A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – XIII – the impact of regularization

I continue with my growing series on a Multilayer perceptron and the MNIST dataset.

A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – XII – accuracy evolution, learning rate, normalization
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – XI – confusion matrix
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – X – mini-batch-shuffling and some more tests
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – IX – First Tests
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – VIII – coding Error Backward Propagation
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – VII – EBP related topics and obstacles
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – VI – the math behind the „error back-propagation“
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – V – coding the loss function
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – IV – the concept of a cost or loss function
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – III – forward propagation
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – II - initial random weight values
A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – I - a starting point

In the last article of the series we made some interesting experiences with the variation of the "leaning rate". We also saw that a reasonable range for initial weight values should be chosen.

Even more fascinating was, however, the impact of a normalization of the input data on a smooth and fast gradient descent. We drew the conclusion that normalization is of major importance when we use the sigmoid function as the MLP's activation function - especially for nodes in the first hidden layer and for input data which are on average relatively big. The reason for our concern were saturation effects of the sigmoid functions and other functions with a similar variation with their argument. In the meantime I have tried to make the importance of normalization even more plausible with the help of a a very minimalistic perceptron for which we can analyze saturation effects a bit more in depth; you get to the related article series via the following link:

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – III – two ways of applying Normalizer

There we also have a look at other normalizers or feature scalers.

But back to our series on a multi-layer perceptron. You may have have asked yourself in the meantime: Why did he not check the impact of the regularization? Indeed: We kept the parameter Lambda2 for the quadratic regularization term constant in all experiments so far: Lambda2 = 0.2. So, the question about the impact of regularization e.g. on accuracy is a good one.

How big is the regularization term and how does it evolve during gradient decent training?

I add even one more question: How big is the relative contribution of the regularization term to the total loss or cost function? In our Python program for a MLP model we included a so called quadratic Ridge term:

Lambda2 * 0.5 * SUM[all weights**2], where bias nodes are excluded from the sum.

From various books on Machine Learning [ML] you just learn to choose the factor Lambda2 in the range between 0.01 and 0.1. But how big is the resulting term actually in comparison to the standard cost term, then, and how does the ratio between both terms evolve during gradient descent? What factors influence this ratio?

As we follow a training strategy based on mini-batches the regularization contribution was and is added up to the costs of each mini-batch. So its relative importance varies of course with the size of the mini-batches! Other factors which may also be of some importance - at least during the first epochs - could be the total number of weights in our network and the range of initial weight values.

Regarding the evolution during a converging gradient descent we know already that the total costs go down on the path to a cost minimum - whilst the weight values reach a stable level. So there is a (non-linear!) competition between the regularization term and the real costs of the "Log Loss" cost function! During convergence the relative importance of the regularization term may therefore become bigger until the ratio to the standard costs reaches an eventual constant level. But how dominant will the regularization term get in the end?

Let us do some experiments with the MNIST dataset again! We fix some common parameters and conditions for our test runs:
As we saw in the last article we should normalize the input data. So, all of our numerical experiments below (with the exception of the last one) are done with standardized input data (using Scikit-Learn's StandardScaler). In addition initial weights are all set according to the sqrt(nodes)-rule for all layers in the interval [-0.5*sqrt(1/num_nodes), 0.5*sqrt(1/num_nodes)], with num_nodes meaning the number of nodes in a layer. Other parameters, which we keep constant, are:

Parameters: learn_rate = 0.001, decrease_rate = 0.00001, mom_rate = 0.00005, n_size_mini_batch = 500, n_epochs = 800.

I added some statements to the method for cost calculation in order to save the relative part of the regularization terms with respect to the total costs of each mini-batch in a Numpy array and plot the evolution in the end. The changes are so simple that I omit showing the modified code.

A first look at the evolution of the relative contribution of regularization to the total loss of a mini-batch

How does the outcome of gradient descent look for standardized input data and a Lambda2-value of 0.1?

Lambda2 = 0.1
Results: acc_train: 0.999 , acc_test: 0.9714, convergence after ca. 600 epochs

We see that the regularization term actually dominates the total loss of a mini-batch at convergence. At least with our present parameter setting. In comparisoin to the total loss of the full training set the contribution is of course much smaller and typically below 1%.

A small Lambda term

Let us reduce the regularization term via setting Lambda = 0.01. We expect its initial contribution to the costs of a batch to be smaller then, but this does NOT mean that the ratio to the standard costs of the batch automatically shrinks significantly, too:

Lambda2 = 0.01
Results: acc_train: 1.0 , acc_test: 0.9656, convergence after ca. 350 epochs

Note the absolute scale of the costs in the plots! We ended up at a much lower level of the total loss of a batch! But the relative dominance of regularization at the point of convergence actually increased! However, this did not help us with the accuracy of our MLP-algorithm on the test data set - although we perfectly fit the training set by a 100% accuracy.

In the end this is what regularization is all about. We do not want a total overfitting, a perfect adaption of the grid to the training set. It will not help in the sense of getting a better general accuracy on other input data. A Lambda2 of 0.01 is much too small in our case!

Slightly bigger regularization with Lambda2 = 0.2

So lets enlarge Lambda2 a bit:
Lambda2 = 0.2
Results: acc_train: 0.9946 , acc_test: 0.9728, convergence after ca. 700 epochs

We get an improved accuracy!

Two other cases with significantly bigger Lambda2

Lambda2 = 0.4
Results: acc_train: 0.9858 , acc_test: 0.9693, convergence after ca. 600 epochs

Lambda2 = 0.8
Results: acc_train: 0.9705 , acc_test: 0.9588, convergence after ca. 400 epochs

OK, but in both cases we see a significant and systematic trend towards reduced accuracy values on the test data set with growing Lambda2-values > 0.2 for our chosen mini-batch size (500 samples).

Conclusion

We learned a bit about the impact of regularization today. Whatever the exact Lambda2-value - in the end the contribution of a regularization term becomes a significant part of the total loss of a mini-batch when we approached the total cost minimum. However, the factor Lambda2 must be chosen with a reasonable size to get an impact of regularization on the final minimum position in the weight-space! But then it will help to improve accuracy on general input data in comparison to overfitted solutions!

But we also saw that there is some balance to take care of: For an optimum of generalization AND accuracy you should neither make Lambda2 too small nor too big. In our case Lambda2 = 0.2 seems to be a reasonable and good choice. Might be different with other datasets.

All in all studying the impact of a variation of achieved accuracy with the factor for a Ridge regularization term seems to be a good investment of time in ML projects. We shall come back to this point already in the next articles of this series.

In the next article

A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – XIV – cluster detection in feature space

we shall start to work on cluster detection in the feature space of the MNIST data before using gradient descent.

 

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – III – two ways of applying Normalizer

In this article series on a perceptron with only one computing neuron we saw that saturation effects of the sigmoid activation function can hamper gradient descent if input data on some features become too big and/or the initial weight distribution is not adapted to the number of input features. See:

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – I – failure of gradient descent due to saturation

We can remedy the first point by applying a normalization transformation to the input data before starting gradient descent. I showed the positive result of such a transformation for our perceptron with a rather specific set of input data in the last article:

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – II – normalization to overcome saturation

At that time we used the "StandardScaler" provided by Scikit-Learn. In this article we shall instead use an instance of the "Normalizer" class for scaling. With "Normalizer" you have to be a bit careful how you use its interface. We shall apply "Normalizer in two different ways. Besides having some fun with the outcome, we will also learn that the shape of the clusters in which the input samples may be arranged in feature space should be taken into account before normalizing ahead of classification tasks. Which may be difficult in multiple dimensions ... but it brings us to the general idea of identifying a method of cluster identification ahead of classification training with gradient descent.

How does the "Normalizer" work?

Let us offer a "Normalizer"-instance an input array "ay_in" with 2 rows and 4 columns for each row. The shape of "ay_in" is (2,4). The first row "s1" shall have elements like s1=[4, 1, 2, 2]. Then Normalizer will then calculate a L2-norm value for the column data of our specific row as

L2([4, 1, 2, 2]) = sqrt(4**2 + 1**2 + 2**2 + 2**2) = 5
=> s1_trafo = [4/L2, 1/L2, 2/L2, 2/L2] = [0.8, 0.2, 0.4, 0.4].

I.e., all columns in one row are multiplied by one common factor determined as the L2-norm of the column data of the sample. Note again: Each row is treated separately. So, an array as

[
  [1, 3, 9, 3],
  [5, 7, 5, 1]
]

will be transformed to

  [0.1,, 0.3, 0.9, 0.3],
  [0.5, 0.7, 0.5, 0.1]
]

How can we make use of this for our perceptron samples?

Standard scaling per feature with Normalizer

A first idea is that we could scale the data of all samples for our perceptron separately per feature; i.e. we collect the data-values of all M samples for "feature 1" in an array and offer it as the first row of an array to Normalizer, plus a row with all the data values for "feature 2", .... and so on.

If we had M samples and N features we would present an array with shape (N, M) to "Normalizer". In our simple perceptron experiment this is equivalent to scaling data of an array where the two rows are defined by our K1 and K2-input arrays => ay_K = [ li_K1, li_K2 ].

What would the outcome of such a scaling be?

A constant factor per feature determined by the L2-norm of all samples' values for the chosen feature brings all values safely down into an interval of [-1, 1]. But this also means that the maximum value of all samples for a specific feature determines the scale.

Then so called "outliers", i.e. samples whose values are far away from the average values of the samples, would have a major impact. So "Normalizer"-Scaling is especially helpful, if the values per feature are limited by principle reasons. Note that this is e.g. the case with RGB-color or gray-scale values! Note also that the possible impact of outliers is also relevant for other normalizers as the "MinMaxNormalizer" of SciKit-Learn.

Although the scaling factors will be different per feature I would like to point out another aspect of scaling by a constant factor per feature over all samples: Such a transformation keeps up at least some structural similarity of the sample distribution in the feature space.

Scaling features per sample with Normalizer (?)

A different way of applying "Normalizer" would be to use the transformed array "ay_K.T" as input: For M samples and N features we would then present an array with shape (M, N) to a Normalizer instance. Its algorithm would then scale across the features of each sample. If we interpret a specific sample as a vector in the feature space then the L2-norm corresponds naturally to the length of this vector. Meaning: Normalizer would scale each sample by its vector length.

Two questions before experimenting

The two possible application methods for Normalizer lead directly to two questions for our simple test setup in a 2-dim feature space:

  • How will lines of equal cost values (i.e. cost or loss contours) for our sigmoid-based loss function look like in the {K1, K2}-space after scaling a bunch of N (K1, K2)-datapoints with Normalizer per feature? I.e., if and when should we present an array of feature values with shape (N,M)?
  • What would happen instead if we scaled each input sample individually across its features? I.e., what happens in a situation with M samples and N features and we feed "Normalizer" with an array (of the same feature values) which has a shape (N,M) instead of (M,N)?

I guess a "natural talent" on numbers as Mr Trump could give the answers without hesitation 🙂 . As we certainly are below the standards of the "genius" Mr Trump (his own words on multiple occasions) we shall pick the answers from plots below before we even try a deeper reasoning.

Application of "Normalizer" separately to the feature data of all batch samples

As you remember from the first article of this series our input batch contained samples (K1, K2) with values for K1 and K2 given by two 1-dim arrays :

li_K1 = [200.0,   1.0, 160.0,  11.0, 220.0,  11.0, 120.0,  22.0, 195.0,  15.0, 130.0,   5.0, 185.0,  16.0]
li_K2 = [ 14.0, 107.0,  10.0, 193.0,  32.0, 178.0,   2.0, 210.0,  12.0, 134.0,  15.0, 167.0,  10.0, 229.0] 

The standard scaling application of Normalizer can be coded explicitly as (see the code given in the last article):

    rg_idx = range(num_samples)
    if scale_method == 0:      
        shape_input = (2, num_samples)
        ay_K = np.zeros(shape_input)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K[0][idx] = li_K1[idx] 
            ay_K[1][idx] = li_K2[idx] 
        scaler = Normalizer()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K1[idx] = ay_K[0][idx]   
            ay_K2[idx] = ay_K[1][idx]
        scaling_fact_K1 = ay_K1[0] / li_K1[0]
        scaling_fact_K2 = ay_K2[0] / li_K2[0]
        print(ay_K1)
        print("\n")
        print(ay_K2)

However, a much faster form, which avoids the explicit Python loop, is given by:

ay_K= np.vstack( (li_K1, li_K2) )
ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
ay_K1, ay_K2 = ay_K
scaling_fact_K1 = ay_K1[0] / li_K1[0]
scaling_fact_K2 = ay_K2[0] / li_K2[0]

Here OpenBlas helps 🙂 .

In contrast to other scalers we need to save and keep the factors by which we transform the various feature data by ourselves somewhere. (This is clear as "Normalizer" calculates a different factor for each feature.) So, we change our Jupyter cell code for scaling to:

# ********
# Scaling
# ********

b_scale = True
scale_method = 0
# 0: Normalizer (standard), 1: StandardScaler, 2. By factor, 3: Normalizer per pair 
# 4: Min_Max, 5: Identity (no transformation) - just there for convenience  

shape_ay = (num_samples,)
ay_K1 = np.zeros(shape_ay)
ay_K2 = np.zeros(shape_ay)

# apply scaling
if b_scale:
    # shape_input = (num_samples,2)
    rg_idx = range(num_samples)
    if scale_method == 0:      
        ay_K = np.vstack( (li_K1, li_K2) )
        print("ay_k.shape = ", ay_K.shape)
        scaler = Normalizer()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        ay_K1, ay_K2 = ay_K
        scaling_fact_K1 = ay_K1[0] / li_K1[0]
        scaling_fact_K2 = ay_K2[0] / li_K2[0]
        print("\nay_K1 = \n", ay_K1)
        print("\nay_K2 = \n", ay_K2)
        print("\nscaling_fact_K1: ", scaling_fact_K1, ", scaling_fact_K2: ", scaling_fact_K2)
       
    elif scale_method == 1: 
        ay_K = np.column_stack((li_K1, li_K2))
        scaler = StandardScaler()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        ay_K1, ay_K2 = ay_K.T    
            
    elif scale_method == 2:
        dmax = max(li_K1.max() - li_K1.min(), li_K2.max() - li_K2.min())
        ay_K1 = 1.0/dmax * li_K1
        ay_K2 = 1.0/dmax * li_K2
        scaling_fact_K1 = ay_K1[0] / li_K1[0]
        scaling_fact_K2 = ay_K2[0] / li_K2[0]
    
    elif scale_method == 3:
        ay_K = np.column_stack((li_K1, li_K2))
        scaler = Normalizer()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        ay_K1, ay_K2 = ay_K.T    
    
    elif scale_method == 4:
        ay_K = np.column_stack((li_K1, li_K2))
        scaler = MinMaxScaler()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        ay_K1, ay_K2 = ay_K.T    
    
    elif scale_method == 5:
        ay_K1 = li_K1
        ay_K2 = li_K2
            
            
# Get overview over costs on weight-mesh
#wm1 = np.arange(-5.0,5.0,0.002)
#wm2 = np.arange(-5.0,5.0,0.002)
wm1 = np.arange(-5.5,5.5,0.002)
wm2 = np.arange(-5.5,5.5,0.002)
W1, W2 = np.meshgrid(wm1, wm2) 
C, li_C_sgl = costs_mesh(num_samples = num_samples, W1=W1, W2=W2, li_K1 = ay_K1, li_K2 = ay_K2, \
                               li_a_tgt = li_a_tgt)


C_min = np.amin(C)
print("\nC_min = ", C_min)
IDX = np.argwhere(C==C_min)
print ("Coordinates: ", IDX)
# print(IDX.shape)
# print(IDX[0][0])
wmin1 = W1[IDX[0][0]][IDX[0][1]] 
wmin2 = W2[IDX[0][0]][IDX[0][1]]
print("Weight values at cost minimum:",  wmin1, wmin2)

# Plots
# ******
fig_size = plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"]
#print(fig_size)
fig_size[0] = 16; fig_size[1] = 16

fig3 = plt.figure(3); fig4 = plt.figure(4)

ax3 = fig3.gca(projection='3d')
ax3.get_proj = lambda: np.dot(Axes3D.get_proj(ax3), np.diag([1.0, 1.0, 1, 1]))
ax3.view_init(20,135)
ax3.set_xlabel('w1', fontsize=16)
ax3.set_ylabel('w2', fontsize=16)
ax3.set_zlabel('Total costs', fontsize=16)
ax3.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, 1.2*C, colors=('green'))


ax4 = fig4.gca(projection='3d')
ax4.get_proj = lambda: np.dot(Axes3D.get_proj(ax4), np.diag([1.0, 1.0, 1, 1]))
ax4.view_init(25,135)
ax4.set_xlabel('w1', fontsize=16)
ax4.set_ylabel('w2', fontsize=16)
ax4.set_zlabel('Single costs', fontsize=16)
ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[0], colors=('blue'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[1], colors=('red'))
ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[5], colors=('orange'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[6], colors=('yellow'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[9], colors=('magenta'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[12], colors=('green'))

plt.show()

 

Ok, lets apply the "Normalizer" to our input samples. We get:

ay_K1 = 
 [0.42786745 0.00213934 0.34229396 0.02353271 0.47065419 0.02353271
 0.25672047 0.02995072 0.41717076 0.03209006 0.27811384 0.01069669
 0.39577739 0.0342294 ]

ay_K2 = 
 [0.02955501 0.22588473 0.02111072 0.40743694 0.06755431 0.37577085
 0.00422214 0.44332516 0.02533287 0.28288368 0.01477751 0.35254906
 0.02111072 0.48343554]

scaling_fact_K1:  0.0021393372268854655 , scaling_fact_K2:  0.0021110722130092533

How do the transformed data points look like in the {K1, K2}-feature-space? See the plot:

Structurally very like the original; but with values reduced to [0,1]. This was to be expected.

The cost hyperplane for the data normalized "per feature"

After the transformation of the sample data the cost hyperplane over the {w1, w2}-space looks as follows:

We see a clear minimum; it does, however, not appear as pronounced as for the StandardScaler, which we applied in the last article.

But: There are no side valleys with small gradients at the end of the steep slope area. This means that a path into a minimum will probably look a bit different compared to a path on the hyperplane we got with the "StandardScaler".

Our mesh in the {w1, w2}-space indicates the following position of the minimum:

C_min =  0.0006350159045771724
Coordinates:  [[3949 1542]]
Weight values at cost minimum: -2.4160000000003397 2.39799999999913

Gradient descent results after normalization per feature with "Normalizer"

With our gradient descent method and the following run-parameters

w1_start = -0.20, w2_start = 0.25 eta = 0.2, decrease_rate = 0.00000001, num_steps = 2500

we get the following result of a run which explores both stochastic and batch gradient descent:

Stoachastic Descent
          Kt1       Kt2     K1     K2  Tgt       Res       Err
0   0.427867  0.029555  200.0   14.0  0.3  0.276365  0.078783
1   0.002139  0.225885    1.0  107.0  0.7  0.630971  0.098613
2   0.342294  0.021111  160.0   10.0  0.3  0.315156  0.050519
3   0.023533  0.407437   11.0  193.0  0.7  0.715038  0.021483
4   0.470654  0.067554  220.0   32.0  0.3  0.273924  0.086920
5   0.023533  0.375771   11.0  178.0  0.7  0.699320  0.000971
6   0.256720  0.004222  120.0    2.0  0.3  0.352075  0.173584
7   0.029951  0.443325   14.0  210.0  0.7  0.729191  0.041701
8   0.417171  0.025333  195.0   12.0  0.3  0.279519  0.068271
9   0.032090  0.282884   15.0  134.0  0.7  0.645816  0.077405
10  0.278114  0.014778  130.0    7.0  0.3  0.346085  0.153615
11  0.010697  0.352549    5.0  167.0  0.7  0.694107  0.008418
12  0.395777  0.021111  185.0   10.0  0.3  0.287962  0.040126
13  0.034229  0.483436   16.0  229.0  0.7  0.745803  0.065432

Batch Descent
          Kt1       Kt2     K1     K2  Tgt       Res       Err
0   0.427867  0.029555  200.0   14.0  0.3  0.276360  0.078799
1   0.002139  0.225885    1.0  107.0  0.7  0.630976  0.098606
2   0.342294  0.021111  160.0   10.0  0.3  0.315152  0.050505
3   0.023533  0.407437   11.0  193.0  0.7  0.715045  0.021493
4   0.470654  0.067554  220.0   32.0  0.3  0.273919  0.086935
5   0.023533  0.375771   11.0  178.0  0.7  0.699326  0.000962
6   0.256720  0.004222  120.0    2.0  0.3  0.352072  0.173572
7   0.029951  0.443325   14.0  210.0  0.7  0.729198  0.041711
8   0.417171  0.025333  195.0   12.0  0.3  0.279514  0.068287
9   0.032090  0.282884   15.0  134.0  0.7  0.645821  0.077398
10  0.278114  0.014778  130.0    7.0  0.3  0.346081  0.153603
11  0.010697  0.352549    5.0  167.0  0.7  0.694113  0.008410
12  0.395777  0.021111  185.0   10.0  0.3  0.287957  0.040142
13  0.034229  0.483436   16.0  229.0  0.7  0.745810  0.065443

Total error stoch descent:  0.06898872490256348
Total error batch descent:  0.06899042421795792

Good! Seemingly we got some convergence in both cases. The overall "accuracy" achieved on the training set is even a bit better than for the "StandardScaler". And:

Final (w1,w2)-values stoch : ( -2.4151 ,  2.3977 )
Final (w1,w2)-values batch : ( -2.4153 ,  2.3976 )

This fits very well to the data we got from our mesh analysis of the cost hyperplane!

Regarding the evolution of the costs and the weights we see a slightly different picture than with the "StandardScaler":

Cost and weight evolution during stochastic gradient descent

and:

Cost and weight evolution during batch gradient descent

From the evolution of the weight parameters we can assume that gradient descent moved along a direct path into the cost minimum. This fits to the different shape of the cost hyperplane in comparison with the hyperplane we got after the application of the "StandardScaler".

Predicted contour and separation lines in the {K1, K2}-plane after feature-scaling with "Normalizer"

We compute the contour lines of the output A of our solitary neuron (see article 1 of this series) with the following code:

 
# ***********
# Contours 
# ***********
from matplotlib import ticker, cm

# Take w1/w2-vals from above w1f, w2f
w1_len = len(li_w1_ba)
w2_len = len(li_w1_ba)
w1f = li_w1_ba[w1_len -1]
w2f = li_w2_ba[w2_len -1]

def A_mesh(w1,w2, Km1, Km2):
    kshape = Km1.shape
    A = np.zeros(kshape) 
    
    Km1V = Km1.reshape(kshape[0]*kshape[1], )
    Km2V = Km2.reshape(kshape[0]*kshape[1], )
    print("km1V.shape = ", Km1V.shape, "\nkm1V.shape = ", Km2V.shape )
    
    # scaling trafo
    if scale_method == 0: 
        Km1V = scaling_fact_K1 * Km1V
        Km2V = scaling_fact_K2 * Km2V
        KmV = np.vstack( (Km1V, Km2V) )
        KmT = KmV.T
    else: 
        KmV = np.column_stack((Km1V, Km2V))
        KmT = scaler.transform(KmV)
    
    Km1T, Km2T = KmT.T
    Km1TR = Km1T.reshape(kshape)
    Km2TR = Km2T.reshape(kshape)
    print("km1TR.shape = ", Km1TR.shape, "\nkm2TR.shape = ", Km2TR.shape )
    
    
    rg_idx = range(num_samples)
    Z      = w1 * Km1TR + w2 * Km2TR
    A = expit(Z)
    return A

#Build K1/K2-mesh 
minK1, maxK1 = li_K1.min()-20, li_K1.max()+20 
minK2, maxK2 = li_K2.min()-20, li_K2.max()+20
resolution = 0.1
Km1, Km2 = np.meshgrid( np.arange(minK1, maxK1, resolution), 
                        np.arange(minK2, maxK2, resolution))

A = A_mesh(w1f, w2f, Km1, Km2 )
print("A.shape = ", A.shape)

fig_size = plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"]
#print(fig_size)
fig_size[0] = 14
fig_size[1] = 11
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
cmap=cm.PuBu_r
cmap=cm.RdYlBu
#cs = plt.contourf(X, Y, Z1, levels=25, alpha=1.0, cmap=cm.PuBu_r)
cs = ax.contourf(Km1, Km2, A, levels=25, alpha=1.0, cmap=cmap)
cbar = fig.colorbar(cs)
N = 14
r0 = 0.6
x = li_K1
y = li_K2
area = 6*np.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)  # 0 to 10 point radii
c = np.sqrt(area)
r = np.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)
area1 = np.ma.masked_where(x < 100, area)
area2 = np.ma.masked_where(x >= 100, area)
ax.scatter(x, y, s=area1, marker='^', c=c)
ax.scatter(x, y, s=area2, marker='o', c=c)
# Show the boundary between the regions:
ax.set_xlabel("K1", fontsize=16)
ax.set_ylabel("K2", fontsize=16)

 

Please note the differences in how we handle the creation of the array "KmT" with the transformed data for "scale_method=0", i.e. "Normalizer", in comparison to other methods.

Here is the result:

Looks very similar to our plot for the StandardScaler in the last article - but with a slight shift on the K1-axis. So, the answer to our first question is: The contour lines are straight diagonal lines!

This is a direct result of the equations

expit(z) = E_z = const. => z = const. => w1*f1*K1 + w2*f2*K2 = C_z =>
K2 = C_k -fact*K1

The last one is nothing but an equation for a straight line. As "factor" is a constant, the angle α with the K1-axis remains the same for different E_z and C_k, i.e. we get parallel lines. If "fact = "-w1*f1/w2*f2 ≈ 1 = tan(α)" we get almost a 45°ree;-angle α. Let us see in our case : w1 = -2.4151 , w2 = 2.3977, f1 = 0.00214, f2 = 0.00211 => fact = 1.0215. This explains our plot.

"Normalizer" used per sample

Now we scale the (K1, K2) coordinates in feature space of each single sample with the Normalizer. I.e. we scale K1 and K2 for each individual sample by a common factor 1/sqrt(K1**2 + K2**2). Meaning: No scaling with a common factor per feature over all samples; instead scaling of the features per sample. As already said: If we regard K1 and K2 as coordinates of a vector then we scale the distance of vectors end point radially to the origin of the coordinate system down to a length of 1.

Thus: After this normalization transformation we expect that our points are located on a unit circle! Note, however, that our transformation keeps up the angular distance of all data points. By "angular distance" for two selected points we mean the difference of the angles of these data points with e.g. the K1-axis.

Let us look at the transformed sample points in the {K1, K2}-plane:

Ok, our transformation has done a more pronounced "clustering" for us. Our transformed clusters are even more clearly separated from each other than before!

What does this mean for our cost hyperplane in the {w1, w2}-space? Well, here is a mesh-plot:

Cost hyperplane of the data scaled per sample by "Normalizer" in the {w1, w2}-space

According to our mesh the minimum is located at:

C_min =  2.2726781812937556e-05
Coordinates:  [[3200 2296]]
Weight values at cost minimum: -0.9080000000005057 0.8999999999992951

Comparison of the cost hyperplane with center of the original hyperplane for the unscaled batch data

Now comes a really funny point: Do you remember that we have gotten a similar plot before? Actually, we did when we looked at a tiny surroundings of the center of the cost hyperplane of the original unscaled data in the first article of this series:

Cost hyperplane at the center of the original unscaled input data in the {w1, w2}-space?

A somewhat different viewing angle - but the similarity is obvious. Note however the very different scales of the (w1, w2)-values compared to the version of the scaled data.

How do we explain this similarity? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the total costs of the batch are dominated by those samples who have the biggest coordinate values, i.e. of those points where either K1 or K2 is biggest. Now, these points were very close to each other in the original data set. Now, for such points a centric stretch by a factor of around 1/200 would require a centric stretch (but now an expansion!) for the (w1, w2)-data with a reciprocate factor if we wanted to reproduce the same cost values. Reason: Linear coupling w1*K1+w2*K2! You compensate a constant factor in the {K1,K2}-space by its reciprocate one in the {w1, W2}-space!

But that is more or less what we have done by our somewhat strange application of the "Normalizer"! At least almost ... Fun, isn't it?

Gradient descent after sample-wise (!) normalization by the "Normalizer"

The clearer separation of the clusters in the {K1, K2}-space after separation and a well formed cost hyperplane over the {w1, w2}-space should help us a bit with our gradient descent. We set the parameters of a gradient descent run to

w1_start = -0.20, w2_start = 0.25 eta = 0.2, decrease_rate = 0.00000001, num_steps = 1000

and get:

Stoachastic Descent
          Kt1       Kt2     K1     K2  Tgt       Res       Err
0   0.997559  0.069829  200.0   14.0  0.3  0.300715  0.002383
1   0.009345  0.999956    1.0  107.0  0.7  0.709386  0.013408
2   0.998053  0.062378  160.0   10.0  0.3  0.299211  0.002629
3   0.056902  0.998380   11.0  193.0  0.7  0.700095  0.000136
4   0.989586  0.143940  220.0   32.0  0.3  0.316505  0.055018
5   0.061680  0.998096   11.0  178.0  0.7  0.699129  0.001244
6   0.999861  0.016664  120.0    2.0  0.3  0.290309  0.032305
7   0.066519  0.997785   14.0  210.0  0.7  0.698144  0.002652
8   0.998112  0.061422  195.0   12.0  0.3  0.299019  0.003269
9   0.111245  0.993793   15.0  134.0  0.7  0.688737  0.016090
10  0.998553  0.053768  130.0    7.0  0.3  0.297492  0.008360
11  0.029927  0.999552    5.0  167.0  0.7  0.705438  0.007769
12  0.998542  0.053975  185.0   10.0  0.3  0.297533  0.008223
13  0.069699  0.997568   16.0  229.0  0.7  0.697493  0.003581

Batch Descent
          Kt1       Kt2     K1     K2  Tgt       Res       Err
0   0.997559  0.069829  200.0   14.0  0.3  0.300723  0.002409
1   0.009345  0.999956    1.0  107.0  0.7  0.709388  0.013411
2   0.998053  0.062378  160.0   10.0  0.3  0.299219  0.002604
3   0.056902  0.998380   11.0  193.0  0.7  0.700097  0.000139
4   0.989586  0.143940  220.0   32.0  0.3  0.316513  0.055044
5   0.061680  0.998096   11.0  178.0  0.7  0.699131  0.001241
6   0.999861  0.016664  120.0    2.0  0.3  0.290316  0.032280
7   0.066519  0.997785   14.0  210.0  0.7  0.698146  0.002649
8   0.998112  0.061422  195.0   12.0  0.3  0.299027  0.003244
9   0.111245  0.993793   15.0  134.0  0.7  0.688739  0.016087
10  0.998553  0.053768  130.0    7.0  0.3  0.297500  0.008335
11  0.029927  0.999552    5.0  167.0  0.7  0.705440  0.007771
12  0.998542  0.053975  185.0   10.0  0.3  0.297541  0.008198
13  0.069699  0.997568   16.0  229.0  0.7  0.697495  0.003578

Total error stoch descent:  0.011219103621660675
Total error batch descent:  0.01121352661948904         

Well, this is a almost perfect result on the training set; just between 1% and 3% deviation from the aspired output values. We have obviously found something new! Before, we always had deviations up to 15% or even 20% in the prediction for some of the data samples in our training set.

The final values of the weights become:

Final (w1,w2)-values stoch : ( -0.9093 ,  0.9009 )
Final (w1,w2)-values batch : ( -0.9090 ,  0.9009 )

Also very perfect. You should not forget - we worked with just 14 samples and 1 neuron.

The evolution data look like:

Cost and weight evolution during stochastic gradient descent

and:

Cost and weight evolution during batch gradient descent

Smooth development; fast convergence!

Separation lines in the {K1, K2}-space after "per sample"-normalization with "Normalizer"

Now we turn to the answer to the second question we asked above: What changes regarding the separation or contour lines of the output values of our solitary neuron? Well as in our last article, we are interested in the output of our neuron after the normalization transformation of the data. I.e. we are on the search for contour lines, which we get for those points in the original {K1, K2}-space for which the sigmoid function produces a constant after transformation.

Here is the plot:

Ooops, now we get a real difference. The contour curves are straight lines, but now directed radially outwards from the origin into the {K1, K2}-space! You see in addition that most of the data points are located very close to the lines for the set values A=0.3 and A=0.7!

We also get a very clear separation line close to diagonal at 45°ree;. A few comments on this finding:

The subdivision of the {K1, K2}-plane into sectors is very appropriate for clusters with data which show a tendency of a constant ration between the K1 and K2 values or clusters with a narrow extension in both directions. Note, however, that if we had two clusters at different radial distances but at roughly the same angle our present Normalizer transformation per sample would not have been helpful but disastrous regarding separation. So: The application of special normalization procedures ahead of classification training must be done with a feeling or insight into the clustering structure in the feature space.

Why radial contour lines?

What are the contour lines in the original {K1, K2}-space which produce the same output A for the transformed data? If we name the transformed (K1, K2) values by (k1, k2) we get in our case

k1 = K1/(K1**2 + K2**2)
k2 = K2/(K1**2 + K2**2)

So, we are looking for points in the {K1, K2}-space for which the equation

expit(w1*k1+ w2*k2) = const.

We now have to show that this is fulfilled for lines that have the property K2/K1 = tan(alpha) with alpha = const.. The proof is a small algebraic exercise, which I leave to my readers. Of course a genius like Mr Trump would give a direct answer based on the transformation properties itself: We just eliminated the radial distance to the origin as a feature! I leave it up to you which way of reasoning you want to go.

Clustering ahead of gradient descent?

Our very specific way of using the "Normalizer" has led us to a clearer clustering after the scaling transformation. This gives rise to a fundamental idea:

What if you could use some method to detect clusters in the distribution of datapoints in feature space ahead of gradient decent?

But, on basis of what input or feature data then? Well, we could use some norm (as L2) to describe the distance of the data points from the centers of the different identified clusters as the new features! If we knew the centers of the clusters such an approach could have a potential advantage: It would set the the number of the new features to the number of the identified clusters. And this number could be substantially smaller than the number of originally features Why? Because in general not all features may be independent of each other and not all may be of major importance for the classification and cluster membership.

We shall follow this idea in my other series on a real MLP and MNIST in more detail.

Conclusion

In this article we studied the application of the "Normalizer" offered by Scikit-Learn in two different ways to a training scenario for a one neuron perceptron and data with two input features (only). Normally we would apply "Normalizer" such that we would scale the data of all samples for each feature separately. And use the found stretching factors later on on new data points for which we want to make a classification prediction.

We saw that such a transformation roughly kept up the structure of the datapoint distribution in the {K1, K2}-fature-space. Scaling into an interval [-1, 1] had a major and healthy impact on the structure of the cost hyperplane in the {w1, w2}-weight-space. This helped us to perform a smooth gradient descent calculation.

Then we performed an application of "Normalizer" per sample. This corresponded to a radial stretch of all datapoints down to a unit cycle, whilst keeping up the values of the angles. We got a more structured cost hyperplane afterwards and a stronger clustering effect in the special case of our transformed data distribution in feature space. This helped gradient descent quite a lot: We could classify our data much better according to our discrimination prescription A=0.3 vs. A=0.7.

Our transformation also had the interesting effect of sub-dividing the feature space into radial sectors instead of parallel stripes. This would be helpful in case of data clusters with a certain radial elongation in the feature space but a clear difference and separation in angle. Such data do indeed exist - just think of the distribution of stars or microwave radiation clusters on the nightly sky sphere. At least in the latter case the radial distance of the sources may be of minor importance: You do not need radial distance information to note a concentration in a region which we call "milky way"!

What we actually did with our special normalization was to indirectly eliminate the radial distance information hidden in our (K1, K2)-data. We could also have calculated the angle (or a function of it) directly and thrown away all other information. If we had done so, we would have reduced our 2-dim the feature space to just one dimension! We saw this directly on the plot of the contour lines! Thus: It would have been much more intelligent, if we had used our transformation in a slightly modified form, determined just the angle of our data-points directly and uses these data as the only feature guiding gradient descent.

This led us to the idea that a clear identification of clusters by some appropriate method before we start a gradient descent analysis might be helpful for classification tasks.

This in turn triggers the idea of a cluster detection in feature space - which itself actually is a major discipline of Machine Learning. An advantage of using cluster detection ahead of gradient descent would be the possible reduction of the number of input features for the artificial neural network. Take a look at a forthcoming article in my other series on a Multilayer Perceptron [MLP] in this blog for an application in combination with a MLP and the MNIST daset.

In the next article of this series on a minimalistic perceptron we shall add a bias neuron to the input layer and investigate the impact.

 

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – II – normalization to overcome saturation

I continue my small series on a single neuron perceptron to study the positive effects of the normalization of input data in combination with the use of the sigmoid function as the activation function. In the last article

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – I – failure of gradient descent due to saturation

we have seen that the saturation of the sigmoid function for big positive or negative arguments can prevent a smooth gradient descent under certain conditions - even if a global minimum clearly exists.

A perceptron with just one computing neuron is just a primitive example which demonstrates what can happen at the neurons of the first computing layer after the input layer of a real "Artificial Neural Network" [ANN]. We should really avoid to provide too big input values there and take into account that input values for different features get added up.

Measures against saturation at neurons in the first computing layer

There are two elementary methods to avoid saturation of sigmoid like functions at neurons of the first hidden layer:

  • Normalization: One measure to avoid big input values is to normalize the input data. Normalization can be understood as a transformation of given real input values for all of the features into an interval [0, 1] or [-1, 1]. There are of course many transformations which map a real number distribution into a given limited interval. Some keep up the relative distance of data points, some not. We shall have a look at some standard normalization variants used in Machine Learning [ML] during this and the next article .
    The effect with respect to a sigmoidal activation function is that the gradient for arguments in the range [-1, 1] is relatively big. The sigmoid function behaves almost as a linear function in this argument region; see the plot in the last article.
  • Choosing an appropriate (statistical) initial weight distribution: If we have a relatively big feature space as e.g. for the MNIST dataset with 784 features, normalization alone is not enough. The initial value distribution for weights must also be taken care of as we add up contributions of all input nodes (multiplied by the weights). We can follow a recommendation of LeCun (1990); see the book of Aurelien Geron recommended (here) for more details.
    Then we would choose a uniform distribution of values in a range [-alpha*sqrt(1/num_inp_nodes), alpha*sqrt(1/num_inp_nodes)], with alpha $asymp; 1.73 and num_inp_nodes giving the number of input nodes, which typically is the number of features plus 1, if you use a bias neuron. As a rule of thumb I personally take [-0.5*sqrt(1/num_inp_nodes, 0.5*sqrt[1/num_inp_nodes].

Normalization functions

The following quick&dirty Python code for a Jupyter cell calls some normalization functions for our simple perceptron scenario and directly executes the transformation; I have provided the required import statements for libraries already in the last article.

# ********
# Scaling
# ********

b_scale = True
scale_method = 3
# 0: Normalizer (standard), 1: StandardScaler, 2. By factor, 3: Normalizer per pair 
# 4: Min_Max, 5: Identity (no transformation) - just there for convenience  

shape_ay = (num_samples,)
ay_K1 = np.zeros(shape_ay)
ay_K2 = np.zeros(shape_ay)

# apply scaling
if b_scale:
    # shape_input = (num_samples,2)
    rg_idx = range(num_samples)
    if scale_method == 0:      
        shape_input = (2, num_samples)
        ay_K = np.zeros(shape_input)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K[0][idx] = li_K1[idx] 
            ay_K[1][idx] = li_K2[idx] 
        scaler = Normalizer()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K1[idx] = ay_K[0][idx]   
            ay_K2[idx] = ay_K[1][idx] 
        print(ay_K1)
        print("\n")
        print(ay_K2)
    elif scale_method == 1: 
        shape_input = (num_samples,2)
        ay_K = np.zeros(shape_input)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K[idx][0] = li_K1[idx] 
            ay_K[idx][1] = li_K2[idx] 
        scaler = StandardScaler()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K1[idx] = ay_K[idx][0]   
            ay_K2[idx] = ay_K[idx][1]
    elif scale_method == 2:
        dmax = max(li_K1.max() - li_K1.min(), li_K2.max() - li_K2.min())
        ay_K1 = 1.0/dmax * li_K1
        ay_K2 = 1.0/dmax * li_K2
    elif scale_method == 3:
        shape_input = (num_samples,2)
        ay_K = np.zeros(shape_input)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K[idx][0] = li_K1[idx] 
            ay_K[idx][1] = li_K2[idx] 
        scaler = Normalizer()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K1[idx] = ay_K[idx][0]   
            ay_K2[idx] = ay_K[idx][1]
    elif scale_method == 4:
        shape_input = (num_samples,2)
        ay_K = np.zeros(shape_input)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K[idx][0] = li_K1[idx] 
            ay_K[idx][1] = li_K2[idx] 
        scaler = MinMaxScaler()
        ay_K = scaler.fit_transform(ay_K)
        for idx in rg_idx:
            ay_K1[idx] = ay_K[idx][0]   
            ay_K2[idx] = ay_K[idx][1]
    elif scale_method == 5:
        ay_K1 = li_K1
        ay_K2 = li_K2
            
            
# Get overview over costs on weight-mesh
wm1 = np.arange(-5.0,5.0,0.002)
wm2 = np.arange(-5.0,5.0,0.002)
#wm1 = np.arange(-0.3,0.3,0.002)
#wm2 = np.arange(-0.3,0.3,0.002)
W1, W2 = np.meshgrid(wm1, wm2) 
C, li_C_sgl = costs_mesh(num_samples = num_samples, W1=W1, W2=W2, li_K1 = ay_K1, li_K2 = ay_K2, \
                               li_a_tgt = li_a_tgt)


C_min = np.amin(C)
print("C_min = ", C_min)
IDX = np.argwhere(C==C_min)
print ("Coordinates: ", IDX)
wmin1 = W1[IDX[0][0]][IDX[0][1]] 
wmin2 = W2[IDX[0][0]][IDX[0][1]]
print("Weight values at cost minimum:",  wmin1, wmin2)

# Plots
# ******
fig_size = plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"]
#print(fig_size)
fig_size[0] = 19; fig_size[1] = 19

fig3 = plt.figure(3); fig4 = plt.figure(4)

ax3 = fig3.gca(projection='3d')
ax3.get_proj = lambda: np.dot(Axes3D.get_proj(ax3), np.diag([1.0, 1.0, 1, 1]))
ax3.view_init(25,135)
ax3.set_xlabel('w1', fontsize=16)
ax3.set_ylabel('w2', fontsize=16)
ax3.set_zlabel('Total costs', fontsize=16)
ax3.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, 1.2*C, colors=('green'))


ax4 = fig4.gca(projection='3d')
ax4.get_proj = lambda: np.dot(Axes3D.get_proj(ax4), np.diag([1.0, 1.0, 1, 1]))
ax4.view_init(25,135)
ax4.set_xlabel('w1', fontsize=16)
ax4.set_ylabel('w2', fontsize=16)
ax4.set_zlabel('Single costs', fontsize=16)
ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[0], colors=('blue'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[1], colors=('red'))
ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[5], colors=('orange'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[6], colors=('yellow'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[9], colors=('magenta'))
#ax4.plot_wireframe(W1, W2, li_C_sgl[12], colors=('green'))

plt.show()

 

The results of the transformation for our two features are available in the arrays "ay_K1" and "ay_K2". These arrays will then be used as an input to gradient descent.

Some remarks on some normalization methods:

Normalizer: It is in the above code called by setting "scale_method=0". The "Normalizer" with standard parameters scales by applying a division by an averaged L2-norm distance. However, its application is different from other SciKit-Learn scalers:
It normalizes over all data given in a sample. The dimensions beyond 1 are NOT interpreted as features which have to be normalizes separately - as e.g. the "StandardScaler" does. So, you have to be careful with index handling! This explains the different index-operation for "scale_method = 0" compared to other cases.

StandardScaler: Called by setting "scale_method=1". The StandardScaler accepts arrays of samples with columns for features. It scales all features separately. It subtracts the mean average of all feature values of all samples and divides afterwards by the standard deviation. It thus centers the value distribution with a mean value of zero and a variance of 1. Note however that it does not limit all transformed values to the interval [-1, 1].

MinMaxScaler: Called by setting "scale_method=4". The MinMaxScaler
works similar to the StandardScaler but subtracts the minimum and divides by the (max-min)-difference. It therefore does not center the distribution and does not set the variance to 1. However, it limits the transformed values to the interval [-1, 1].

Normalizer per sample: Called by setting "scale_method=3". This applies the Normalizer per sample! I.e., it scales in our case both the given feature values for one single by their mean and standard deviation. This may at first sound totally meaningless. But we shall see in the next article that it is not in case for our special set of 14 input samples.

Hint: For the rest of this article we shall only work with the StandardScaler.

Input data transformed by the StandardScaler

The following plot shows the input clusters after a transformation with the "StandardScaler":

You should recognize two things: The centralization of the features and the structural consistence of the clusters to the original distribution before scaling!

The cost hyperplane over the {w1, w2}-space after the application of the StandardScaler to our input data

Let us apply the StandardScaler and look at the resulting cost hyperplane. When we set the parameters for a mesh display to

wm1 = np.arange(-5.0,5.0,0.002), wm2 = np.arange(-5.0,5.0,0.002)

we get the following results:

C_min =  0.0006239618496774544
Coordinates:  [[2695 2259]]
Weight values at cost minimum: -0.4820000000004976 0.3899999999994064

Plots for total costs over the {w1, w2}-space from different angles

Plot for individual costs (i=0, i=5) over the {w1, w2}-space

The index "i" refers to our sample-array (see the last article).

Gradient descent after scaling with the "StandardScaler"

Ok, let us now try gradient descent again. We set the following parameters:

w1_start = -0.20, w2_start = 0.25 eta = 0.1, decrease_rate = 0.000001, num_steps = 2000

Results:

Stoachastic Descent
          Kt1       Kt2     K1     K2  Tgt       Res       Err
0   1.276259 -0.924692  200.0   14.0  0.3  0.273761  0.087463
1  -1.067616  0.160925    1.0  107.0  0.7  0.640346  0.085220
2   0.805129 -0.971385  160.0   10.0  0.3  0.317122  0.057074
3  -0.949833  1.164828   11.0  193.0  0.7  0.713461  0.019230
4   1.511825 -0.714572  220.0   32.0  0.3  0.267573  0.108090
5  -0.949833  0.989729   11.0  178.0  0.7  0.699278  0.001031
6   0.333998 -1.064771  120.0    2.0  0.3  0.359699  0.198995
7  -0.914498  1.363274   14.0  210.0  0.7  0.725667  0.036666
8   1.217368 -0.948038  195.0   12.0  0.3  0.277602  0.074660
9  -0.902720  0.476104   15.0  134.0  0.7  0.650349  0.070930
10  0.451781 -1.006405  130.0    7.0  0.3  0.351926  0.173086
11 -1.020503  0.861322    5.0  167.0  0.7  0.695876  0.005891
12  1.099585 -0.971385  185.0   10.0  0.3  0.287246  0.042514
13 -0.890942  1.585067   16.0  229.0  0.7  0.740396  0.057709

Batch Descent
          Kt1       Kt2     K1     K2  Tgt       Res       Err
0   1.276259 -0.924692  200.0   14.0  0.3  0.273755  0.087482
1  -1.067616  0.160925    1.0  107.0  0.7  0.640352  0.085212
2   0.805129 -0.971385  160.0   10.0  0.3  0.317118  0.057061
3  -0.949833  1.164828   11.0  193.0  0.7  0.713465  0.019236
4   1.511825 -0.714572  220.0   32.0  0.3  0.267566  0.108113
5  -0.949833  0.989729   11.0  178.0  0.7  0.699283  0.001025
6   0.333998 -1.064771  120.0    2.0  0.3  0.359697  0.198990
7  -0.914498  1.363274   14.0  210.0  0.7  0.725670  0.036672
8   1.217368 -0.948038  195.0   12.0  0.3  0.277597  0.074678
9  -0.902720  0.476104   15.0  134.0  0.7  0.650354  0.070923
10  0.451781 -1.006405  130.0    7.0  0.3  0.351924  0.173080
11 -1.020503  0.861322    5.0  167.0  0.7  0.695881  0.005884
12  1.099585 -0.971385  185.0   10.0  0.3  0.287241  0.042531
13 -0.890942  1.585067   16.0  229.0  0.7  0.740400  0.057714

Total error stoch descent:  0.07275422919538276
Total error batch descent:  0.07275715820661666

The attentive reader has noticed that I extended my code to include the columns with the original (K1, K2)-values into the Pandas dataframe. The code of the new function "predict_batch()" is given below. Do not forget to change the function calls at the end of the gradient descent code, too.

Now we obviously can speak of a result! The calculated (w1, w2)-data are:

Final (w1,w2)-values stoch : ( -0.4816 ,  0.3908 )
Final (w1,w2)-values batch : ( -0.4815 ,  0.3906 )

Yeah, this is pretty close to the values we got via the fine grained mesh analysis of the cost function before! And within the error range!

Changed code for two of our functions in the last article

def predict_batch(num_samples, w1, w2, ay_k_1, ay_k_2, li_K1, li_K2, li_a_tgt):
    shape_res = (num_samples, 7)
    ResData = np.zeros(shape_res)  
    rg_idx = range(num_samples)
    err = 0.0
    for idx in rg_idx:
        z_in  = w1 * ay_k_1[idx] + w2 * ay_k_2[idx] 
        a_out = expit(z_in)
        a_tgt = li_a_tgt[idx]
        err_idx = np.absolute(a_out - a_tgt) / a_tgt 
        err += err_idx
        ResData[idx][0] = ay_k_1[idx] 
        ResData[idx][1] = ay_k_2[idx] 
        ResData[idx][2] = li_K1[idx] 
        ResData[idx][3] = li_K2[idx] 
        ResData[idx][4] = a_tgt
        ResData[idx][5] = a_out
        ResData[idx][6] = err_idx
    err /= float(num_samples)
    return err, ResData    

def create_df(ResData):
    ''' ResData: Array with result values K1, K2, Tgt, A, rel.err 
    '''
    cols=["Kt1", "Kt2", "K1", "K2", "Tgt", "Res", "Err"]
    df = pd.DataFrame(ResData, columns=cols)
    return df    

 

How does the epoch evolution after the application of the StandardScaler look like?

Let us plot the evolution for the stochastic gradient descent:

Cost and weight evolution during stochastic gradient descent

Ok, we see that despite convergence the difference in the costs for different samples cannot be eliminated. It should be clear to the reader, why, and that this was to be expected.

We also see that the total costs (calculated from the individual costs) seemingly converges much faster than the weight values! Our gradient descent path obviously follows a big slope into a rather flat valley first (see the plot of the total costs above). Afterwards there is a small gradient sideways and down into the real minimum - and it obviously takes some epochs to get there. We also understand that we have to keep up a significant "learning rate" to follow the gradient in the flat valley. In addition the following rule seems to be appropriate sometimes:

We must not only watch the cost evolution but also the weight evolution - to avoid stopping gradient descent too early!

We shall keep this in mind for experiments with real multi-layer "Artificial Neural Networks" later on!

And how does the gradient descent based on the full "batch" of 14 samples look like?

Cost and weight evolution during batch gradient descent

A smooth beauty!

Contour plot for separation curves in the {K1, K2}-plane

We add the following code to our Jupyter notebook:

# ***********
# Contours 
# ***********

from matplotlib import ticker, cm

# Take w1/w2-vals from above w1f, w2f
w1_len = len(li_w1_ba)
w2_len = len(li_w1_ba)
w1f = li_w1_ba[w1_len -1]
w2f = li_w2_ba[w2_len -1]

def A_mesh(w1,w2, Km1, Km2):
    kshape = Km1.shape
    A = np.zeros(kshape) 
    
    Km1V = Km1.reshape(kshape[0]*kshape[1], )
    Km2V = Km2.reshape(kshape[0]*kshape[1], )
    # print("km1V.shape = ", Km1V.shape, "\nkm1V.shape = ", Km2V.shape )
    
    KmV = np.column_stack((Km1V, Km2V))
    
    # scaling trafo
    KmT = scaler.transform(KmV)
    
    Km1T, Km2T = KmT.T
    Km1TR = Km1T.reshape(kshape)
    Km2TR = Km2T.reshape(kshape)
    #print("km1TR.shape = ", Km1TR.shape, "\nkm2TR.shape = ", Km2TR.shape )
    
    rg_idx = range(num_samples)
    Z      = w1 * Km1TR + w2 * Km2TR
    A = expit(Z)
    return A

#Build K1/K2-mesh 
minK1, maxK1 = li_K1.min()-20, li_K1.max()+20 
minK2, maxK2 = li_K2.min()-20, li_K2.max()+20
resolution = 0.1
Km1, Km2 = np.meshgrid( np.arange(minK1, maxK1, resolution), 
                        np.arange(minK2, maxK2, resolution))

A = A_mesh(w1f, w2f, Km1, Km2 )

fig_size = plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"]
fig_size[0] = 14
fig_size[1] = 11
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
cmap=cm.PuBu_r
cmap=cm.RdYlBu
#cs = plt.contourf(X, Y, Z1, levels=25, alpha=1.0, cmap=cm.PuBu_r)
cs = ax.contourf(Km1, Km2, A, levels=25, alpha=1.0, cmap=cmap)
cbar = fig.colorbar(cs)
N = 14
r0 = 0.6
x = li_K1
y = li_K2
area = 6*np.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)  # 0 to 10 point radii
c = np.sqrt(area)
r = np.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)
area1 = np.ma.masked_where(x < 100, area)
area2 = np.ma.masked_where(x >= 100, area)
ax.scatter(x, y, s=area1, marker='^', c=c)
ax.scatter(x, y, s=area2, marker='o', c=c)
# Show the boundary between the regions:
ax.set_xlabel("K1", fontsize=16)
ax.set_ylabel("K2", fontsize=16)

 

This code enables us to plot contours of predicted output values of our solitary neuron, i.e. A-values, on a mesh of the original {K1, K2}-plane. As we classified after a transformation of our input data, the following hint should be obvious:

Important hint: Of course you have to apply your scaling method to all the new input data created by the mesh-function! This is done in the above code in the "A_mesh()"-function with the following lines:

    # scaling trafo
    if (scale_method == 3): 
        KmT = scaler.fit_transform(KmV)
    else: 
        KmT = scaler.transform(KmV)

We can directly apply the StandardScaler on our new data via its method transform(); the scaler will use the parameters it found during his first "scaler.fit_transform()"-operation on our input samples. However, we cannot do it this way when using the Normalizer for each individual new data sample via "scale_method =3". I shall come back to this point in a later article.

The careful reader also sees that our code will, for the time being, not work for scale_method=0, scale_method=2 and scale_method=5. Reason: I was too lazy to write a class or code suitable for these normalizing operations. I shall correct this when we need it.

But at least I added our input samples via scatter plotting to the final output. The result is:

The deviations from our target values is to be expected. With a given pair of (w1, w2)-values we cannot do much better with a single neuron and a linear weight impact on the input data.

But we see: If we set up a criterion like:

  • A > 0.5 => sample belongs to the left cluster,
  • A ≤ 0.5 => sample belongs to the right cluster

we would have a relatively good classificator available - based on one neuron only!

Intermediate Conclusion

In this article I have shown that the "standardization" of input data, which are fed into a perceptron ahead of a gradient descent calculation, helps to circumvent problems with the saturation of the sigmoid function at the computing neuron following the input layer. We achieved this by applying the "StandardScaler" of Scikit-Learn. We got a smooth development of both the cost function and the weight parameters during gradient descent in the transformed data space.

We also learned another important thing:

An apparent convergence of the cost function in the vicinity of a minimum value does not always mean that we have reached the global minimum, yet. The evolution of the weight parameters may not yet have come to an end! Therefore, it is important to watch both the evolution of the costs AND the evolution of the weights during gradient descent. A too fast decline of the learning rate may not be good either under certain conditions.

In the next article

A single neuron perceptron with sigmoid activation function – III – two ways of applying Normalizer

we shall look at two other normalization methods for our simplistic scenario. One of them will give us an even better classificator.

Stay tuned and remain healthy ...

And Mr Trump:
One neuron can obviously learn something about the difference of big and small numbers. This leads me to two questions, which you as a "natural talent" on epidemics can certainly answer: How many neurons are necessary to understand something about an exponential epidemic development? And why did it take so much time to activate them?