Can a Neural Network Measure the Random Error in a Linear Series?
$begingroup$
I have been trying to develop a neural network to measure the error in a linear series. What I would like the model to do is infer a linear regression line and then measure the mean absolute error around that line.
I have tried a number of neural network model configurations, including recurrent configurations, but the network learns a weak relationship and then overfits. I have also tried L1 and L2 regularization but neither work.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
Below is the code I am using to simulate the data and a fit sample model:
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, 50)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(500):
i = np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, 50) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, 50)) + e, 2).reshape(1, 50)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 400
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = None))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 100, verbose = False,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
## Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, loss_fnn, 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, val_loss_fnn, 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
UPDATE:
## Predict.
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
Y_valid_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_valid)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_train, Y_train_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_valid, Y_valid_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
python neural-network keras linear-regression
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have been trying to develop a neural network to measure the error in a linear series. What I would like the model to do is infer a linear regression line and then measure the mean absolute error around that line.
I have tried a number of neural network model configurations, including recurrent configurations, but the network learns a weak relationship and then overfits. I have also tried L1 and L2 regularization but neither work.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
Below is the code I am using to simulate the data and a fit sample model:
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, 50)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(500):
i = np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, 50) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, 50)) + e, 2).reshape(1, 50)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 400
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = None))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 100, verbose = False,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
## Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, loss_fnn, 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, val_loss_fnn, 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
UPDATE:
## Predict.
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
Y_valid_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_valid)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_train, Y_train_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_valid, Y_valid_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
python neural-network keras linear-regression
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have been trying to develop a neural network to measure the error in a linear series. What I would like the model to do is infer a linear regression line and then measure the mean absolute error around that line.
I have tried a number of neural network model configurations, including recurrent configurations, but the network learns a weak relationship and then overfits. I have also tried L1 and L2 regularization but neither work.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
Below is the code I am using to simulate the data and a fit sample model:
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, 50)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(500):
i = np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, 50) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, 50)) + e, 2).reshape(1, 50)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 400
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = None))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 100, verbose = False,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
## Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, loss_fnn, 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, val_loss_fnn, 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
UPDATE:
## Predict.
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
Y_valid_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_valid)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_train, Y_train_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_valid, Y_valid_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
python neural-network keras linear-regression
$endgroup$
I have been trying to develop a neural network to measure the error in a linear series. What I would like the model to do is infer a linear regression line and then measure the mean absolute error around that line.
I have tried a number of neural network model configurations, including recurrent configurations, but the network learns a weak relationship and then overfits. I have also tried L1 and L2 regularization but neither work.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
Below is the code I am using to simulate the data and a fit sample model:
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, 50)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(500):
i = np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, 50) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, 50)) + e, 2).reshape(1, 50)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 400
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(512, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = None))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 100, verbose = False,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
## Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, loss_fnn, 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn, val_loss_fnn, 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
UPDATE:
## Predict.
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
Y_valid_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_valid)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_train, Y_train_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
plt.scatter(Y_valid, Y_valid_fnn)
plt.xlabel("Actual")
plt.ylabel("Predicted")
python neural-network keras linear-regression
python neural-network keras linear-regression
edited yesterday
from keras import michael
asked yesterday
from keras import michaelfrom keras import michael
2969
2969
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This problem is naturally hard. The underlying function that we try to learn is
$$mathbf{X}=i+s+mathbf{e} rightarrow Y=left | mathbf{X} - i - s right |_1 = left | mathbf{e} right |_1=sum_d|e_d|$$
where $i$ and $s$ are unknown random variables. For large $i$ and $s$, $left | mathbf{e} right |_1$ is naturally hard to recover from $mathbf{X}$. I found a working example (training error almost zero) by setting the intercept $i$ and slope $s$ to zero!, drastically shrinking the network size to work better with a small sample size (800), and increased the number of epochs to 800, which was crucial. Also, (true value, error) is plotted at the end for training data.
You can work up from this point to see the effect of increasing $i$ and $s$ on performance.
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
dimension = 50
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, dimension)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(1000):
i = 0 # np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = 0 # np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, dimension) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, dimension)) + e, 2).reshape(1, dimension)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 800
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = 'linear'))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 800, verbose = True,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
# Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.figure(1)
offset = 5
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], loss_fnn[offset:], 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], val_loss_fnn[offset:], 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
## Predict.
plt.figure(2)
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
sorted_index = Y_train.argsort(axis=0)
Y_train_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
Y_train_fnn_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train_fnn[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
plt.plot(Y_train_sorted, Y_train_sorted - Y_train_fnn_sorted)
plt.xlabel("Y(true) train")
plt.ylabel("Y(true) - Y(predicted) train")
plt.show()
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "557"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47550%2fcan-a-neural-network-measure-the-random-error-in-a-linear-series%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This problem is naturally hard. The underlying function that we try to learn is
$$mathbf{X}=i+s+mathbf{e} rightarrow Y=left | mathbf{X} - i - s right |_1 = left | mathbf{e} right |_1=sum_d|e_d|$$
where $i$ and $s$ are unknown random variables. For large $i$ and $s$, $left | mathbf{e} right |_1$ is naturally hard to recover from $mathbf{X}$. I found a working example (training error almost zero) by setting the intercept $i$ and slope $s$ to zero!, drastically shrinking the network size to work better with a small sample size (800), and increased the number of epochs to 800, which was crucial. Also, (true value, error) is plotted at the end for training data.
You can work up from this point to see the effect of increasing $i$ and $s$ on performance.
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
dimension = 50
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, dimension)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(1000):
i = 0 # np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = 0 # np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, dimension) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, dimension)) + e, 2).reshape(1, dimension)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 800
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = 'linear'))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 800, verbose = True,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
# Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.figure(1)
offset = 5
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], loss_fnn[offset:], 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], val_loss_fnn[offset:], 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
## Predict.
plt.figure(2)
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
sorted_index = Y_train.argsort(axis=0)
Y_train_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
Y_train_fnn_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train_fnn[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
plt.plot(Y_train_sorted, Y_train_sorted - Y_train_fnn_sorted)
plt.xlabel("Y(true) train")
plt.ylabel("Y(true) - Y(predicted) train")
plt.show()
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This problem is naturally hard. The underlying function that we try to learn is
$$mathbf{X}=i+s+mathbf{e} rightarrow Y=left | mathbf{X} - i - s right |_1 = left | mathbf{e} right |_1=sum_d|e_d|$$
where $i$ and $s$ are unknown random variables. For large $i$ and $s$, $left | mathbf{e} right |_1$ is naturally hard to recover from $mathbf{X}$. I found a working example (training error almost zero) by setting the intercept $i$ and slope $s$ to zero!, drastically shrinking the network size to work better with a small sample size (800), and increased the number of epochs to 800, which was crucial. Also, (true value, error) is plotted at the end for training data.
You can work up from this point to see the effect of increasing $i$ and $s$ on performance.
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
dimension = 50
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, dimension)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(1000):
i = 0 # np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = 0 # np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, dimension) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, dimension)) + e, 2).reshape(1, dimension)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 800
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = 'linear'))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 800, verbose = True,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
# Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.figure(1)
offset = 5
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], loss_fnn[offset:], 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], val_loss_fnn[offset:], 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
## Predict.
plt.figure(2)
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
sorted_index = Y_train.argsort(axis=0)
Y_train_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
Y_train_fnn_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train_fnn[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
plt.plot(Y_train_sorted, Y_train_sorted - Y_train_fnn_sorted)
plt.xlabel("Y(true) train")
plt.ylabel("Y(true) - Y(predicted) train")
plt.show()
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This problem is naturally hard. The underlying function that we try to learn is
$$mathbf{X}=i+s+mathbf{e} rightarrow Y=left | mathbf{X} - i - s right |_1 = left | mathbf{e} right |_1=sum_d|e_d|$$
where $i$ and $s$ are unknown random variables. For large $i$ and $s$, $left | mathbf{e} right |_1$ is naturally hard to recover from $mathbf{X}$. I found a working example (training error almost zero) by setting the intercept $i$ and slope $s$ to zero!, drastically shrinking the network size to work better with a small sample size (800), and increased the number of epochs to 800, which was crucial. Also, (true value, error) is plotted at the end for training data.
You can work up from this point to see the effect of increasing $i$ and $s$ on performance.
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
dimension = 50
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, dimension)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(1000):
i = 0 # np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = 0 # np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, dimension) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, dimension)) + e, 2).reshape(1, dimension)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 800
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = 'linear'))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 800, verbose = True,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
# Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.figure(1)
offset = 5
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], loss_fnn[offset:], 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], val_loss_fnn[offset:], 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
## Predict.
plt.figure(2)
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
sorted_index = Y_train.argsort(axis=0)
Y_train_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
Y_train_fnn_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train_fnn[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
plt.plot(Y_train_sorted, Y_train_sorted - Y_train_fnn_sorted)
plt.xlabel("Y(true) train")
plt.ylabel("Y(true) - Y(predicted) train")
plt.show()
$endgroup$
This problem is naturally hard. The underlying function that we try to learn is
$$mathbf{X}=i+s+mathbf{e} rightarrow Y=left | mathbf{X} - i - s right |_1 = left | mathbf{e} right |_1=sum_d|e_d|$$
where $i$ and $s$ are unknown random variables. For large $i$ and $s$, $left | mathbf{e} right |_1$ is naturally hard to recover from $mathbf{X}$. I found a working example (training error almost zero) by setting the intercept $i$ and slope $s$ to zero!, drastically shrinking the network size to work better with a small sample size (800), and increased the number of epochs to 800, which was crucial. Also, (true value, error) is plotted at the end for training data.
You can work up from this point to see the effect of increasing $i$ and $s$ on performance.
import numpy as np, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import layers
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.optimizers import Adam
from keras.backend import clear_session
## Simulate the data:
np.random.seed(20190318)
dimension = 50
X = np.array(()).reshape(0, dimension)
Y = np.array(()).reshape(0, 1)
for _ in range(1000):
i = 0 # np.random.randint(100, 110) # Intercept.
s = 0 # np.random.randint(1, 10) # Slope.
e = np.random.normal(0, 25, dimension) # Error.
X_i = np.round(i + (s * np.arange(0, dimension)) + e, 2).reshape(1, dimension)
Y_i = np.sum(np.abs(e)).reshape(1, 1)
X = np.concatenate((X, X_i), axis = 0)
Y = np.concatenate((Y, Y_i), axis = 0)
## Training and validation data:
split = 800
X_train = X[:split, :-1]
Y_train = Y[:split, -1:]
X_valid = X[split:, :-1]
Y_valid = Y[split:, -1:]
print(X_train.shape)
print(Y_train.shape)
print()
print(X_valid.shape)
print(Y_valid.shape)
## Graph of one of the series:
plt.plot(X_train[0])
## Sample model (takes about a minute to run):
clear_session()
model_fnn = Sequential()
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu', input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],)))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense(dimension, activation = 'relu'))
model_fnn.add(layers.Dense( 1, activation = 'linear'))
# Compile model.
model_fnn.compile(optimizer = Adam(lr = 1e-4), loss = 'mse')
# Fit model.
history_fnn = model_fnn.fit(X_train, Y_train, batch_size = 32, epochs = 800, verbose = True,
validation_data = (X_valid, Y_valid))
# Sample model learning curves:
loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['loss']
val_loss_fnn = history_fnn.history['val_loss']
epochs_fnn = range(1, len(loss_fnn) + 1)
plt.figure(1)
offset = 5
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], loss_fnn[offset:], 'black', label = 'Training Loss')
plt.plot(epochs_fnn[offset:], val_loss_fnn[offset:], 'red', label = 'Validation Loss')
plt.title('FNN: Training and Validation Loss')
plt.legend()
## Predict.
plt.figure(2)
Y_train_fnn = model_fnn.predict(X_train)
## Evaluate predictions with training data.
sorted_index = Y_train.argsort(axis=0)
Y_train_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
Y_train_fnn_sorted = np.reshape(Y_train_fnn[sorted_index], (-1, 1))
plt.plot(Y_train_sorted, Y_train_sorted - Y_train_fnn_sorted)
plt.xlabel("Y(true) train")
plt.ylabel("Y(true) - Y(predicted) train")
plt.show()
edited 10 hours ago
answered yesterday
EsmailianEsmailian
1,536113
1,536113
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you! Unfortunately, while the model does not overfit, the model does not learn to compute the mean absolute error around the line. I have added some code to graph the relationship between the actual and predicted.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the update! It is very helpful to understand why the problem is difficult. Are you suggesting it is too difficult for a neural network to learn?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a way to make the problem easier to solve? As humans, we know we can fit a regression line and sum the differences. Can a neural network learn to do this?
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
$endgroup$
– from keras import michael
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Data Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47550%2fcan-a-neural-network-measure-the-random-error-in-a-linear-series%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown