I am working on a project for uni which requires markerless relative pose estimation. To do this I take two images and match n features in certain locations of the picture. From these points I can find vectors between these points which, when included with distance, can be used to estimate the new postition of the camera.
The project is required to be deplyoable on mobile devices so the algorithm needs to be efficient. A thought I had to make it more efficient would be to take these vectors and put them into a Neural Network which could take the vectors and output an estimation of the xyz movement vector based on the input.
The question I have is if a NN could be appropriate for this situation if sufficiently trained? and, if so, how would I calculate the number of hidden units I would need and what the best activation function would be?
Using a neural network for your application can very well work, however, I feel you will need a lot of training samples to allow the network to generalize. Of course, this also depends on the type and number of poses you're dealing with. It sounds to me that with some clever maths it might be possible to derive the movement vector directly from the input vector -- if by any chance you can come up with a way of doing that (or provide more information so others can think about it too), that would very much be preferred, as in that case you would include prior knowledge you have about the task instead of relying on the NN to learn it from data.
If you decide to go ahead with the NN approach, keep the following in mind:
Divide your data into training and validation set. This allows you to make sure that the network doesn't overfit. You train using the training set and determine the quality of a particular network using the error on the validation set. The ratio of training/validation depends on the amount of data you have. A large validation set (e.g., 50% of your data) will allow more precise conclusions about the quality of the trained network, but often you have too few data to afford this. However, in any case I would suggest to use at least 10% of your data for validation.
As to the number of hidden units, a rule of thumb is to have at least 10 training examples for each free parameter, i.e., each weight. So assuming you have a 3-layer network with 4 inputs, 10 hidden units, and 3 output units, where each hidden unit and the output units have additionally a bias weight, you would have (4+1) * 10 + (10+1) * 3 = 83 free parameters/weights. In general you should experiment with the number of hidden units and also the number of hidden layers. From my experience 4-layer networks (i.e., 2 hidden layers) work better than 3-layer network, but that depends on the problem. Since you also have the validation set, you can find out what network architecture and size works without having to fear overfitting.
For the activation function you should use some sigmoid function to allow for non-linear behavior. I like the hyperbolic tangent for its symmetry, but from my experience you can just as well use the logistic function.
Related
I'm using a neural network to control the movement of a character in a game. I've currently got a huge amount of dimensions and in the interest of trimming them to improve storage and code manageability, I'm considering removing all derived variables i.e. any variable which can be calculated from data already sent into to the network.
An example of this would be the relationship between a) position, b) velocity, and c) acceleration along a path. Currently, I send the last 50 data points of all three to the NN to help it decide its next movement. However, I wonder if system control / error could be minimized just as easily by sending only position. Theoretically the neural network should be able to derive the velocity and acceleration at a point in time entirely on it's own given the position history.
Generally, is dimension reduction in this capacity recommended? Why or why not?
I know the oft recommendation in this scenario is just to test it and see what happens, but in this case there are so many variables here that it would take days to test, so I was hoping to hear anyone's experience given this type of situation and what they surmise the general rule to be.
Bonus question--would this assessment / decision be different for a neural network (intent on mapping functions to data) as opposed to a random forest (seems to use more of a nearest neighbor approach).
Thanks!!
Implement PCA to reduce the number of features. They reduced features will have unusual units like [positionvelocityacceleration]. However, if you do PCA correctly you can retain a feature set that has 99% variance of the original set.
Then use the new feature set in your NN.
Reducing dimensions is recommended to speed-up algorithms because, as you observed, there is a lot of similarity between your features.
I Wrote a simple recurrent neural network (7 neurons, each one is initially connected to all the neurons) and trained it using a genetic algorithm to learn "complicated", non-linear functions like 1/(1+x^2). As the training set, I used 20 values within the range [-5,5] (I tried to use more than 20 but the results were not changed dramatically).
The network can learn this range pretty well, and when given examples of other points within this range, it can predict the value of the function. However, it can not extrapolate correctly and predicting the values of the function outside the range [-5,5]. What are the reasons for that and what can I do to improve its extrapolation abilities?
Thanks!
Neural networks are not extrapolation methods (no matter - recurrent or not), this is completely out of their capabilities. They are used to fit a function on the provided data, they are completely free to build model outside the subspace populated with training points. So in non very strict sense one should think about them as an interpolation method.
To make things clear, neural network should be capable of generalizing the function inside subspace spanned by the training samples, but not outside of it
Neural network is trained only in the sense of consistency with training samples, while extrapolation is something completely different. Simple example from "H.Lohninger: Teach/Me Data Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York-Tokyo, 1999. ISBN 3-540-14743-8" shows how NN behave in this context
All of these networks are consistent with training data, but can do anything outside of this subspace.
You should rather reconsider your problem's formulation, and if it can be expressed as a regression or classification problem then you can use NN, otherwise you should think about some completely different approach.
The only thing, which can be done to somehow "correct" what is happening outside the training set is to:
add artificial training points in the desired subspace (but this simply grows the training set, and again - outside of this new set, network's behavious is "random")
add strong regularization, which will force network to create very simple model, but model's complexity will not guarantee any extrapolation strength, as two model's of exactly the same complexity can have for example completely different limits in -/+ infinity.
Combining above two steps can help building model which to some extent "extrapolates", but this, as stated before, is not a purpose of a neural network.
As far as I know this is only possible with networks which do have the echo property. See Echo State Networks on scholarpedia.org.
These networks are designed for arbitrary signal learning and are capable to remember their behavior.
You can also take a look at this tutorial.
The nature of your post(s) suggests that what you're referring to as "extrapolation" would be more accurately defined as "sequence recognition and reproduction." Training networks to recognize a data sequence with or without time-series (dt) is pretty much the purpose of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN).
The training function shown in your post has output limits governed by 0 and 1 (or -1, since x is effectively abs(x) in the context of that function). So, first things first, be certain your input layer can easily distinguish between negative and positive inputs (if it must).
Next, the number of neurons is not nearly as important as how they're layered and interconnected. How many of the 7 were used for the sequence inputs? What type of network was used and how was it configured? Network feedback will reveal the ratios, proportions, relationships, etc. and aid in the adjustment of network weight adjustments to match the sequence. Feedback can also take the form of a forward-feed depending on the type of network used to create the RNN.
Producing an 'observable' network for the exponential-decay function: 1/(1+x^2), should be a decent exercise to cut your teeth on RNNs. 'Observable', meaning the network is capable of producing results for any input value(s) even though its training data is (far) smaller than all possible inputs. I can only assume that this was your actual objective as opposed to "extrapolation."
I am working on Soil Spectral Classification using neural networks and I have data from my Professor obtained from his lab which consists of spectral reflectance from wavelength 1200 nm to 2400 nm. He only has 270 samples.
I have been unable to train the network for accuracy more than 74% since the training data is very less (only 270 samples). I was concerned that my Matlab code is not correct, but when I used the Neural Net Toolbox in Matlab, I got the same results...nothing more than 75% accuracy.
When I talked to my Professor about it, he said that he does not have any more data, but asked me to do random perturbation on this data to obtain more data. I have research online about random perturbation of data, but have come up short.
Can someone point me in the right direction for performing random perturbation on 270 samples of data so that I can get more data?
Also, since by doing this, I will be constructing 'fake' data, I don't see how the neural network would be any better cos isn't the point of neural nets using actual real valid data to train the network?
Thanks,
Faisal.
I think trying to fabricate more data is a bad idea: you can't create anything with higher information content than you already have, unless you know the true distribution of the data to sample from. If you did, however, you'd be able to classify with the Bayes optimal error rate, which would be impossible to beat.
What I'd be looking at instead is whether you can alter the parameters of your neural net to improve performance. The thing that immediately springs to mind with small amounts of training data is your weight regulariser (are you even using regularised weights), which can be seen as a prior on the weights if you're that way inclined. I'd also look at altering the activation functions if you're using simple linear activations, and the number of hidden nodes in addition (with so few examples, I'd use very few, or even bypass the hidden layer entirely since it's hard to learn nonlinear interactions with limited data).
While I'd not normally recommend it, you should probably use cross-validation to set these hyper-parameters given the limited size, as you're going to get unhelpful insight from a 10-20% test set size. You might hold out 10-20% for final testing, however, so as to not bias the results in your favour.
First, some general advice:
Normalize each input and output variable to [0.0, 1.0]
When using a feedforward MLP, try to use 2 or more hidden layers
Make sure your number of neurons per hidden layer is big enough, so the network is able to tackle the complexity of your data
It should always be possible to get to 100% accuracy on a training set if the complexity of your model is sufficient. But be careful, 100% training set accuracy does not necessarily mean that your model does perform well on unseen data (generalization performance).
Random perturbation of your data can improve generalization performance, if the perturbation you are adding occurs in practice (or at least similar perturbation). This works because this means teaching your network on how the data could look different but still belong to the given labels.
In the case of image classification, you could rotate, scale, noise, etc. the input image (the output stays the same, naturally). You will need to figure out what kind of perturbation could apply to your data. For some problems this is difficult or does not yield any improvement, so you need to try it out. If this does not work, it does not necessarily mean your implementation or data are broken.
The easiest way to add random noise to your data would be to apply gaussian noise.
I suppose your measures have errors associated with them (a measure without errors has almost no meaning). For each measured value M+-DeltaM you can generate a new number with N(M,DeltaM), where n is the normal distribution.
This will add new points as experimental noise from previous ones, and will add help take into account exprimental errors in the measures for the classification. I'm not sure however if it's possible to know in advance how helpful this will be !
I am trying to pre-process biological data to train a neural network and despite an extensive search and repetitive presentation of the various normalization methods I am none the wiser as to which method should be used when. In particular I have a number of input variables which are positively skewed and have been trying to establish whether there is a normalisation method that is most appropriate.
I was also worried about whether the nature of these inputs would affect performance of the network and as such have experimented with data transformations (log transformation in particular). However some inputs have many zeros but may also be small decimal values and seem to be highly affected by a log(x + 1) (or any number from 1 to 0.0000001 for that matter) with the resulting distribution failing to approach normal (either remains skewed or becomes bimodal with a sharp peak at the min value).
Is any of this relevant to neural networks? ie. should I be using specific feature transformation / normalization methods to account for the skewed data or should I just ignore it and pick a normalization method and push ahead?
Any advice on the matter would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
As features in your input vector are of different nature, you should use different normalization algorithms for every feature. Network should be feeded by uniformed data on every input for better performance.
As you wrote that some data is skewed, I suppose you can run some algoritm to "normalize" it. If applying logarithm does not work, perhaps other functions and methods such as rank transforms can be tried out.
If the small decimal values do entirely occur in a specific feature, then just normalize it in specific way, so that they get transformed into your work range: either [0, 1] or [-1, +1] I suppose.
If some inputs have many zeros, consider removing them from main neural network, and create additional neural network which will operate on vectors with non-zeroed features. Alternatively, you may try to run Principal Component Analysis (for example, via Autoassociative memory network with structure N-M-N, M < N) to reduce input space dimension and so eliminate zeroed components (they will be actually taken into account in the new combined inputs somehow). BTW, new M inputs will be automatically normalized. Then you can pass new vectors to your actual worker neural network.
This is an interesting question. Normalization is meant to keep features' values in one scale to facilitate the optimization process.
I would suggest the following:
1- Check if you need to normalize your data. If, for example, the means of the variables or features are within same scale of values, you may progress with no normalization. MSVMpack uses some normalization check condition for their SVM implementation. If, however, you need to do so, you are still advised to run the models on the data without Normalization.
2- If you know the actual maximum or minimum values of a feature, use them to normalize the feature. I think this kind of normalization would preserve the skewedness in values.
3- Try decimal value normalization with other features if applicable.
Finally, you are still advised to apply different normalization techniques and compare the MSE for evey technique including z-score which may harm the skewedness of your data.
I hope that I have answered your question and gave some support.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Why do we have to normalize the input for a neural network?
I understand that sometimes, when for example the input values are non-numerical a certain transformation must be performed, but when we have a numerical input? Why the numbers must be in a certain interval?
What will happen if the data is not normalized?
It's explained well here.
If the input variables are combined linearly, as in an MLP [multilayer perceptron], then it is
rarely strictly necessary to standardize the inputs, at least in theory. The
reason is that any rescaling of an input vector can be effectively undone by
changing the corresponding weights and biases, leaving you with the exact
same outputs as you had before. However, there are a variety of practical
reasons why standardizing the inputs can make training faster and reduce the
chances of getting stuck in local optima. Also, weight decay and Bayesian
estimation can be done more conveniently with standardized inputs.
In neural networks, it is good idea not just to normalize data but also to scale them. This is intended for faster approaching to global minima at error surface. See the following pictures:
Pictures are taken from the coursera course about neural networks. Author of the course is Geoffrey Hinton.
Some inputs to NN might not have a 'naturally defined' range of values. For example, the average value might be slowly, but continuously increasing over time (for example a number of records in the database).
In such case feeding this raw value into your network will not work very well. You will teach your network on values from lower part of range, while the actual inputs will be from the higher part of this range (and quite possibly above range, that the network has learned to work with).
You should normalize this value. You could for example tell the network by how much the value has changed since the previous input. This increment usually can be defined with high probability in a specific range, which makes it a good input for network.
There are 2 Reasons why we have to Normalize Input Features before Feeding them to Neural Network:
Reason 1: If a Feature in the Dataset is big in scale compared to others then this big scaled feature becomes dominating and as a result of that, Predictions of the Neural Network will not be Accurate.
Example: In case of Employee Data, if we consider Age and Salary, Age will be a Two Digit Number while Salary can be 7 or 8 Digit (1 Million, etc..). In that Case, Salary will Dominate the Prediction of the Neural Network. But if we Normalize those Features, Values of both the Features will lie in the Range from (0 to 1).
Reason 2: Front Propagation of Neural Networks involves the Dot Product of Weights with Input Features. So, if the Values are very high (for Image and Non-Image Data), Calculation of Output takes a lot of Computation Time as well as Memory. Same is the case during Back Propagation. Consequently, Model Converges slowly, if the Inputs are not Normalized.
Example: If we perform Image Classification, Size of Image will be very huge, as the Value of each Pixel ranges from 0 to 255. Normalization in this case is very important.
Mentioned below are the instances where Normalization is very important:
K-Means
K-Nearest-Neighbours
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Gradient Descent
When you use unnormalized input features, the loss function is likely to have very elongated valleys. When optimizing with gradient descent, this becomes an issue because the gradient will be steep with respect some of the parameters. That leads to large oscillations in the search space, as you are bouncing between steep slopes. To compensate, you have to stabilize optimization with small learning rates.
Consider features x1 and x2, where range from 0 to 1 and 0 to 1 million, respectively. It turns out the ratios for the corresponding parameters (say, w1 and w2) will also be large.
Normalizing tends to make the loss function more symmetrical/spherical. These are easier to optimize because the gradients tend to point towards the global minimum and you can take larger steps.
Looking at the neural network from the outside, it is just a function that takes some arguments and produces a result. As with all functions, it has a domain (i.e. a set of legal arguments). You have to normalize the values that you want to pass to the neural net in order to make sure it is in the domain. As with all functions, if the arguments are not in the domain, the result is not guaranteed to be appropriate.
The exact behavior of the neural net on arguments outside of the domain depends on the implementation of the neural net. But overall, the result is useless if the arguments are not within the domain.
I believe the answer is dependent on the scenario.
Consider NN (neural network) as an operator F, so that F(input) = output. In the case where this relation is linear so that F(A * input) = A * output, then you might choose to either leave the input/output unnormalised in their raw forms, or normalise both to eliminate A. Obviously this linearity assumption is violated in classification tasks, or nearly any task that outputs a probability, where F(A * input) = 1 * output
In practice, normalisation allows non-fittable networks to be fittable, which is crucial to experimenters/programmers. Nevertheless, the precise impact of normalisation will depend not only on the network architecture/algorithm, but also on the statistical prior for the input and output.
What's more, NN is often implemented to solve very difficult problems in a black-box fashion, which means the underlying problem may have a very poor statistical formulation, making it hard to evaluate the impact of normalisation, causing the technical advantage (becoming fittable) to dominate over its impact on the statistics.
In statistical sense, normalisation removes variation that is believed to be non-causal in predicting the output, so as to prevent NN from learning this variation as a predictor (NN does not see this variation, hence cannot use it).
The reason normalization is needed is because if you look at how an adaptive step proceeds in one place in the domain of the function, and you just simply transport the problem to the equivalent of the same step translated by some large value in some direction in the domain, then you get different results. It boils down to the question of adapting a linear piece to a data point. How much should the piece move without turning and how much should it turn in response to that one training point? It makes no sense to have a changed adaptation procedure in different parts of the domain! So normalization is required to reduce the difference in the training result. I haven't got this written up, but you can just look at the math for a simple linear function and how it is trained by one training point in two different places. This problem may have been corrected in some places, but I am not familiar with them. In ALNs, the problem has been corrected and I can send you a paper if you write to wwarmstrong AT shaw.ca
On a high level, if you observe as to where normalization/standardization is mostly used, you will notice that, anytime there is a use of magnitude difference in model building process, it becomes necessary to standardize the inputs so as to ensure that important inputs with small magnitude don't loose their significance midway the model building process.
example:
√(3-1)^2+(1000-900)^2 ≈ √(1000-900)^2
Here, (3-1) contributes hardly a thing to the result and hence the input corresponding to these values is considered futile by the model.
Consider the following:
Clustering uses euclidean or, other distance measures.
NNs use optimization algorithm to minimise cost function(ex. - MSE).
Both distance measure(Clustering) and cost function(NNs) use magnitude difference in some way and hence standardization ensures that magnitude difference doesn't command over important input parameters and the algorithm works as expected.
Hidden layers are used in accordance with the complexity of our data. If we have input data which is linearly separable then we need not to use hidden layer e.g. OR gate but if we have a non linearly seperable data then we need to use hidden layer for example ExOR logical gate.
Number of nodes taken at any layer depends upon the degree of cross validation of our output.