed.
'Work so well' depends on the concrete scenario. Both of them do essentially the same thing: predicting.
The main difference here is neural network can have hidden nodes for concepts, if it's propperly set up (not easy), using these inputs to make the final decission.
Whereas linear regression is based on more obvious facts, and not side effects. A neural network should de able to make more accurate predictions than linear regression.
Neural networks excel at a variety of tasks, but to get an understanding of exactly why, it may be easier to take a particular task like classification and dive deeper.
In simple terms, machine learning techniques learn a function to predict which class a particular input belongs to, depending on past examples. What sets neural nets apart is their ability to construct these functions that can explain even complex patterns in the data. The heart of a neural network is an activation function like Relu, which allows it to draw some basic classification boundaries like:
Example classification boundaries of Relus
By composing hundreds of such Relus together, neural networks can create arbitrarily complex classification boundaries, for example:
Composing classification boundaries
The following article tries to explain the intuition behind how neural networks work: https://medium.com/machine-intelligence-report/how-do-neural-networks-work-57d1ab5337ce
Before you step into neural network see if you have assessed all aspects of normal regression.
Use this as a guide
and even before you discard normal regression - for curved type of dependencies - you should strongly consider kernels with SVM
Neural networks are defined with an objective and loss function. The only process that happens within a neural net is to optimize for the objective function by reducing the loss function or error. The back propagation helps in finding the optimized objective function and reach our output with an output condition.
I was learning about different techniques for classification, like probablistic classifiers etc , and stubled upon the question Why cant we implement a binary classifier as a Regression function of all the attributes and classify on the basis of the output of the function , say if the output is less than a certain value it belongs to class A , else in class B . Is there any limitation to this method compared to probablistic approach ?
You can do this and it is often done in practice, for example in Logistic Regression. It is not even limited to binary classes. There is no inherent limitation compared to a probabilistic approach, although you should keep in mind that both are fundamentally different approaches and hard to compare.
I think you have some misunderstanding in classification. No matter what kind of classifier you are using (svm, or logistic regression), you can always view the output model as
f(x)>b ===> positive
f(x) negative
This applies to both probabilistic model and non-probabilistic model. In fact, this is something related to risk minimization which results the cut-off branch naturally.
Yes, this is possible. For example, a perceptron does exactly that.
However, it is limited in its use to linearly separable problems. But multiple of them can be combined to solve arbitrarily complex problems in general neural networks.
Another machine learning technique, SVM, works in a similar way. It first transforms the input data into some high dimensional space and then separates it via a linear function.
I'm having trouble with some of the concepts in machine learning through neural networks. One of them is backpropagation. In the weight updating equation,
delta_w = a*(t - y)*g'(h)*x
t is the "target output", which would be your class label, or something, in the case of supervised learning. But what would the "target output" be for unsupervised learning?
Can someone kindly provide an example of how you'd use BP in unsupervised learning, specifically for clustering of classification?
Thanks in advance.
The most common thing to do is train an autoencoder, where the desired outputs are equal to the inputs. This makes the network try to learn a representation that best "compresses" the input distribution.
Here's a patent describing a different approach, where the output labels are assigned randomly and then sometimes flipped based on convergence rates. It seems weird to me, but okay.
I'm not familiar with other methods that use backpropogation for clustering or other unsupervised tasks. Clustering approaches with ANNs seem to use other algorithms (example 1, example 2).
I'm not sure which unsupervised machine learning algorithm uses backpropagation specifically; if there is one I haven't heard of it. Can you point to an example?
Backpropagation is used to compute the derivatives of the error function for training an artificial neural network with respect to the weights in the network. It's named as such because the "errors" are "propagating" through the network "backwards". You need it in this case because the final error with respect to the target depends on a function of functions (of functions ... depending on how many layers in your ANN.) The derivatives allow you to then adjust the values to improve the error function, tempered by the learning rate (this is gradient descent).
In unsupervised algorithms, you don't need to do this. For example, in k-Means, where you are trying to minimize the mean squared error (MSE), you can minimize the error directly at each step given the assignments; no gradients needed. In other clustering models, such as a mixture of Gaussians, the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm is much more powerful and accurate than any gradient-descent based method.
What you might be asking is about unsupervised feature learning and deep learning.
Feature learning is the only unsupervised method I can think of with respect of NN or its recent variant.(a variant called mixture of RBM's is there analogous to mixture of gaussians but you can build a lot of models based on the two). But basically Two models I am familiar with are RBM's(restricted boltzman machines) and Autoencoders.
Autoencoders(optionally sparse activations can be encoded in optimization function) are just feedforward neural networks which tune its weights in such a way that the output is a reconstructed input. Multiple hidden layers can be used but the weight initialization uses a greedy layer wise training for better starting point. So to answer the question the target function will be input itself.
RBM's are stochastic networks usually interpreted as graphical model which has restrictions on connections. In this setting there is no output layer and the connection between input and latent layer is bidirectional like an undirected graphical model. What it tries to learn is a distribution on inputs(observed and unobserved variables). Here also your answer would be input is the target.
Mixture of RBM's(analogous to mixture of gaussians) can be used for soft clustering or KRBM(analogous to K-means) can be used for hard clustering. Which in effect feels like learning multiple non-linear subspaces.
http://deeplearning.net/tutorial/rbm.html
http://ufldl.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/UFLDL_Tutorial
An alternative approach is to use something like generative backpropagation. In this scenario, you train a neural network updating the weights AND the input values. The given values are used as the output values since you can compute an error value directly. This approach has been used in dimensionality reduction, matrix completion (missing value imputation) among other applications. For more information, see non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA) and unsupervised backpropagation (UBP) which uses the idea of generative backpropagation. UBP extends NLPCA by introducing a pre-training stage. An implementation of UBP and NLPCA and unsupervised backpropagation can be found in the waffles machine learning toolkit. The documentation for UBP and NLPCA can be found using the nlpca command.
To use back-propagation for unsupervised learning it is merely necessary to set t, the target output, at each stage of the algorithm to the class for which the average distance to each element of the class before updating is least. In short we always try to train the ANN to place its input into the class whose members are most similar in terms of our input. Because this process is sensitive to input scale it is necessary to first normalize the input data in each dimension by subtracting the average and dividing by the standard deviation for each component in order to calculate the distance in a scale-invariant manner.
The advantage to using a back-prop neural network rather than a simple distance from a center definition of the clusters is that neural networks can allow for more complex and irregular boundaries between clusters.
I should decide between SVM and neural networks for some image processing application. The classifier must be fast enough for near-real-time application and accuracy is important too. Since this is a medical application, it is important that the classifier has the low failure rate.
which one is better choice?
A couple of provisos:
performance of a ML classifier can refer to either (i) performance of the classifier itself; or (ii) performance of the predicate step: execution speed of the model-building algorithm. Particularly in this case, the answer is quite different depending on which of the two is intended in the OP, so i'll answer each separately.
second, by Neural Network, i'll assume you're referring to the most common implementation--i.e., a feed-forward, back-propagating single-hidden-layer perceptron.
Training Time (execution speed of the model builder)
For SVM compared to NN: SVMs are much slower. There is a straightforward reason for this: SVM training requires solving the associated Lagrangian dual (rather than primal) problem. This is a quadratic optimization problem in which the number of variables is very large--i.e., equal to the number of training instances (the 'length' of your data matrix).
In practice, two factors, if present in your scenario, could nullify this advantage:
NN training is trivial to parallelize (via map reduce); parallelizing SVM training is not trivial, but it's also not impossible--within the past eight or so years, several implementations have been published and proven to work (https://bibliographie.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/49015/pdf/tech_21.pdf)
mult-class classification problem SVMs are two-class classifiers.They can be adapted for multi-class problems, but this is never straightforward because SVMs use direct decision functions. (An excellent source for modifying SVMs to multi-class problems is S. Abe, Support Vector Machines for Pattern Classification, Springer, 2005). This modification could wipe out any performance advantage SVMs have over NNs: So for instance, if your data has
more than two classes and you chose to configure the SVM using
successive classificstaion (aka one-against-many classification) in
which data is fed to a first SVM classifier which classifiers the
data point either class I or other; if the class is other then
the data point is fed to a second classifier which classifies it
class II or other, etc.
Prediction Performance (execution speed of the model)
Performance of an SVM is substantially higher compared to NN. For a three-layer (one hidden-layer) NN, prediction requires successive multiplication of an input vector by two 2D matrices (the weight matrices). For SVM, classification involves determining on which side of the decision boundary a given point lies, in other words a cosine product.
Prediction Accuracy
By "failure rate" i assume you mean error rate rather than failure of the classifier in production use. If the latter, then there is very little if any difference between SVM and NN--both models are generally numerically stable.
Comparing prediction accuracy of the two models, and assuming both are competently configured and trained, the SVM will outperform the NN.
The superior resolution of SVM versus NN is well documented in the scientific literature. It is true that such a comparison depends on the data, the configuration, and parameter choice of the two models. In fact, this comparison has been so widely studied--over perhaps all conceivable parameter space--and the results so consistent, that even the existence of a few exceptions (though i'm not aware of any) under impractical circumstances shouldn't interfere with the conclusion that SVMs outperform NNs.
Why does SVM outperform NN?
These two models are based on fundamentally different learing strategies.
In NN, network weights (the NN's fitting parameters, adjusted during training) are adjusted such that the sum-of-square error between the network output and the actual value (target) is minimized.
Training an SVM, by contrast, means an explicit determination of the decision boundaries directly from the training data. This is of course required as the predicate step to the optimization problem required to build an SVM model: minimizing the aggregate distance between the maximum-margin hyperplane and the support vectors.
In practice though it is harder to configure the algorithm to train an SVM. The reason is due to the large (compared to NN) number of parameters required for configuration:
choice of kernel
selection of kernel parameters
selection of the value of the margin parameter