Is it possible to fit or approximate multidimensional functions with neural networks?
Let's say I want to model the function f(x,y)=sin(x)+y from some given measurement data. (f(x,y) is considered as ground truth and is not known). Also if it's possible some code examples written in Tensorflow or Keras would be great.
As said by #AndreHolzner, theoretically you can approximate any continuous function with a neural network as well as you want, on any compact subset of R^n, even with only one hidden layer.
However, in practice, the neural net can have to be very large for some functions, and sometimes be untrainable (the optimal weights may be hard to find without getting in a local minimum). So here are a few practical suggestions (unfortunately vague, because the details depend too much on your data and are hard to predict without multiple tries):
Keep the network not too big (it'hard to define though, unfortunately): you'll just overfit. You'll probably need a LOT of training samples.
A big number of reasonably-sized layers is usually better than a reasonable number of big layers.
If you have some priors about the function, use them: for instance, if you believe there is some kind of periodicity in f (like in your example, but it could be more complicated), you could add the sin() function to some of of the outputs of the first layer (not all, that would give you a truly periodic output). If you suspect a polynom of degree n, just augment you input x with x², ...x^n and use a linear regression on that input, etc. It will be much easier than learning the weights.
The universal approximator theorem is true on any compact subset of R^n, not on the entire multidimensional space. In particular, you'll never be able to predict the value for an input that's way bigger than any of the training samples for instance (say you trained on numbers from 0 to 100, don't test on 200, it will fail).
For an example of regression you can look here for instance. To regress a more complicated function you'd need to put more complicated functions to get pred from x, for instance like this:
n_layers = 3
x = tf.placeholder(shape=[-1, n_dimensions], dtype=tf.float32)
last_layer = x
# Add n_layers dense hidden layers
for i in range(n_layers):
last_layer = tf.layers.dense(inputs=last_layer, units=128, activation=tf.nn.relu)
# Get the output prediction
pred = tf.layers.dense(inputs=last_layer, units=1, activation=None)
# Get the cost, training op, etc, just like in the linear regression example
Related
I have a data-set without labels, but I do have a way to get pairs of examples with opposite labels, that is given a pair x,z I know that their true labels are either 0,1 or 1,0.
So, I am building a model that accepts pairs of samples as input, and learns to classify them with opposite labels. Assuming I have an arbitrary model for predicting a single sample, y_hat = f(x), I am building a model with Keras that accepts pairs of samples (x,z) and outputs pairs of predictions, f(x), f(z). I then use a custom loss function that drives the model towards the correct direction: Given that a regular binary classifier is trained using the Binary Cross Entropy (BCE) to make the predicted and desired output "close", I use the negative BCE. Also, since BCE is not symmetric, I symmetrize it. So, the loss function I give the model.compile method is:
from tensorflow import keras
bce = keras.losses.BinaryCrossentropy()
def neg_sym_bce(y1, y2):
return (- 0.5 * (bce(y1, y2) + bce(y2, y1)))
My problem is, this model fails to learn to classify even a single pair of my data (I get f(x)~=f(z)~=0.5), and if I try to train it with synthetic "easy" data, it takes hundreds of epochs to converge (also on a single pair).
This made me suspect that it has to do with a "vanishing gradient" problem. Indeed, when I plot (see below) the loss for a single pair, which is a function of 2 variables (the 2 outputs), it is evident that there is a wide plateau around the 0.5, 0.5 point. It is also evident that the global minima is, as expected, around the points 0,1 and 1,0.
So, is there a way to deal with the vanishing gradient here? I read about the problem but the references I found deal with vanishing gradient in the network, not in the loss itself.
Or, is there another loss that can drive the model to predict opposite labels?
Think if your labels are always either 0,1 or 1,1 just use categorical_crossentropy for the loss.
Using ANN with Tensorflow to train a simple known equation Y=Sin(X) or Y=Cos(X). My loss function is converging properly.
Loss function convergence graph. If loss function converges it means model has fitted well to my training dataset.
However, when I predict passing in argument training set itself, model fails to predict even train data which is strange.
Here it can be seen that after 200th value there model shows no training at all
If the loss has converged then model should fit the train dataset perfectly but that is not happening here. What is wrong in my code?
X = np.linspace(0,10*np.pi,1000)
Y = np.sin(X)
model = tf.keras.models.Sequential()
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(500,input_shape=(1,),activation='relu'))
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(1))
opt = tf.keras.optimizers.Adam(0.01)
model.compile(optimizer=opt,loss='mse')
r= model.fit(X.reshape(-1,1),Y,epochs=100)
plt.plot(r.history['loss'])
Yhat = model.predict(X.reshape(-1,1)).flatten()
plt.plot(Y)
plt.plot(Yhat)
It is the nature of your data.
It made me remember the old paper which showed that the ANN can't compute even the XOR
Anyway the reason here is that your model is shallow and shallow networks are much less efficient than deep networks. To put in perspective a model like below
model = tf.keras.models.Sequential()
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(20,input_shape=(1,),activation='relu'))
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(20,activation='relu'))
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(1))
Will likely perform better even though it has only 1/3 of the parameters of the original model and that is cause the deeper you go the more complex representations can the model create. The core thing to remember is
THE DEEP LEARNING MODEL DON'T BUILD NON-LINEAR DECISION BOUNDARIES as EACH AND EVERY
UNIT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DESIGNED TO CREATE SOME LINEAR DECISION BOUNDARY. so what does
it do? IT FROM STACKING THOSE LINEAR DECISION BOUNDARIES MAKE A REPRESENTATION OF
DATA WHICH IS LINEARLY SEPARABLE.
Also, the most important things is to know your data. In this case using the Probabilistic Models will give almost perfect results. You can easily implement those using TensorFlow probability.
I have a 2 layered Neural Network that I'm training on about 10000 features (genomic data) with about 100 samples in my data set. Now I realized that anytime I run my model (i.e. compile & fit) I get varying validation/testing accuracys even if I leave the train/test/validation split untouched. Sometimes its around 70% sometimes around 90%.
Due to the stochastic nature of the NN I anticipate some variation but could these strong fluctuations be a sign of something else?
The reason why you're seeing such a big instability with your validation accuracy is because your neural network is huge in comparison to the data you train it on.
Even with just 12 neurons per layer, you still have 12 * 10000 + 12 = 120012 parameters in your first layer. Now think about what the neural network does under the hood. It takes your 10000 inputs, it multiplies each input by some weight and then sums all these inputs. Now you provide it only 64 training examples on which the training algorithm is supposed to decide what are the correct input weights. Just based on intuition, from a purely combinatorial perspective there is going to be large amount of weight assignments that do well on your 64 training samples. And you have no guarantee that the training algorithm will pick such weight assignment that will also do well on your out-of-sample data.
Given neural network is able to represent a wide variety of functions (it's been proven that under certain assumptions it can approximate any function, that's called general approximation). To select the function you want you provide the training algorithm with data to constrain the space of all possible functions the network can represent to a subspace of functions that fit your data. However, such function is in no way guaranteed to represent the true underlying relationship between the input and the output. And especially if the number of parameters is larger than the number of samples (in this case by a few orders of magnitude), you're nearly guaranteed to see your network simply memorize the samples in your training data, simply because it has the capacity to do so and you haven't constrained it enough.
In other words, what you're seeing is overfitting. In NNs, the general rule of thumb is that you want at least a couple of times more samples than you have parameters (look in to the Hoeffding Inequality for theoretical rationale of this) and in effect the more samples you have, the less you're afraid of overfitting.
So here is a couple of possible solutions:
Use an algorithm that's more suitable for the case where you have high input dimension and low sample count, such as Kernel SVM (Support Vector Machine). With such a low sample count, it's quite possible that a Kernel SVM algorithm will achieve better and more consistent validation accuracy. (You can easily test this, they are available in the scikit-learn package, really easy to use)
If you insist on using NN - use regularization. Given the fact you already have working code, this will be easy, just add kernel_regularizer to all your layers, I would try both L1 and L2 regularization (probably separately). L1 regularization tends to push weights to zero so it might help reduce the number of parameters in your problem. L2 just tries to make all the weights small. Use your validation set to decide the best value for each regularization. You can optimize both for the best mean accuracy and also the lowest variance in accuracy on your validation data (do something like 20 training runs for each parameter value of L1 and L2 regularization, usually just trying different orders of magnitude is sufficient, e.g. 1e-4, 1e-3, 1e-2, 1e-1, 1, 1e1).
If most of your input features are not really predictive or if they are highly correlated, PCA (Principal Component Analysis) can be used to project your inputs into a much lower dimensional space (e.g. from 10000 to 20), where you'd have much smaller neural network (still I'd use L1 or L2 for regularization because even then you'd have more weights than training samples)
On a final note, the point of a testing set is to use it very sparsely (ideally only once). It should be the final reported metric after all your research and model tuning is done. You should not optimize any values on it. You should do all this on your validation set. To avoid overfitting on your validation set, look into k-fold cross validation.
I'm reading the google ML crash course and have one question.
What is a weight? (I understand that this is a slope in a plot, but it doesn't fit into my understanding)
I also don't understand an impact of weight on the model prediction (for example, in this playground)
Many thanks for the help.
Every layer in a model is a huge mathematical function with many "unknown" variables.
When you build a model, you build a monster function (with thousands or millions of unknown variables) that gives an output from an input.
Something like this:
output_tensor = huge_function(your_input_tensor,var1,var2,var3,var4.......,var10000000)
These variables are the weights. At the beginning, they receive random values, and obviously your function gives you terrible results.
As you train, you adjust the values of these variables so that your results improve.
Weights are such variables, the ones in the model that you are going to adjust so that your huge function brings you good results.
Weights x Biases
Depending on what you are reading, or what program you're using, they will be called weights. According to what I wrote above, both fit the description.
But usually:
Weights - Multiply the inputs
Biases - Are added to the multiplied outputs
So, the usual layers (with some important differences, of course), perform operations like:
output_matrix = input_matrix x weights + biases
Nothing prevents you from creating custom operations, though, where your variables/weights neither multiply nor add.
There are quite a few examples on how to use LSTMs alone in TF, but I couldn't find any good examples on how to train CNN + LSTM jointly.
From what I see, it is not quite straightforward how to do such training, and I can think of a few options here:
First, I believe the simplest solution (or the most primitive one) would be to train CNN independently to learn features and then to train LSTM on CNN features without updating the CNN part, since one would probably have to extract and save these features in numpy and then feed them to LSTM in TF. But in that scenario, one would probably have to use a differently labeled dataset for pretraining of CNN, which eliminates the advantage of end to end training, i.e. learning of features for final objective targeted by LSTM (besides the fact that one has to have these additional labels in the first place).
Second option would be to concatenate all time slices in the batch
dimension (4-d Tensor), feed it to CNN then somehow repack those
features to 5-d Tensor again needed for training LSTM and then apply a cost function. My main concern, is if it is possible to do such thing. Also, handling variable length sequences becomes a little bit tricky. For example, in prediction scenario you would only feed single frame at the time. Thus, I would be really happy to see some examples if that is the right way of doing joint training. Besides that, this solution looks more like a hack, thus, if there is a better way to do so, it would be great if someone could share it.
Thank you in advance !
For joint training, you can consider using tf.map_fn as described in the documentation https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/map_fn.
Lets assume that the CNN is built along similar lines as described here https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/tutorials/image/cifar10/cifar10.py.
def joint_inference(sequence):
inference_fn = lambda image: inference(image)
logit_sequence = tf.map_fn(inference_fn, sequence, dtype=tf.float32, swap_memory=True)
lstm_cell = tf.contrib.rnn.LSTMCell(128)
output_state, intermediate_state = tf.nn.dynamic_rnn(cell=lstm_cell, inputs=logit_sequence)
projection_function = lambda state: tf.contrib.layers.linear(state, num_outputs=num_classes, activation_fn=tf.nn.sigmoid)
projection_logits = tf.map_fn(projection_function, output_state)
return projection_logits
Warning: You might have to look into device placement as described here https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/using_gpu if your model is larger than the memory gpu can allocate.
An Alternative would be to flatten the video batch to create an image batch, do a forward pass from CNN and reshape the features for LSTM.