Tag Archives: KMeans

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – V – cluster based classification of the MNIST dataset

Posted on by

In this series about KMeans

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – I – Cluster analysis of the WIFI example
KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – II – PCA in combination with KMeans for the WIFI-example
KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – III – KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI-example
KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – IV – KMeans on PCA transformed data

we have so far studied the application of KMeans to the WIFI dataset of the UCI Irvine. We now apply the Kmeans clustering algorithm to the MNIST dataset – also in an extended form, namely as a classifier. The MNIST dataset – a collection of 28x28px images of handwritten numbers – has already been discussed in other sections of this blog and is well documented on the Internet. I, therefore, do not describe its basic properties in this post. A typical image of the collection is

Load MNIST – dimensionality of the feature space and scaling of the data

Due to the ease of use, I loaded the MNIST data samples via TF2 and the included Keras interface. Otherwise TF2 was not used for the following experiments. Instead the clustering algorithms were taken from “sklearn”.

Each MNIST image can be transformed into a one-dimensional array with dimension 784 (= 28 * 28). This means the MNIST feature space has a dimension of 784 – which is much more than the seven dimensions we dealt with when analyzing the WIFI data in the last post. All MNIST samples were shuffled for individual runs.

Scaling of MNIST data for clustering?

A good question is whether we should scale or normalize the sample data for clustering – and if so by what formula. I could not answer this question directly; instead I tested multiple methods. Previous experience with PCA and MNIST indicated that Sklearn’s “Normalizer” would be helpful, but I did not take this as granted.

A simple scaling method is to just divide the pixel values by 255. This brings all 784 data array elements of each image into the value range [0,1]. Note that this scaling does not change relative length differences of the sample vectors in the feature space. Neither does it shift or change the width of the data distribution around its mean value. Other methods would be to standardize the data or to normalize them, e.g. by using respective algorithms from Scikit-Learn. Using either method in combination with a cluster analysis corresponds to a theory about the cluster distribution in the feature space. Normalization would mean that we assume that the clusters do not so much depend on the vector length in the feature space but mainly on the angle of the sample vectors. We shall later see what kind of scaling helps when we classify the MNIST data based on clusters.

In a first approach we leave the data as they are, i.e. unscaled.

Parameters for clustering

All the following cluster calculations were done on 3 out of 8 available (hyperthreaded) CPU cores. For Kmeans and MiniBatchKMeans we used

n_init       = 100       # number of initial cluster configurations to test 
max_iter     = 100       # maximum number of iterations  
tol          = 1.e-4     # final deviation of subsequent results (= stop condition)  
random_state = 2         # a random state nmber for repeatable runs
mb_size      = 200       # size of minibatches (for MiniBatchKMeans)

The number of clusters “num_clus” was defined individually for each run.

Analysis by KMeans? Too expensive …

A naive approach to perform an elbow analysis, as we did for the WIFI-data, would be to apply KMeans of Sklearn directly to the MNIST data. But a test run on the CPU shows that such an endeavor would cost too much time. With 3 CPU cores and only a very limited number of clusters and iterations

n_init   = 10      # only a few initial configurations
max_iter = 50 
tol      = 1.e-3  
num_clus = 25      # only a few clusters

a KMeans fit() run applied to 60,000 training samples [len(X_train) => 60,000]

kmeans.fit(X_train)

requires around 42 secs. For 200 clusters the cluster analysis requires around 214 secs. Doing an elbow analysis would therefore require many hours of computational time.
To overcome this problem I had to use MiniBatchKMeans. It is by factors > 80 faster.

Elbow analysis with the help of MiniBatchKmeans

When we use the following setting for MiniBatchKMeans

n_init = 50 # only a few initial configurations
max_iter = 100
tol = 1.e-4
mb_size = 200

I could perform an elbow analysis for all cluster-numbers 1 < k <= 250 in less than 20 minutes. The following graphics shows the resulting intertia curve vs. cluster number:

The “elbow” is not very pronounced. But I would say that by using a cluster number around 200 we are on the safe side. By the way: The shape of the curve does not change very much when we apply Sklearn’s Normalizer to the MNIST data ahead of the cluster analysis.

Classifying unscaled data with the help of clusters

We now perform a prediction of our adapted cluster algorithm regarding the cluster membership for the training data and for k=225 clusters: 

n_clu    = 225
mb_size  = 200
max_iter = 120
n_init   = 100
tol      = 1.e-4

Based on the resulting data we afterward apply the same type of algorithm which we used for the WIFI data to construct a “classifier” based on clusters and a respective predictor function (see the last post of this series).

The data distribution for the 10 different digits of the training set was:

class 0 :  5905
class 1 :  6721
class 2 :  6031
class 3 :  6082
class 4 :  5845
class 5 :  5412
class 6 :  5917
class 7 :  6266
class 8 :  5860
class 9 :  5961

How good is the cluster membership of a sample for a digit class defined?
Well, out of 225 clusters there were only around 15 for which I got an “error” above 40%, i.e. for which the relative fraction of data samples deviating from the dominant class of the cluster was above 40%. For the vast majority of clusters, however, samples of one specific digit class dominated the clusters members by more than 90%.

The resulting confusion matrix of our new “cluster classifier” for the (unscaled) MNIST data looks like

[[5695    4   37   21    7   57   51   15   15    3]
 [   0 6609   33   21   11    2   15   17    2   11]
 [  62   45 5523  120   14   10   27  107  116    7]
 [  11   43  114 5362   15  153    8   60  267   49]
 [   5   60   62    2 4752    3   59   63    5  834]
 [  54   18  103  777   25 4158  126    9  110   32]
 [  49   20   56    4    6   38 5736    0    8    0]
 [   5   57   96    2   86    1    0 5774    7  238]
 [  30   76  109  416   51  152   39   35 4864   88]
 [  25   20   37   84  706   14    6  381   46 4642]]

This confusion matrix comes at no surprise: The digits “4”, “5”, “8”, “9” are somewhat error prone. Actually, everybody familiar with MNIST images knows that sometimes “4”s and “9”s can be mixed up even by the human eye. The same is true for handwritten “5”s, “8”s and “3”s.

Another representation of the confusion matrix is:

The calculation for the matrix elements was done in a standard way – the sum over percentages in a row gives 100% (the slight deviation in the matrix is due to rounding). I.e. we look at erors of the type TN (True Negatives).

The confusion matrix for the remaining 10,000 test data samples is:

The relative errors we get for our classifier when applied to the train and test data is

rel_err_train = 0.115 ,
rel_err_test = 0.112

All for unscaled MNIST data. Taking into account the crudeness of the whole approach this is a rather convincing result. It proves that it is worth the effort to perform a cluster analysis on high dimensional data:

  • It provides a first impression whether the data are structured in the feature space such that we can find relatively good separable clusters with dominant members belonging to just one class.
  • It also shows that a cluster based classification for many datasets cannot reach accuracy levels of CNNs, but that it may still deliver good results. Without any supervised training …

The second point also proves that the distance of the data points to the various cluster centers contains valuable information about the class membership. So, a MLP or CNN based classification could be performed on transformed MNIST data, namely distance vectors of sample datapoints to the different cluster centers. This corresponds to a dimension reduction of the classification problem. Actually, in a different part of this blog, I have already shown that such an approach delivers accuracy values beyond 98%.

For MNIST we can say that the samples define a relatively well separable cluster structure in the feature space. The granularity required to resolve classes sufficiently well means a clsuter number of around 200 < k < 250. Then we get an accuracy close to 90% for cluster based classification.

t-SNE representation of the MNIST data

Can we somehow confirm this finding about a good cluster-class-relation independently? Well, in a limited way. The t-SNE algorithm, which can be used to “project” multidimensional data onto a 2-dimensional plane, respects the vicinity of vectors in the original feature space whilst deriving a 2-dim representation. So, a rather well structured t-SNE diagram is an indication of clustering in the feature space. And indeed for 10,000 randomly selected samples of the (shufffled) training data we get:

The colorization was done by classes, i.e. digits. We see a relatively good separation of major “clusters” with data points belonging to a specific class. But we also can identify multiple problem zones, where data points belonging to different classes are intermixed. This explains the confusion matrix. It also explains why we need so many fine-grained clusters to get a reasonable resolution regarding a reliable class-cluster-relation.

Classifying scaled and normalized MNIST data with the help of clusters

Can we improve the accuracy of our cluster based classification a bit? This would, e.g., require some transformation which leads to a better cluster separation. To see the effect of two different scalers I tried the “Normalizer” and then also the “StandardScaler” of Sklearn. Actually, they work in opposite direction regarding accuracy:

The “Normalizer” improves accuracy by more than 1.5%, while the “Standardizer” reduces it by almost the same amount.

I only discuss results for “Normalization” below. The confusion matrix for the training data becomes:

and for the test data:

The relative error for the test data is

Error for trainings data:
avg_err_train = 0.085 :: num_err_train = 5113
 
Error for test data:
avg_err_test = 0.083 :: num_err_test = 832

So, the relative accuracy is now around 91.5%.
The result depends a bit on the composition of the training and the test dataset after an initial shuffling. But the value remains consistently above 90%.

Data compression by Autoencoders and clustering

Just for interest I also had a look at a very different approach to invoke clustering:

I first applied a simple CNN-based AutoEncoder [AE] to compress the MNIST data into a 25-dimensional space and applied our clustering methods afterwards.

I shall not discuss the technology of autoenconders in this post. The only relevant point in our context is that an autoencoder provides an efficient non-linear way of data compression and dimensionality reduction. Among many other useful properties and abilities … . Note: I did not use a “Variational Autoencoder” which would have allowed for even better results. The loss function for the AE was a simple quadratic loss. The autoencoder was trained on 50,000 training samples and for 40 epochs.

A t-SNE based plot of the “clusters” for test data in the 25-dimensional space looks like:

We see that the separation of the data belonging to different classes is somewhat better than before. Therefore, we expect a slightly better classification based on clusters, too. Without any scaling we get the following confusion data: 

[[5817    7   10    3    1   14   15    2   27    1]
 [   3 6726   29    2    0    1   10    5   12   10]
 [  49   35 5704   35   14    4   10   61   87    7]
 [   8   78   48 5580   22  148    2   40  111   29]
 [  47   27   18    0 4967    0   44   38    3  673]
 [  32   20   10  150    8 5039   73    4   43   28]
 [  31   11   23    2    2   47 5746    0   15    1]
 [   6   35   35    6   32    0    1 5977    7  163]
 [  17   67   22   86   16  217   24   22 5365   52]
 [  35   32   11   92  184   15    1  172   33 5406]]

Error averaged over (all) clusters :  6.74

The resulting relative error for the test data was:

avg_err_test = 0.0574 :: num_err_test = 574

With Normalization:

Error for test data:
avg_err_test = 0.054 :: num_err_test = 832

So, after performing the autoencoder training on normalized data we consistently get

an accuracy of around 94%.

This is not too much of a gain. But remember:
We performed a cluster analysis on a feature space with only 25 dimensions – which of course is much cheaper. However, we paid a prize, namely the Autoencoder training which lasted about 150 secs on my old Nvidia 960 GTX.

And note: Even with only 100 clusters we get above 92% on the AE-compressed data.

Conclusion

We have shown that using a non-supervised cluster analysis of the MNIST data with around 225 clusters allows for classifying images with an accuracy around 90.5%. In combination with an Autoencoder compression we even reaches values around 94%. This is comparable with other non-optimized standard algorithms aside of neural networks.

This means that the MNIST data samples are organized in a well separable cluster structure in their feature space. A test run with normalized data showed that the clusters (and their centers) differ mostly by their direction relative to the origin of the feature space and not so much by their distance from the origin. With a relatively fine grained resolution we could establish a simple cluster-class-relation which allowed for cluster based classification.

The accuracy is, of course, below the values reachable with optimized MLPS (98%) and CNNs (above 99%). But, clustering is a fast, reliable and non-supervised method. In addition in combination with t-SNE we can create plots which can easily be understood by the customers. So, even for more complex data I would always recommend to try a cluster based classification approach if you need to provide plots and quick results. Sometimes the accuracy may even be sufficient for your customer’s purposes.

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – IV – KMeans on PCA transformed data

Posted on by

In the last posts of this series

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – I – Cluster analysis of the WIFI example
KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – II – PCA in combination with KMeans for the WIFI-example
KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – III – KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI-example

we applied the KMeans algorithm to perform a cluster analysis of the WIFI dataset of the UCI Irvine. The results gave us insights into the spatial grouping and the separability of the data samples in their 7-dimensional feature space. An additional PCA analysis helped to understand why projections of the data into some selected 2-dimensional sub-spaces of the feature space revealed the four or five dominant clusters very well. In the third post I discussed a simple method to transform KMeans into a classifier. In the WIFI case a set of 9 to 11 clusters provided a good resolution of the data distribution and we reached a convincing classifier accuracy.

What we have not done, yet, is to transform and project the WIFI data into the coordinate system of the most important main components and afterward apply clustering by the help of KMeans. We know already that three primary components fit the data very well and give us around 90% of the “explained variance“. See the second post for these basic PCA results. We, therefore, expect comparably accurate prediction results of a cluster classifier for the PCA transformed data as the accuracy values given in the last post. For 500 test samples after a KMeans fit of 1500 training samples in the original feature space we found a prediction accuracy of around 98%.

In this post we first perform a PCA analysis for three primary components of the WIFI data distribution and then transform the vectors of 1500 randomly selected training samples to the 3-dimensional main component space. Then we apply KMeans onto the data in the reduced vector space and establish a classifier predictor based on the methods described in the last article. Eventually, we check the accuracy and display the resulting confusion matrix for the 500 test samples.

As a side-step for readers who look for real world use cases regarding signals I want to mention an article in “Nature”, which I found today via a newspaper podcast. There neural firing rates of a brain region, i.e. some very special signals, were used to enable an ALS patient to select letters from presented sequences and form statements – by his “thoughts”. This looks like an environment where Machine Learning really could contribute more in the future.

KMeans as a classifier on the PCA transformed WIFI data

Below I give you the results for the WIFI data transformed and projected to the most important three primary components and 11 clusters:

Results for 1500 training samples 

  
Confusion matrix for training data - 11 clusters, 3 PCA components 
A confusion matrix for the classes according to the clustering
[[374   0   1   0]
 [  0 362  13   0]
 [  4   7 359   5]
 [  1   0   0 374]]

Number of wrongly predicted train samples:  31  :: avg_err =  0.020

So, just from counting wrongly classified examples the average error is measured to be around 2% and the relative accuracy is something like 98%.

And for the test data I got:

Number of wrongly predicted test samples:  6  :: avg_err =  0.012

This gives us the following confusion matrix:

This actually proves that our assumption about combining a PCA transformation with a KMeans classifier was correct. The reduction of the dimensionality of the problem did not affect the prediction accuracy very much.

Just for completeness the data for only 2 primary components:

The accuracy of around 97% is still convincing. The reason is that the two most important primary components already deliver around 85% of the “explained variance”.

Why is the Wifi-example not so boring as one may think?

A reader wrote me that he finds the WIFI example too simple and boring. OK, but … The principles and methods remain the same when more complex data are analyzed for clusters. Especially in the case of binary classification. But are there interesting real world use cases for other types of signals? Oh, yes. I just want to refer to an interesting example which I read about this morning.

The WIFI example works with samples which describe 7 signals. Now, imagine that such signals come from a sensor implant measuring electric potentials of a human brain and that we do not analyze for the location of rooms but for the selection of letters by “Yes/No” decision-“imaginations” – made by a human who was trained via frequency based audio-feedback for the brain regions covered by the implants. Science fiction? No, reality. And of huge help for ALS patients. See

Chaudhary, U., Vlachos, I., Zimmermann, J.B. et al. Spelling interface using intracortical signals in a completely locked-in patient enabled via auditory neurofeedback training. Nat Commun 13, 1236 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28859-8

and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28859-8

There, signals were measured from two implant arrays with 64 electrodes. OK, these are somewhat more signals than just 7. But if I understood the text correctly not all channels were used or useful. Just a few. Reminds us of PCA? In addition the time structure of the signal (firing rates) are important – but these are just different signal characteristics. And we have different labels. But, at least in principle, we speak of nothing else than pattern detection based on signal values.

I only had a brief look into the supplementary data of the experiment (an Excel file) and I am not at all familiar with the the experimental setup – but from reading my impression was that just threshold values for the firing rate of some channels were used to distinguish “Yes” from “No”. Maybe we could do a bit better with AI (PCA and classifying according to multidimensional pattern analysis)? Does this look like an interesting use case?

Conclusion

In the case of the WIFI example KMeans can be used as an efficient classifier for samples in a feature space which describes characteristics of multiple signal sources. We have seen that the basic concept also works when we apply KMeans after a PCA based transformation to the most important primary components.

The question is: Does this work equally well for other data sets? The answer depends upon the accuracy by which clusters reside completely within regions of the feature space filled by samples of a specific label.
A data set whose samples show grouping in a multidimensional feature space and appear relatively well separable by their labels is the MNIST data set. In the next post of this series we shall therefore try and apply a clustering algorithm to the MNIST data ensemble.

Stay tuned …

Ceterum censeo: The worst fascist today who must be isolated and denazified is the Putler.

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – III – KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI-example

Posted on by

In the previous articles of this series

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – I – Cluster analysis of the WIFI example
KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – II – PCA in combination with KMeans for the WIFI-example

I applied KMeans to the “WIFI” dataset – a small and rather simple training set of the UCI Irvine. The 7 dimensional feature space for this example is defined by the strength of seven different WLAN-signals. The data samples are labeled by numbers specifying four different rooms. We just have 2000 samples. But “simple” does not mean that one cannot learn something of it.

An elbow and a silhouette analysis indicated that the data can well be described by 4 to 5 clusters.
A detailed PCA analysis helped us to understand that the data could basically be described by two primary components whose axes were defined by a diagonal in a two-dimensional sub-space of the original feature space (defined by the features “WLAN-0” and “WLAN-3”) plus an orthogonal axis (defined by “WLAN-4”). As the data points segregated into well separated clusters in the coordinate system of the primary components we could expect that they also segregate well when projected onto two 2-dim sub-spaces of the feature space defined by the signal combinations {WLAN-0/WLAN-4} and {WLAN-3/WLAN-4}.

So we projected the results of a KMeans analysis into a 2-dim sub-space of the 7-dim feature space spanned by two selected “features” (WLAN signals WLAN-0 and WLAN-4). And indeed: For 2 special signal- or feature-combinations we saw a field with 4 to 5 well separated clusters.

As we have well separated clusters – either in sub-planes of the feature space or the space defined by the dominant two PCA components – a legitimate question is: Can we use the cluster information for classifying?

Clusters and classification

In the special example of the WIFI data the data points can obviously be divided into different “groups” filled by data points which belong to a certain “label” or class (in the WIFI case: a room):

In the plots above the colorization of the data points is given by their label in the plot above. However:
Does this mean that these spatially separated “groups” coincide with the clusters detected by KMeans?

In the next plots I superimposed the data points – first colorized by class and then by cluster with different colors and a slight spatial deviation.

We see that the border of the class related points on average overlaps well with the border of the clusters. Only a few points show a major deviation.

Is this always the case? Of course not!

We see this already when we we just use 2 clusters and colorize the data points according to cluster membership in one of the two clusters:

Oops, all the beauty is gone! Members of the previously visual dark-red, green and pink “clusters” would now certainly be members of the first defined “green” cluster. And members of the visual pink and orange clusters would now be members of the “defined” blue cluster. So: Labels may but do strong>not always define clusters.

An important thing we learned by this consideration is that we should at least use a number of cluster greater or equal the number of labels.

But even then the separation may not work. Let us imagine three rooms: In room “A” we only have male persons, in room “B” only female persons and in the third room “C” female persons on one side of the room and male persons on the other – like in some old fashioned dancing courses. If we used the persons’ coordinates to define features and the “male”/”female” attributes as labels and tried a cluster analysis in the feature space we would clearly identify three clusters. However, in the cluster for room “C” we would find a mixture of samples with different labels. Spatial vicinity in the feature space does not mean class identity and a label does not necessarily mean a big distance in the feature space.

Hyperplanes and clusters

The only thing you can hope for with respect to a solvable ML problem is that the data points for different labels may be distributed such that a complicated and curved hyperplane can be found in the multidimensional feature space which separates groups of data points with the same label sufficiently well. But this hyperplane does not necessarily coincide with fictitious borders of some clusters identified by KMeans. We are lucky if the topologically closed surface of a cluster lies completely in a region of the hyperspace separated by complex and topologically open hyperplanes separating data points belonging to one class from other feature space regions which contain data points with different labels.

Not all data ensembles in ML will fall apart in extended clusters each of which dominated by some specific label. Ring like distributions of data samples with identical labels may pose a problem to cluster algorithms – mot only in 2 dimensions.

On the other side: If the labeled data – after some useful transformation – are not well separable in the feature space, then the posed ML task is problematic anyway and the chosen feature definitions may not be appropriate.

Granularity: Hope for label dominance in sufficiently fine grained clusters

What does a label-cluster correlation depend on? Well, if there is an important factor regarding the position of the centroids of KMeans then it is the number of clusters. In the extreme case of as many clusters as data points a super-well defined cluster/label-association exists – but it is not of much use for ML-task. It just represents the most extreme case of overfitting you can think of. It will be useless for new unknown samples.

But the example with the distribution of male/female samples gives you an indication of what we should try: With a growing number of cluster the chances for a fine grained separation into clusters residing on one side of a hyperplane separating samples of different labels rises and with it the chance for a clearer dominance of one label per cluster. This is even true for ring like data distributions: With more then 4 clusters we may even describe a ring like data distribution quite well.

Therefore: If the sample distribution has some reasonable separation hyperplane at all there is a chance that you may find a number of clusters for which each cluster is dominated by a specific label.

In the case of the WIFI example this is pretty obvious. The following first plot shows the data points colorized according to their labels:

The next plot shows four cluster – with data points colorized according to their cluster membership:

The colors are different (we have no control of it) – but the different data point “clouds” in the pictures coincide rather well. Only some data points do not behave well. We can again use the trick we iused in 2 dimensions and superimpose data points with colorization according to cluster and class:

How do we define a classifier by the help of KMeans?

We need a predict()-function which predicts a label from a predicted cluster membership. The recipe is rather simple:

Define the number of cluster you want to use.

  • Use KMeans for a cluster analysis of a training set of samples.
  • Predict the cluster-membership of a sample with the help of the fitted kmeans-object and its predict()-function.
  • Get the labels of the samples belonging to a specific cluster.
  • Find out what the amount of samples with a certain label for a cluster is and compared the data.
  • Find the label which contributes most samples to a cluster. Check the relative amount of deviating data points with other labels. Should be sufficiently small…
  • Build a dictionary which associates the cluster number with its dominant label.
  • Build a prediction function for yet unknown data points. It first predicts the cluster and then the associated label.

You should then test the accuracy of your new cluster-based classifier model on test data.

More clusters than labels?

What will happen to such an algorithm if you use more clusters than labels? Short answer: Nothing – as long as each cluster is really dominated by a specific label. More precisely: A vast majority of your clusters should exhibit contributions from data points with one specific label to an amount significantly far beyond the statistical average. Having more clusters means that under reasonable conditions we just have more than one cluster predicting a certain label. For the case of the WIFI example this means that we can work with five clusters without getting nervous.

Application to the WIFI example

As the clusters represent the labels quite well we expect very good values for the recall values. The experiment is pretty simple. I just present the resulting confusion matrices for the four labels (identifying rooms) and different numbers of clusters “nclus”. I first show you a presentation with seaborn, which explains, how to interpret rows and columns:

nclus = 5

Here I used five (5) clusters and included all samples in the calculation. I.e. I did not separate a training set from a test set of data points.

Confusion matrices for different numbers of clusters

nclus = 4

[[496   0   4   0]
 [  0 425  75   0]
 [  2   0 492   6]
 [  2   0   2 496]]
num of wrongly predicted samples:  91  :: avg_err =  0.0455

The “avg_err” gives you the number of wrongly predicted samples divided by the total number of samples. We see that 4 clusters have a problem with the differentiation of the data points for the room “Diele”.

nclus = 5

[[495   0   5   0]
 [  0 455  45   0]
 [  2   0 493   5]
 [  2   0   2 496]]
num of wrongly predicted samples:  61  :: avg_err =  0.0305

nclus = 6

[[499   0   1   0]
 [  0 452  48   0]
 [  5   0 490   5]
 [  2   0   2 496]]
num of wrongly predicted samples:  63  :: avg_err =  0.0315

nclus = 7

[[499   0   1   0]
 [  0 492   8   0]
 [  4  38 455   3]
 [  2   0   3 495]]
 num of wrongly predicted samples:  59  :: avg_err =  0.0295

nclus = 

num wrongly predicted samples:  58  :: avg_err =  0.029

nclus = 9

[[499   0   1   0]
 [  0 484  16   0]
 [  4  16 476   4]
 [  2   0   2 496]]
num of wrongly predicted samples:  45  :: avg_err =  0.0225

All data above were derived for the same random_state-variable to KMeans.

However, this result depends on the initial shuffling of the samples, the random_state parameter and the initial statistical distribution of the centroids by KMeans. And other hyperparameters … The next plot shows a slightly different result for nclus = 9:

nclus = 9

This means: Nine cluster give us a reasonably fine grained resolution in the case of the WIFI example.

But: Note that the problem areas in the confusion matrix have changed. “Diele” is handled a bit better, but “Wohnzimmer” is not so sharply separated as before. This is not astonishing as we saw a significant mix of data of different labels for different clusters above already:

After nclus = 9 we do not get much better – and dance around an average error of 0.025 => 2.5%:

nclus = 10

num of wrongly predicted samples:  55  :: avg_err =  0.0275

nclus = 11

num of wrongly predicted samples:  52  :: avg_err =  0.026

nclus = 25

num of wrongly predicted samples:  40  :: avg_err =  0.02

Being conservative we can say that our simple cluster based classifier approaches an accuracy around 97.4%. Not so bad regarding the crudeness of our approach! A random forest algorithm reaches something above 98.2%. This is not so much better.

Results after a separation of test data samples

I divided the data set than into 1500 train and 500 test samples.

For 9 clusters I got:

nclus = 9

[[374   0   1   0]
 [  0 362  13   0]
 [  3  17 352   3]
 [  2   0   2 371]]
num wrongly predicted train samples:  41  :: avg_err =  0.027333333333333334
num wrongly predicted train samples:  8  :: avg_err =  0.016

But these numbers depend strongly on the splitting – even if we split stratified. Another run gives:

nclus = 9

[[374   0   1   0]
 [  0 352  23   0]
 [  3   0 369   3]
 [  1   0   2 372]]
num wrongly predicted train samples:  33  :: avg_err =  0.022 
num wrongly predicted test samples:  11  :: avg_err =  0.022

Other runs may even give higher average error values. The variation depend upon of how many critical data points in the intermixing zone were omitted in the train samples. At least the results are not too different from the ones named above.

Conclusion

In this article I presented a very simple method by which a cluster algorithm can be used as a classifier. When we applied the approach to the rather simple WIFI example we saw that this worked pretty well.

What we in addition should try is to combine the classifier with a dimension reduction based on a PCA-analysis. From the results of a previous post we would expect that a cluster classifier should work well on the WIFI data after a transformation and projection of the samples’ data points into a 3-dimensional space spanned by the most important orthogonal main component axes. This is the topic of the next post in this series:

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – IV – KMeans on PCA transformed data

Ceterum censeo: The worst fascist today who must be denazified is the Putler.

 

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – I – Cluster analysis of the WIFI example

Posted on by

In the November and December 2021 editions of the German “Linux Magazin” R. Pleger discussed a simple but nevertheless interesting example for the application of a cluster algorithm. His test case was based on a dataset of the UCI Irvine. This dataset contains 2000 samples with (fictitious?) data describing WIFI signals which stemmed from seven WLAN spots around a building. The signal strength of each source was measured at varying positions in four different rooms. I call the whole setup the “WIFI example” below.

One objective of the articles in the Linux Magazin was to demonstrate how simple it is today to apply basic Machine Learning methods. In a first step the author used a ML classifier algorithm to determine the location (i.e. the room) of a measuring instrument just from the strengths of the different WIFI signals. This task can be solved by a variety of algorithms – e.g. by a Decision Tree, SVM/SVC or a simple Multilayer Perceptron. The author used Sklearn’s RandomForestTree. This method is a good example for the powerful “Ensemble Learning” technique. When applied to the simple and well structured WIFI example it predicts the rooms for test samples with an accuracy of more than 98%.

The author afterward performed a deeper analysis of the WIFI data via Kmeans, MiniBatchKMeans and PCA. His second article underlined a major question, which sometimes is not taken seriously enough:

Do the data, which we feed into ML algorithms, really cover all aspects of the problem? Is the set of target labels complete or sufficient in the sense that the separation of the samples into labeled groups really reflects the problem’s internal structure? Or do the data contain more information than the labels reveal?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Linux Magazine covered an important point, namely the relation of the results of a PCA analysis to a 2-dimensional cluster visualization, in an incomplete and also slightly misleading way. In addition another interesting question was not discussed at all:

Can we use KMeans also as a classifier? How would we do this?

In this series of posts I want to dig a bit deeper into these topics – both for the WIFI example and also for the MNIST dataset. For MNIST we will not be able to visualize clusters as easily as for the WIFI example. Therefore, we should have a clear idea about what we do when we use clusters for classifying.

In this first post I focus on the results of a cluster analysis for the WIFI example. In a second article I will discuss the relation of cluster results to a PCA analysis. A third post will then present a very simple method of how to turn a cluster algorithm into a classifier algorithm. In later articles we shall transfer our knowledge to the MNIST data. More precisely: We shall combine a PCA analysis with a cluster classifier to predict the labels of handwritten digit images. We will use the PCA technique to reduce the dimensions of the MNIST feature space from 784 down to below 80. It will be interesting to see what accuracy we can reach with a relatively crude clustering approach on only about 30 main PCA components. As a side aspect we shall also have a look at standardization and normalization of the MNIST data.

I do not present any code in the first three posts as the required Python programs can be build relatively straight-forward and most of the core statements were already given in the Linux Magazin. You unfortunately have to buy the articles of the magazine; but see https://www.linux-magazin.de/ausgaben/2021/11/maschinenlernen/. However, as soon as we turn to MNIST I shall provide a Jupyter notebook.

The WIFI example: Two thousand samples, each with data for the signal strength of seven WLAN sources measured in four rooms

You can download the data WIFI data set from the following address:
https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/machine-learning-databases/00422/wifi_localization.txt

The feature space of this is example is 7-dimensional: 7 WLAN spots provide WIFI signals in the building. We have 2000 samples. Each sample provides the signal strength of each of the WLAN sources measured at different times and positions within a specific room. An integer number in [1,4] is provided as a label which identifies the room. The following plot shows the interpolated frequency distribution over the signal strength for each of the 7 signals in the four rooms:

Cluster analysis of the WIFI data – more than four rooms?

The original label-data of the WIFI example imply the existence of four rooms. But can we trust this information? The measurements in the room, which we called “Diele” in the plots above, indicate a consistent second peak for both the signals 0 and 3. Is this due to an opening into another room?

A simple method to analyze the inner structure of the distribution of data points in a configuration or feature space is a “cluster analysis”. The KMeans algorithm provides such an analysis for an assumed number of clusters.

KMeans is a basic but important ML method which reveals a lot about the data distribution in feature space and indirectly about the complexity of hyperplanes required to separate data according to their labels. Among other things KMeans determines the positions of cluster centers – the so called centroids – by measuring and systematically optimizing distances of samples to assumed centroids. Actually, the sum over all intra-cluster variances, i.e. the summed quadratic distances of the associated samples to their cluster’s centroid, is minimized. The respective quantity is called “inertia” of the cluster distribution. See e.g. the excellent book of P. Wilmott, Machine learning – an applied mathematics introduction” on this topic.

A simple method to find out into how many clusters a distribution probably segregates is to look for an elbow in the variation of the inertia with the number of clusters. When we look at the variation of inertia values with the number of potential clusters “k” for the WIFI example we get the following curve:

This indicates an elbow at k=4,5.

Another method to identify the most probable number of distinct clusters in a multi dimensional data point distribution is the so called “silhouette analysis”. See the book of A. Geron “Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras and Tensorflow”, 2n edition, for a description. For the WIFI example the plots of the silhouette score data support the result of the elbow analysis:

The second plot shows ordered silhouette data for k = 3,4,5,6 clusters. Again, we get the most consistent pictures for k=4 and k=5.

So, the data indicate a fragmentation into 4 or 5 clusters. How can we visualize this with respect to the feature space?

Scatter plots for 2-dim sub-spaces of the feature space

A general problem with the visualization of cluster data for multidimensional data is that we are limited to 2, maximal 3 dimensions. And a projection down to two dimensions may not reflect the real cluster separation in the multidimensional feature space in a realistic way. But sometimes we are lucky.

We shall later see that there are two primary components which dominate the data and signal distributions in the WIFI example. A major question, however, is whether we will also find that only a few original features contribute dominantly to these major components. A PCA analysis does not mean that a “primary component” only depends on the same number of features!

As I did not know the relation of “primary components” to features I just plotted the results of “KMeans” for a variety of 2-dim signal combinations. I used Sklearn’s version of KMeans; due to the very small data ensemble KMeans is applicable without consuming too much CPU time (this will change with MNIST; there we need to invoke MiniBatchKMeans):

Note that the colorization of the data points in all plots was done with respect to the cluster number predicted by KMeans for the samples – and not with respect to their labels.

It is interesting that the projections onto two special feature combinations – namely WLAN-4/WLAN 0 and WLAN-3/WLAN-0 signal – show a very distinct separation of the clusters.

Four or five clusters ?

The data displayed above depend a bit on the initial distribution of cluster centers as an input into the KMeans algorithm. But for 4 and 5 clusters we get very consistent results. The next plots show the positions of the centroids:

This time the colorization was done with respect to the labels. What we see is: Five clusters represent the situation a bit better than only 4 clusters.

When we align this with the rooms: Five “rooms” may describe the signal variation better than only 4 rooms. The reason for this might be that one of the four rooms has a wall which partially separates different areas from another. We often find this in “entrances” [German: “Diele”] to houses. Sketches of the rooms in the Linux Magazin article actually show that this is the case. And, of course, such a wall or an opening into another room would have an impact on the damping of the WLAN signals.

Addendum 19.03.2022: Comparing clusters with groups of labeled data points

An important question which we have not answered yet by the images shown above is the following:

How well do clusters coincide with groups of data points having a specific label?

Note that in general you can not be sure that clusters reflect data points of the same label. Actually, a cluster is only a way to describe a close spatial vicinity of data points in some region of the multidimensional feature space. I.e. some kind of clumping of the data points around some centroids. But spatial vicinity does not necessarily reflect a label: A label border may often separate data points which are very close neighbors. And a cluster may contain a mixture of samples with different labels ….

Well, in the case of the WIFI example the identified 4 to 5 clusters match the groups of data points with different labels quite well. Below I superimposed the sample’s data points with different colors: First I colorized the data points according to their label. On top of the resulting scatter plot I placed the same data points again, but this time with a different and transparent colorization according to their cluster association. In addition I shifted the second data layer a bit to get a better contrast:

You see that the areas are not completely identical, but they overlap quite well. Obviously, I used 5 clusters. Also the fifth cluster fits well into a region characterized by just one label.

Conclusion

The simple WIFI example shows that a cluster analysis may give you new insights into the structure of ML data sets which a simple classifier algorithm can not provide. In the next article

KMeans as a classifier for the WIFI and MNIST datasets – II – PCA in combination with KMeans for the WIFI-example

we shall link the information contained in the “clusters” to the results of a PCA analysis of the WIFI example.

Stay tuned …

Ceterum censeo: The most important living fascist which must be denazified is the Putler.

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

Posted on by

We extend our studies of a program for a Multilayer perceptron and gradient descent in combination with the MNIST dataset:

A simple Python program for an ANN to cover the MNIST dataset – XIII – the impact of regularization
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 this article we shall work a bit on the following topic: How can we reduce the computational time required for gradient descent runs of our MLP?

Readers who followed my last articles will have noticed that I sometimes used 1800 epochs in a gradient descent run. The computational time including

  • costly intermediate print outs into Jupyter cells,
  • a full determination of the reached accuracy both on the full training and the test dataset at every epoch

lay in a region of 40 to 45 minutes for our MLP with two hidden layers and roughly 58000 weights. Using an Intel I7 standard CPU with OpenBlas
support. And I plan to work with bigger MLPs – not on MNIST but other data sets. Believe me: Everything beyond 10 minutes is a burden. So, I have a natural interest in accelerating things on a very basic level already before turning to GPUs or arrays of them.

Factors for CPU-time

This introductory question leads to another one: What basic factors beyond technical capabilities of our Linux system and badly written parts of my Python code influence the consumption of computational time? Four points come to my mind; you probably find even more:

  • One factor is certainly the extra forward propagation run which we apply to all samples of both the test and training data seat the end of each epoch. We perform this propagation to make predictions and to get data on the evolution of the accuracy, the total loss and the ratio of the regularization term to the real costs. We could do this in the future at every 2nd or 5th epoch to save some time. But this will reduce CPU-time only by less than 22%. 76% of the CPU-time of an epoch is spent in batch-handling with a dominant part in error backward propagation and weight corrections.
  • The learning rate has a direct impact on the number of required epochs. We could enlarge the learning rate in combination with input data normalization; see the last article. This could reduce the number of required epochs significantly. Depending on the parameter choices before by up to 40% or 50%. But it requires a bit of experimenting ….
  • Two other, more important factors are the frequent number of matrix operations during error back-propagation and the size of the involved matrices. These operations depend directly on the number of nodes involved. We could therefore reduce the number of nodes of our MLP to a minimum compatible with the required accuracy and precision. This leads directly to the next point.
  • The dominant weight matrix is of course the one which couples layer L0 and layer L1. In our case its shape is 784 x 70; it has almost 55000 elements. The matrix for the next pair of layers has only 70×30 = 2100 elements – it is much, much smaller. To reduce CPU time for forward propagation we should try to make this matrix smaller. During error back propagation we must perform multiple matrix multiplications; the matrix dimensions depend on the number of samples in a mini-batch AND on the number of nodes in the involved layers. The dimensions of the the result matrix correspond to the those of the weight matrix. So once again: A reduction of the nodes in the first 2 layers would be extremely helpful for the expensive backward propagation. See: The math behind EBP.

We shall mainly concentrate on the last point in this article.

Reduction of the dimensions of the dominant matrix”requires a reduction of input features

The following numbers show typical CPU times spend for matrix operations during error back propagation [EBP] between different layers of our MLP and for two different batches at the beginning of gradient descent: 

Time_CPU for BW layer operations (to L2) 0.00029015699965384556
Time_CPU for BW layer operations (to L1) 0.0008645610000712622
Time_CPU for BW layer operations (to L0) 0.006551215999934357

Time_CPU for BW layer operations (to L2) 0.00029157400012991275
Time_CPU for BW layer operations (to L1) 0.0009575330000188842
Time_CPU for BW layer operations (to L0) 0.007488838999961445

The operations involving layer L0 cost a factor of 7 more CPU time than the other operations! Therefore, a key to the reduction of the number of mathematical operations is obviously the reduction of the number of nodes in the input layer! We cannot reduce the numbers in the hidden layers much, if we
do not want to hamper the accuracy properties of our MLP too much. So the basic question is

Can we reduce the number of input nodes somehow?

Yes, maybe we can! Input nodes correspond to “features“. In case of the MNIST dataset the relevant features are given by the gray-values for the 784 pixels of each image. A first idea is that there are many pixels within each MNIST image which are probably not used at all for classification – especially pixels at the outer image borders. So, it would be helpful to chop them off or to ignore them by some appropriate method. In addition, special significant pixel areas may exist to which the MLP, i.e. its weight optimization, reacts during training. For example: The digits 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 all have a bow within the lower 30% of an image, but in other regions, e.g. to the left and the right, they are rather different.

If we could identify suitable image areas in which dark pixels have a higher probability for certain digits then, maybe, we could use this information to discriminate the represented digits? But a “higher density of dark pixels in an image area” is nothing else than a description of a “cluster” of (dark) pixels in certain image areas. Can we use pixel clusters at numerous areas of an image to learn about the represented digits? Is the combination of (averaged) feature values in certain clusters of pixels representative for a handwritten digit in the MNIST dataset?

If the number of such pixel clusters could be reduced below lets say 100 then we could indeed reduce the number of input features significantly!

Cluster detection

To be able to use relevant “clusters” of pixels – if they exist in a usable form in MNIST images at all – we must first identify them. Cluster identification and discrimination is a major discipline of Machine Learning. This discipline works in general with unlabeled data. In the MNIST case we would not use the labels in the “y”-data at all to identify clusters; we would only use the “X”-data. A nice introduction to the mechanisms of cluster identification is given in the book of Paul Wilcott (see Machine Learning – book recommendations for the reference). The most fundamental method – called “kmeans” – iterates over 3 major steps [I simplify a bit :-)]:

  • We assume that K clusters exist and start with random initial positions of their centers (called “centroids”) in the multidimensional feature space
  • We measure the distance of all data points to he centroids and associate a point with that centroid to which the distance is smallest
  • We determine the “center of mass” (according to some distance metric) of the identified data point groups and assume it as a new position of the centroids and move the old positions (a bit) in this direction.

We iterate over these steps until the centroids’ positions hopefully get stable. Pretty simple. But there is a major drawback: You must make an assumption on the number “K” of clusters. To make such an assumption can become difficult in the complex case of a feature space with hundreds of dimensions.

You can compensate this by executing multiple cluster runs and comparing the results. By what? Regarding the closure or separation of clusters in terms of an appropriate norm. One such norm is called “cluster inertia“; it measures the mean squared distance to the center for all points of a cluster. The theory is that the sum of the inertias for all clusters drops significantly with the number of clusters until an optimal number is reached and the inertia curve flattens out. The point where this happens in a plot of inertia vs. number of clusters is called “elbow“.
Identifying this “elbow” is one of the means to find an optimal number of clusters. However, this recipe does not work under all circumstances. As the number of clusters get big we may be confronted with a smooth decline of the inertia sum.

What data do we use for gradient descent after cluster detection?

How could we measure whether an image shows certain clusters? We could e.g. measure distances (with some appropriate metric) of all image points to the clusters. The “fit_transform()”-method of KMeans and MiniBatchKMeans provide us with with some distance measure of each image to the identified clusters. This means our images are transformed into a new feature space – namely into a “cluster-distance space”. This is a quite complex space, too. But it has less dimensions than the original feature space!

Note: We would of course normalize the resulting distance data in the new feature space before applying gradient descent.

Application of “KMeansBatch” to MNIST

There are multiple variants of “KMeans”. We shall use one which is provided by SciKit-Learn and which is optimized for large datasets: “MiniBatchKMeans“. It operates batch-wise without loosing too much of accuracy and convergence properties in comparison to KMeans (or a comparison see here). “MiniBatchKMeans”has some parameters you can play with.

We could be tempted to use 10 clusters as there are 10 digits to discriminate between. But remember: A digit can be written in very many ways. So, it is much more probable that we need a significant larger number of clusters. But again: How to determine on which K-values we should invest a bit more time? “Kmeans” and methods alike offer another quantity called “silhouette” coefficient. It measures how well the data points are within, at or outside the borders of a cluster. See the book of Geron referenced at the link given above on more information.

Variation of CPU time, inertia and average silhouette coefficients with the number of clusters “K”

Let us first have a look at the evolution of CPU time, total inertia and averaged silhouette with the number of clusters “K” for two different runs. The following code for a Jupyter cell gives us the data: 

    
# *********************************************************
# Pre-Clustering => Searching for the elbow 
# *********************************************************
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans
from sklearn.cluster import MiniBatchKMeans
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
from sklearn.metrics import silhouette_score
X = np.concatenate((ANN._X_train, ANN._X_test), axis=0)
y = np.concatenate((ANN._y_train, ANN._y_test), axis=0)
print("X-shape = ", X.shape, "y-shape = ", y.shape)
num = X.shape[0]

li_n = []
li_inertia = []
li_CPU = []
li_sil1 = []

# Loop over the number "n" of assumed clusters 
rg_n = range(10,171,10)
for n in rg_n:
    print("\nNumber of clusters: ", n)
    start = time.perf_counter()
    kmeans = MiniBatchKMeans(n_clusters=n, n_init=500, max_iter=1000, batch_size=500 )  
    X_clustered = kmeans.fit_transform(X)
    sil1 = silhouette_score(X, kmeans.labels_)
    #sil2 = silhouette_score(X_clustered, kmeans.labels_)
    end = time.perf_counter()
    dtime = end - start
    print('Inertia = ', kmeans.inertia_)
    print('Time_CPU = ', dtime)
    print('sil1 score = ', sil1)
    li_n.append(n)    
    li_inertia.append(kmeans.inertia_)    
    li_CPU.append(dtime)    
    li_sil1.append(sil1)    

    
# Plots         
# ******
fig_size = plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"]
fig_size[
0] = 14
fig_size[1] = 5
fig1 = plt.figure(1)
fig2 = plt.figure(2)

ax1_1 = fig1.add_subplot(121)
ax1_2 = fig1.add_subplot(122)

ax1_1.plot(li_n, li_CPU)
ax1_1.set_xlabel("num clusters K")
ax1_1.set_ylabel("CPU time")

ax1_2.plot(li_n, li_inertia)
ax1_2.set_xlabel("num clusters K")
ax1_2.set_ylabel("inertia")

ax2_1 = fig2.add_subplot(121)
ax2_2 = fig2.add_subplot(122)

ax2_1.plot(li_n, li_sil1)
ax2_1.set_xlabel("num clusters K")
ax2_1.set_ylabel("silhoutte 1")

 
You see that I allowed for large numbers of initial centroid positions and iterations to be on the safe side. Before you try it yourself: Such runs for a broad variation of K-values are relatively costly. The CPU time rises from around 32 seconds for 30 clusters to a little less than 1 minute for 180 clusters. These times add up to a significant sum after a while …

Here are some plots:

The second run was executed with a higher resolution of K_(n+1) – K_n 5 = 5.

We see that the CPU time to determine the centroids’ positions varies fairly linear with “K”. And even for 170 clusters it does not take more than a minute! So, CPU-time for cluster identification is not a major limitation.

Unfortunately, we do not see a clear elbow in the inertia curve! What you regard as a reasonable choice for the number K depends a lot on where you say the curve starts to flatten. You could say that this happens around K = 60 to 90. But the results for the silhouette-quantity indicate for our parameter setting that K=40, K=70, K=90 are interesting points. We shall look at these points a bit closer with higher resolution later on.

Reduction of the regularization factor (for Ridge regularization)

Now, I want to discuss an important point which I did not find in the literature:
In my last article we saw that regularization plays a significant but also delicate role in reaching top accuracy values for the test dataset. We saw that Lambda2 = 0.2 was a good choice for a normalized input of the MNIST data. It corresponded to a certain ratio of the regularization term to average batch costs.
But when we reduce the number of input nodes we also reduce the number of total weights. So the weight values themselves will automatically become bigger if we want to get to similar good values at the second layer. But as the regularization term depends in a quadratic way on the weights we may assume that we roughly need a linear reduction of Lambda2. So, for K=100 clusters we may shrink Lambda2 to (0.2/784*100) = 0.025 instead of 0.2. In general:

Lambda2_cluster = Lambda2_std * K / (number of input nodes)

I applied this rule of a thumb successfully throughout experiments with clustering befor gradient descent.

Reference run without clustering

We saw at the end of article XII that we could reach an accuracy of around 0.975 after 500 epochs under optimal circumstances. But in the case I presented ten I was extremely lucky with the statistical initial weight distribution and the batch composition. In other runs with the same parameter setup I got smaller accuracy values. So, let us take an ad hoc run with the following parameters and results:
Parameters: learn_rate = 0.001, decrease_rate = 0.00001, mom_rate = 0.00005, n_size_mini_batch = 500, n_epochs = 600, Lambda2 = 0.2, weights at
all layers in [-2*1.0/sqrt(num_nodes_layer), 2*1.0/sqrt(num_nodes_layer)]
Results: acc_train: 0.9949 , acc_test: 0.9735, convergence after ca. 550-600 epochs

The next plot shows (from left to right and the down) the evolution of the costs per batch, the averaged error of the last mini-batch during an epoch, the ratio of regularization to batch costs and the total costs of the training set, respectively .

The following plot summarizes the evolution of the total costs of the traaining set (including the regularization contribution) and the evolution of the accuracy on the training and the test data sets (in orange and blue, respectively).

The required computational time for the 600 epochs was roughly 18,2 minutes.

Results of gradient descent based on a prior cluster identification

Before we go into a more detailed discussion of code adaption and test runs with things like clusters in unnormalized and normalized feature spaces, I want to show what we – without too much effort – can get out of using cluster detection ahead of gradient descent. The next plot shows the evolution of a run for K=70 clusters in combination with a special normalization:

and the total cost and accuracy evolution

The dotted line marks an accuracy of 97.8%! This is 0.5% bigger then our reference value of 97.3%. The total gain of %gt; 0.5% means however 18.5% of the remaining difference of 2.7% to 100% and we past a value of 97.8% already at epoch 600 of the run.

What were the required computational times?

If we just wanted 97.4% as accuracy we need around 150 epochs. And a total CPU time of 1.3 minutes to get to the same accuracy as our reference run. This is a factor of roughly 14 in required CPU time. For a stable 97.73% after epoch 350 we were still a factor of 5.6 better. For a stable accuracy beyond 97.8% we needed around 600 epochs – and still were by a factor of 3.3 faster than our reference run! So, clustering really brings some big advantages with it.

Conclusion

In
this article I discussed the idea of introducing cluster identification in the (unnormalized or normalized) feature space ahead of gradient descent as a possible means to save computational time. A preliminary trial run showed that we indeed can become significantly faster by at least a factor of 3 up to 5 and even more. This is just due to the point that we reduced the number of input nodes and thus the number of mathematical calculations during matrix operations.

In the next article we shall have a more detailed look at clustering techniques in combination with normalization.