Deep Networks: Overview

From Ufldl

Jump to: navigation, search
(Advantages of deep networks)
 
Line 35: Line 35:
the network can compute either the logical OR of its inputs (or the OR of the  
the network can compute either the logical OR of its inputs (or the OR of the  
negation of the inputs), or compute the logical AND.  If we have a network with
negation of the inputs), or compute the logical AND.  If we have a network with
-
only 1 hidden layer, the parity function would require a number of nodes that
+
only one input, one hidden, and one output layer, the parity function would require a number of nodes that
is exponential in the input size <math>n</math>.  If however we are allowed a
is exponential in the input size <math>n</math>.  If however we are allowed a
deeper network, then the network/circuit size can be only polynomial in
deeper network, then the network/circuit size can be only polynomial in
<math>n</math>.
<math>n</math>.
-
By using a deep network, one can also start to learn part-whole decompositions.
+
By using a deep network, in the case of images, one can also start to learn part-whole decompositions.
For example, the first layer might learn to group together pixels in an image
For example, the first layer might learn to group together pixels in an image
-
in order to detect edges.  The second layer might then group together edges to
+
in order to detect edges (as seen in the earlier exercises).  The second layer might then group together edges to
-
detect longer contours, or perhaps simple "object parts."  An even deeper layer
+
detect longer contours, or perhaps detect simple "parts of objects."  An even deeper layer
might then group together these contours or detect even more complex features.
might then group together these contours or detect even more complex features.
Line 49: Line 49:
processing.  For example, visual images are processed in multiple stages by the
processing.  For example, visual images are processed in multiple stages by the
brain, by cortical area "V1", followed by cortical area "V2" (a different part
brain, by cortical area "V1", followed by cortical area "V2" (a different part
-
of the brain), and so on.
+
of the brain), and so on.  
<!--
<!--
Line 69: Line 69:
researchers had little success training deep architectures.
researchers had little success training deep architectures.
-
The main method that researchers were using was to randomly initialize
+
The main learning algorithm that researchers were using was to randomly initialize
-
the weights of the deep network, and then train it using a labeled
+
the weights of a deep network, and then train it using a labeled
-
training set <math>\{ (x^{(1)}_l, y^{(1}), \ldots, (x^{(m_l)}_l, y^{(m_l}) \}</math>
+
training set <math>\{ (x^{(1)}_l, y^{(1)}), \ldots, (x^{(m_l)}_l, y^{(m_l)}) \}</math>
-
using a supervised learning objective, using gradient descent to try to
+
using a supervised learning objective, for example by applying gradient descent to try to
drive down the training error.  However, this usually did not work well.
drive down the training error.  However, this usually did not work well.
There were several reasons for this.
There were several reasons for this.
Line 79: Line 79:
With the method described above, one relies only on
With the method described above, one relies only on
-
labeled data for training.  However, labeled data is often scarce, and thus it
+
labeled data for training.  However, labeled data is often scarce, and thus for many
-
is easy to overfit the training data and obtain a model which does not
+
problems it is difficult to get enough examples to fit the parameters of a
-
generalize well.
+
complex model.  For example, given the high degree of expressive power of deep networks,
 +
training on insufficient data would also result in overfitting.  
===Local optima===  
===Local optima===  
-
Training a neural network using supervised learning
+
Training a shallow network (with 1 hidden layer) using
 +
supervised learning usually resulted in the parameters converging to reasonable values;
 +
but when we are training a deep network, this works much less well. 
 +
In particular, training a neural network using supervised learning
involves solving a highly non-convex optimization problem (say, minimizing the
involves solving a highly non-convex optimization problem (say, minimizing the
training error <math>\textstyle \sum_i ||h_W(x^{(i)}) - y^{(i)}||^2</math> as a
training error <math>\textstyle \sum_i ||h_W(x^{(i)}) - y^{(i)}||^2</math> as a
-
function of the network parameters <math>\textstyle W</math>).   When the
+
function of the network parameters <math>\textstyle W</math>).
-
network is deep, this optimization problem is rife with bad local optima, and
+
In a deep network, this problem turns out to be rife with bad local optima, and
training with gradient descent (or methods like conjugate gradient and L-BFGS)
training with gradient descent (or methods like conjugate gradient and L-BFGS)
-
do not work well.
+
no longer work well.  
===Diffusion of gradients===  
===Diffusion of gradients===  
Line 97: Line 101:
There is an additional technical reason,
There is an additional technical reason,
pertaining to the gradients becoming very small, that explains why gradient
pertaining to the gradients becoming very small, that explains why gradient
-
descent (and related algorithms like L-BFGS) do not work well on a deep network
+
descent (and related algorithms like L-BFGS) do not work well on a deep networks
with randomly initialized weights.  Specifically, when using backpropagation to
with randomly initialized weights.  Specifically, when using backpropagation to
compute the derivatives, the gradients that are propagated backwards (from the
compute the derivatives, the gradients that are propagated backwards (from the
-
output layer to the earlier layers of the network) rapidly diminishes in
+
output layer to the earlier layers of the network) rapidly diminish in
magnitude as the depth of the network increases. As a result, the derivative of
magnitude as the depth of the network increases. As a result, the derivative of
the overall cost with respect to the weights in the earlier layers is very
the overall cost with respect to the weights in the earlier layers is very
Line 113: Line 117:
randomly initialized ends up giving similar performance to training a
randomly initialized ends up giving similar performance to training a
shallow network (the last few layers) on corrupted input (the result of
shallow network (the last few layers) on corrupted input (the result of
-
the processing done by the earlier layers).
+
the processing done by the earlier layers).  
<!--
<!--
Line 124: Line 128:
== Greedy layer-wise training ==
== Greedy layer-wise training ==
-
How should deep architectures be trained then?  One method that has seen some
+
How can we train a deep network?  One method that has seen some
success is the '''greedy layer-wise training''' method.  We describe this
success is the '''greedy layer-wise training''' method.  We describe this
method in detail in later sections, but briefly, the main idea is to train the
method in detail in later sections, but briefly, the main idea is to train the
-
layers of the network one at a time, with the input of each layer being the
+
layers of the network one at a time, so that we first train a network with 1
-
output of the previous layer (which has been trained).  Training can either be
+
hidden layer, and only after that is done, train a network with 2 hidden layers,
-
supervised (say, with classification error as the objective function), or
+
and so on.  At each step, we take the old network with <math>k-1</math> hidden
-
unsupervised (say, with the error of the layer in reconstructing its input as
+
layers, and add an additional <math>k</math>-th hidden layer (that takes as
-
the objective function, as in an autoencoder).  The weights from training the
+
input the previous hidden layer <math>k-1</math> that we had just
-
layers individually are then used to initialize the weights in the deep
+
trained).  Training can either be  
-
architecture, and only then is the entire architecture "fine-tuned" (i.e.,
+
supervised (say, with classification error as the objective function on each
-
trained together to optimize the training set error). The success of greedy
+
step), but more frequently it is
 +
unsupervised (as in an autoencoder; details to provided later).   
 +
The weights from training the layers individually are then used to initialize the weights  
 +
in the final/overall deep network, and only then is the entire architecture "fine-tuned" (i.e.,
 +
trained together to optimize the labeled training set error).  
 +
 
 +
The success of greedy
layer-wise training has been attributed to a number of factors:
layer-wise training has been attributed to a number of factors:
Line 146: Line 156:
classification layer that maps to the outputs/predictions), our algorithm is
classification layer that maps to the outputs/predictions), our algorithm is
able to learn and discover patterns from massively more amounts of data than
able to learn and discover patterns from massively more amounts of data than
-
purely supervised approaches, and thus often results in much better hypotheses.
+
purely supervised approaches.  This often results in much better classifiers
 +
being learned.  
-
===Regularization and better local optima===   
+
===Better local optima===   
After having trained the network
After having trained the network
on the unlabeled data, the weights are now starting at a better location in
on the unlabeled data, the weights are now starting at a better location in
-
parameter space than if they had been randomly initialized.  We usually then
+
parameter space than if they had been randomly initialized.  We can then
further fine-tune the weights starting from this location.  Empirically, it
further fine-tune the weights starting from this location.  Empirically, it
-
turns out that gradient descent from this location is also much more likely to
+
turns out that gradient descent from this location is much more likely to
lead to a good local minimum, because the unlabeled data has already provided
lead to a good local minimum, because the unlabeled data has already provided
a significant amount of "prior" information about what patterns there
a significant amount of "prior" information about what patterns there
-
are in the input data.
+
are in the input data.  
 +
 
In the next section, we will describe the specific details of how to go about
In the next section, we will describe the specific details of how to go about
-
implementing greedy layer-wise training.
+
implementing greedy layer-wise training.  
 +
{{CNN}}
<!--
<!--
Line 178: Line 191:
[http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/proceedings/papers/v9/erhan10a/erhan10a.pdf]
[http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/proceedings/papers/v9/erhan10a/erhan10a.pdf]
!-->
!-->
 +
 +
 +
{{Languages|深度网络概览|中文}}

Latest revision as of 13:31, 7 April 2013

Personal tools