[Improving Deep Neural Networks] week1. Practical aspects of Deep Learning

Setting up your Maching Learning Application

Train / Dev / Test sets

Applied ML: highly iterative process. idea-code-exp loop

splitting data
splitting data in order to speed up the idea-code-exp loop:
*training set / dev(hold-out/cross-validataion) set / test set *

split ratio:

  • with 100~10000 examples: 70/30 or 60/20/20
  • with ~1M examples: dev/test set can have much smaller ratio, e.g. 98/1/1

mismatched train/test distribution
training and test set don't come from the same dist.

  • rule of thumb: make sure dev and test set come from the same distribution.
  • might be OK to only have dev set. — thought in this case no longer have unbiased estimate of performance.

Bias / Variance

  • high variance: overfitting
  • high bias: underfitting

high base and high variance (worse case): high bias in some region and high variance elsewhere

how to estimate bias&variance
look at train and dev set error

  • high variance: Err_train << Err_dev — not generalize well
  • high bias: Err_train ~= Err_dev, and Err_train >> Err_human — not learning well even on training set
  • high bias and high variance (worse): Err_train >> Err_human, Err_train >> Err_dev

Basic Recipe for Machine Learning

basic recipe:

  1. does algo have high bias ? (look at Err_train)
    • if yes → try bigger nn / other architecture
    • until having low bias (fit well training set)
  2. high variance ? (look at Err_dev)
    • if yes → get more data / regularization / other architecture

bias-variance tradeoff

  • in pre-DL era, bias and variance are tradeoff (decrease one → increase the other)
  • in DL era: if getting bigger nn and more data always possible, both can be reduced

(when well regularized,) "training a bigger NN almost never hurts."

Regularizing your neural network

2 ways to reduce variance: regularize, or get more data.


example: logistic regression

  • params: w, b
  • cost function J(w,b) = 1/m * L(yhat_i, yi)

→ add one more term to cost J: adding L2 norm of w(L2 regularization)
(lambda: regularization param)

just omit regularizing b: w is high dim, b is single number.

L1 regularization: L1 norm of ww will be sparse → compressing the model (just a little bit)
L2-reg is much often used

example: NN

  • params: w[l], b[l] for l = 1..N
  • sum of the norms of each w[l] matrix.

"Frobenius norm" of a matrix: sum (each element squared)

gradient descent: adding one more term from backprop
d(1/2m * ||w||) = lambda / m

L2-reg also called "weight decay":
with L2-reg, looks as if doing the backprop updating, with w being w' = (1-alpha*lambda/m) * w (decayed w)

Why regularization reduces overfitting?

why imposing small params prevents overfitting?

intuition 1
→ heavy regularization
→ weight ~= 0
→ many hidden units' impact are "zeroed-out"
→ simpler NN

intuition 2
e.g. activation g(z) = tanh(z)
small z → g(z) ~= linear,
large z → g(z) flattend
⇒ large lambda → small w
→ z small
→ every layer ~linear

Dropout Regularization

another powerful method of regularization
dropout: For each training example, in each layer, eliminate randomly some of its output values.

dropout implementation: "inverted dropout"

example: dropout of layer 3, keep_prob = 0.8 (prob of keeping hidden unit)
→ generate a rand matrix of shape the same shape as activation a[3]

d3 = np.random.rand(a3.shape[0], a3.shape[1]) < keep_prob  # d3 is bool matrix  
a3 = np.multiply(a3, d3)  # element-wise multiply  
a3 /= keep_prob  # ****"inverted dropout"****

"inverted dropout": why a3 /= keep_prob (i.e. make a3 larger)?

  • let's say layer 3 has 50 units, keep_prob = 0.8
  • → ~10 units shut off
  • z[4] = w[4] * a[3] + b[4]

⇒ a[3] have random 20% units shut off
w[4]a[3] will be reduced by 20% in expection*

  • inverted dropout: a3 /= keep_prob, to keep expected value a3 remains unchanged.
  • (No dropout at test time) → inverted dropout avoids scaling problem at test time

making predictions at test time
NOT use dropout at test time ⇒ don't want output to be random at test time...

Understanding Dropout

why randomly shut units prevents overfitting ?

Intuition: can't rely on any one input feature → have to spread out weight
spread weights ~→ smaller L2 norm (shrink weights)
Can be formally proven: dropout is equal to adaptive L2-reg, with penalty of different weight being different.

For one hidden unit: any of it input features (from prev layer) can go out at random

Implementation details

  • vary keep_prob for different layer

smaller keep_prob for larger layer

  • usually no dropout (or very small dropout) for input layer...

Downside of dropout
cost function J no longer well-defined (because output yhat is random)
→ can no longer plot cost-iter curve
→ turn off dropout before plotting the curve

Other regularization methods

data augmentation

adding more training example is expensive
→ vary existing training data (e.g. flipping/rand-distortions of training image for cats)

early stopping

plot Err or J to #iterations for both train and dev set.

Downside of early-stopping:
optimization cost J and not overfitting should be separated task ("Orthogonalization")
→ early-stopping couples the two jobs.

upside of early stopping: no need to try different values of regularization param (lambda) → finds "mid-size w" at once.

Setting up your optimization problem

How to speed up training (i.e. optimize J)

Normalizing inputs

normalize input:

  1. substract mean
  2. normalize variance

detail: in data splitting, use the same meu/sigma to normalize test set !

why normalizing input ?
if features x1 x2 are on different scales → w1 and w2 not same scale
J is more symmetric, easier to optimize

Vanishing / Exploding gradients

One problem in training very deep NN: vanishing/exploding gradients.

example: a very deep NN, each layer 2 units, linear activation g(z)=z, ignore bias b[l] = 0.

linear activations → y is just a linear transformation of x

  • assuming each w[l] = 1.5 * Identity_matrix ⇒ activations increase exponentially
  • assuming each w[l] = 0.5 * Id ⇒ activations decrease exponentially

yhat too large or too small → hard to train

Weight Initialization for Deep Networks

A partial solution of vanishing/exploding gradient problem: carefully initialize weights.

single neuron example:

  • y = g(w*x), g = relu
  • n = # inputs for

z = w1x1 + ... + wnxn,
if wi are initzed randomly
→ large ns ⇒ z will be large !
set var(wi) = 1/n (2/n in practice) to keep z in similar scale for diffent #inputs
initialization code:
w[l] = np.random.randn(shape[l]) * np.sqrt( 2 / n[l-1] ) # n[l-1] = #inputs for layer-l

other variants
when activation function g = tanh
⇒ use var(wi) = 1/n ("Xavier initialization")

Numerical approximation of gradients

checking the derivative computation
example: f(x) = x ^ 3
vary x by epsilon to approximate f'(x), use 2-sided difference

error order = O(epsilon^2) for 2-sided difference

Gradient checking

Verify that your implementation is correct. — help finding out bugs in implementation early.

  • concat all params into a big vector theta
  • concat all dW[l] db[l] into big vector d_theta
  • to check if d_theta is correct: construct a d_theta_approx vector

How to check "approximate":

Gradient Checking Implementation Notes

  • Dont' use checking in training: constructing d_theta_approx is slow
  • When check fails: look at components to try to find bug
  • Remember regularization: J contains reg term as well
  • Doesn't work with dropout: J not well defined (random variable), turn dropout off before checking.
  • Run check at random initialization (w,b~=0), then again after some training(w,b~>0)
comments powered by Disqus