http://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Y52wen&feedformat=atomstatwiki - User contributions [US]2023-03-24T16:02:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.28.3http://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Loss_Function_Search_for_Face_Recognition&diff=49610Loss Function Search for Face Recognition2020-12-06T23:26:12Z<p>Y52wen: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by ==<br />
Jan Lau, Anas Mahdi, Will Thibault, Jiwon Yang<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Face recognition is a technology that can label a face to a specific identity. The field of study involves two tasks: 1. Identifying and classifying a face to a certain identity and 2. Verifying if this face image and another face image map to the same identity. Loss functions play an important role in evaluating how well the prediction models the given data. In the application of face recognition, they are used for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with discriminative features. A discriminative feature is one that is able to successfully discriminate the labeled data, and is typically a result of feature engineering/selection. However, traditional softmax loss lacks the power of feature discrimination. To solve this problem, a center loss was developed to learn centers for each identity to enhance the intra-class compactness. Hence, the paper introduced a new loss function using a scale parameter to produce higher gradients to well-separated samples which can reduce the softmax probability. <br />
<br />
Margin-based (angular, additive, additive angular margins) soft-max loss functions are important in learning discriminative features in face recognition. There have been hand-crafted methods previously developed that require much efforts such as A-softmax, V-softmax, AM-Softmax, and Arc-softmax. Li et al. proposed an AutoML for loss function search method also known as AM-LFS from a hyper-parameter optimization perspective [2]. It automatically determines the search space by leveraging reinforcement learning to the search loss functions during the training process, though the drawback is the complex and unstable search space.<br />
<br />
'''Soft Max'''<br />
<br />
Softmax probability is the probability for each class. It contains a vector of values that add up to 1 while ranging between 0 and 1. Cross-entropy loss is the negative value of target values times the log of the probabilities. When softmax probability is combined with cross-entropy loss in the last fully connected layer of the CNN, it yields the softmax loss function:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_1=-\log\frac{e^{w^T_yx}}{e^{w^T_yx} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{w^T_yx}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
<br />
Specifically for face recognition, <math>L_1</math> is modified such that <math>w^T_yx</math> is normalized and <math>s</math> represents the magnitude of <math>w^T_yx</math>:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_2=-\log\frac{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
Where <math> \cos{(\theta_{{w_k},x})} = w^T_y </math> is cosine similarity and <math>\theta_{{w_k},x}</math> is angle between <math> w_k</math> and x. The learnt features with this soft max loss are prone to be separable (as desired).<br />
<br />
'''Margin-based Softmax'''<br />
<br />
This function is crucial in face recognition because it is used for enhancing feature discrimination. While there are different variations of the softmax loss function, they build upon the same structure as the equation above.<br />
<br />
The margin-based softmax function is:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_3=-\log\frac{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}} </math> </center><br />
<br />
Here, <math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} \leq \cos (\theta_{w_y,x})</math> is a carefully chosen margin function.<br />
<br />
Some other variations of chosen functions:<br />
<br />
'''A-Softmax Loss:''' <math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x})</math> , where m1 >= 1 and a integer.<br />
<br />
'''Arc-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2)</math>, where m2 > 0<br />
<br />
'''AM-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2) - m_3</math>, where m1 >= 1 and a integer; m2,m3 > 0<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this paper, the authors first identified that reducing the softmax probability is a key contribution to feature discrimination and designed two search spaces (random and reward-guided method). They then evaluated their Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax approaches by comparing the results against other face recognition algorithms using nine popular face recognition benchmarks.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
Previous algorithms for facial recognition frequently rely on CNNs that may include metric learning loss functions such as contrastive loss or triplet loss. Without sensitive sample mining strategies, the computational cost for these functions is high. This drawback prompts the redesign of classical softmax loss that cannot discriminate features. Multiple softmax loss functions have since been developed, and including margin-based formulations, they often require fine-tuning of parameters and are susceptible to instability. Therefore, researchers need to put in a lot of effort in creating their method in the large design space. AM-LFS takes an optimization approach for selecting hyperparameters for the margin-based softmax functions, but its aforementioned drawbacks are caused by the lack of direction in designing the search space.<br />
<br />
To solve the issues associated with hand-tuned softmax loss functions and AM-LFS, the authors attempt to reduce the softmax probability to improve feature discrimination when using margin-based softmax loss functions. The development of margin-based softmax loss with only one required parameter and an improved search space using a reward-based method was determined by the authors to be the best option for their loss function.<br />
<br />
== Problem Formulation ==<br />
=== Analysis of Margin-based Softmax Loss ===<br />
Based on the softmax probability and the margin-based softmax probability, the following function can be developed [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>p_m=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}*p</math></center><br />
<center> where <math>a=1-e^{s\,{cos{(\theta_{w_y},x)}-f{(m,\theta_{w_y},x)}}}</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
<math>a</math> is considered as a modulating factor and <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)} \in (0,1]</math> is a modulating function [1]. Therefore, regardless of the margin function (<math>f</math>), the minimization of the softmax probability will ensure success.<br />
<br />
Compared to AM-LFS, this method involves only one parameter (<math>a</math>) that is also constrained, versus AM-LFS which has 2M parameters without constraints that specify the piecewise linear functions the method requires. Also, the piecewise linear functions of AM-LFS (<math>p_m={a_i}p+b_i</math>) may not be discriminative because it could be larger than the softmax probability.<br />
<br />
=== Random Search ===<br />
Unified formulation <math>L_5</math> is generated by inserting a simple modulating function <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}</math> into the original softmax loss. It can be written as below [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_5=-log{(h{(a,p)}*p)}</math> where <math>h \in (0,1]</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
This encourages the feature margin between different classes and has the capability of feature discrimination. This leads to defining the search space as the choice of <math>h{(a,p)}</math> whose impacts on the training procedure are decided by the modulating factor <math>a</math>. In order to validate the unified formulation, a modulating factor is randomly set at each training epoch. This is noted as Random-Softmax in this paper.<br />
<br />
=== Reward-Guided Search ===<br />
Random search has no guidance for training. To solve this, the authors use reinforcement learning. Unlike supervised learning, reinforcement learning (RL) is a behavioral learning model. It does not need to have input/output labelled and it does not need a sub-optimal action to be explicitly corrected. The algorithm receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. The system has an agent that guides the process by taking an action that maximizes the notion of cumulative reward [3]. The process of RL is shown in figure 1. The equation of the cumulative reward function is: <br />
<br />
<center><math>G_t \overset{\Delta}{=} R_t+R_{t+1}+R_{t+2}+⋯+R_T</math></center><br />
<br />
where <math>G_t</math> = cumulative reward, <math>R_t</math> = immediate reward, and <math>R_T</math> = end of episode.<br />
<br />
<math>G_t</math> is the sum of immediate rewards from arbitrary time <math>t</math>. It is a random variable because it depends on the immediate reward which depends on the agent action and the environment's reaction to this action.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure1.png|300px |link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning#/media/File:Reinforcement_learning_diagram.svg |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 1: Reinforcement Learning scenario [4]</center><br />
<br />
The reward function is what guides the agent to move in a certain direction. As mentioned above, the system receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. This is caused by the reward being edited based on the feedback it receives when a task is completed [5]. <br />
<br />
In this paper, RL is being used to generate a distribution of the hyperparameter <math>\mu</math> for the SoftMax equation using the reward function. At each epoch, <math>B</math> hyper-parameters <math>{a_1, a_2, ..., a_B }</math> are sampled as <math>a \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma)</math>. In each epoch, <math>B</math> models are generated with rewards <math>R(a_i), i \in [1, B]</math>. <math>\mu</math> updates after each epoch from the reward function. <br />
<br />
<center><math>\mu_{e+1}=\mu_e + \eta \frac{1}{B} \sum_{i=1}^B R{(a_i)}{\nabla_a}log{(g(a_i;\mu,\sigma))}</math></center><br />
<br />
Where <math>{g(a_i; \mu, \sigma})</math> is the PDF of a Gaussian distribution. The distributions of <math>{a}</math> are updated and the best model if found from the <math>{B}</math> candidates for the next epoch.<br />
<br />
=== Optimization ===<br />
Calculating the reward involves a standard bi-level optimization problem. A standard bi-level optimization problem is a hierarchy of two optimization tasks, an upper-level or leader and lower-level or follower problems, which involves a hyperparameter ({<math>a_1,a_2,…,a_B</math>}) that can be used for minimizing one objective function while maximizing another objective function simultaneously:<br />
<br />
<center><math>max_a R(a)=r(M_{w^*(a)},S_v)</math></center><br />
<center><math>w^*(a)=_w \sum_{(x,y) \in S_t} L^a (M_w(x),y)</math></center><br />
<br />
In this case, the loss function takes the training set <math>S_t</math> and the reward function takes the validation set <math>S_v</math>. The weights <math>w</math> are trained such that the loss function is minimized while the reward function is maximized. The calculated reward for each model ({<math>M_{we1},M_{we2},…,M_{weB}</math>}) yields the corresponding score, then the algorithm chooses the one with the highest score for model index selection. With the model containing the highest score being used in the next epoch, this process is repeated until the training reaches convergence. In the end, the algorithm takes the model with the highest score without retraining.<br />
<br />
== Results and Discussion ==<br />
=== Data Preprocessing ===<br />
The training datasets consisted of cleaned versions of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c to remove the impact of noisy labels in the original sets.<br />
Furthermore, it is important to perform open-set evaluation for face recognition problem. That is, there shall be no overlapping identities between training and testing sets. As a result, there were a total of 15,414 identities removed from the testing sets. For fairness during comparison, all summarized results will be based on refined datasets.<br />
<br />
=== Results on LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB, DFP ===<br />
For LFW, there is not a noticeable difference between the algorithms proposed in this paper and the other algorithms, however, AM-Softmax achieved higher results than Search-Softmax. Random-Softmax achieved the highest results by 0.03%.<br />
<br />
Random-Softmax outperforms baseline Soft-max and is comparable to most of the margin-based softmax. Search-Softmax boosts the performance and better most methods specifically when training CASIA-WebFace-R data set, it achieves 0.72% average improvement over AM-Softmax. The reason the model proposed by the paper gives better results is because of their optimization strategy which helps boost the discrimination power. Also the sampled candidate from the paper’s proposed search space can well approximate the margin-based loss functions. More tests need to happen to more complicated protocols to test the performance further. Not a lot of improvement has been shown on those test sets, since they are relatively simple and the performance of all the methods on these test sets are near saturation. The following table gives a summary of the performance of each model.<br />
<br />
<center>Table 1.Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test sets LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB and CFP. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table1.png|900px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on RFW ===<br />
The RFW dataset measures racial bias which consists of Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and African. Using this as the test set, Random-softmax and Search-softmax performed better than the other methods. Random-softmax outperforms the baseline softmax by a large margin which means reducing the softmax probability will enhance the feature discrimination for face recognition. It is also observed that the reward guided search-softmax method is more likely to enhance the discriminative feature learning resulting in higher performance as shown in Table 2 and Table 3. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 2. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table2.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 3. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table3.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs ===<br />
The different loss functions are tested again with more complicated protocols. The identification (Id.) Rank-1 and the verification (Veri.) with the true positive rate (TPR) at low false acceptance rate (FAR) at <math>1e^{-3}</math> on MegaFace, the identification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-6}</math> and the verification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-9}</math> on Trillion-Pairs are reported on Table 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
On the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs, Search-Softmax achieves the best performance over all other alternative methods. On MegaFace, Search-Softmax beat the best competitor AM-softmax by a large margin. It also outperformed AM-LFS due to new designed search space. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 4. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table4.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 5. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table5.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
From the CMC curves and ROC curves in Figure 2, similar trends are observed at other measures. There is a similar trend with Trillion-Pairs where Search-Softmax loss is found to be superior with 4% improvements with CASIA-WebFace-R and 1% improvements with MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R at both the identification and verification. Based on these experiments, Search-Softmax loss can perform well, especially with a low false positive rate and it shows a strong generalization ability for face recognition.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure2_left.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]] [[Image:G25_Figure2_right.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 2. From Left to Right: CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set CASIA-WebFace-R, CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R [1].</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
The paper discussed that in order to enhance feature discrimination for face recognition, it is crucial to reduce the softmax probability. To achieve this goal, unified formulation for the margin-based softmax losses is designed. Two search methods have been developed using a random and a reward-guided loss function and they were validated to be effective over six other methods using nine different test data sets. While these developed methods were generally more effective in increasing accuracy versus previous methods, there is very little difference between the two. It can be seen that Search-Softmax performs slightly better than Random-Softmax most of the time.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
* Thorough experimentation and comparison of results to state-of-the-art provided a convincing argument.<br />
* Datasets used did require some preprocessing, which may have improved the results beyond what the method otherwise would.<br />
* AM-LFS was created by the authors for experimentation (the code was not made public) so the comparison may not be accurate.<br />
* The test data set they used to test Search-Softmax and Random-Softmax are simple and they saturate in other methods. So the results of their methods didn’t show many advantages since they produce very similar results. A more complicated data set needs to be tested to prove the method's reliability.<br />
* There is another paper Large-Margin Softmax Loss for Convolutional Neural Networks[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.02295.pdf] that provides a more detailed explanation about how to reduce margin-based softmax loss.<br />
* It is questionable when it comes to the accuracy of testing sets, as they only used the clean version of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-vlc for training instead of these two training sets with noisy labels.<br />
* In a similar [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09773.pdf?utm_source=thenewstack&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=platform paper], written by Tae-Hyun Oh et al., they also discuss an optimal loss function for face recognition. However, since in the other paper, they were doing face recognition from voice audio, the loss function used was slightly different than the ones discussed in this paper.<br />
* This model has many applications such as identifying disguised prisoners for police. But we need to do a good data preprocessing otherwise we might not get a good predicted result. But authors did not mention about the data preprocessing which is a key part of this model.<br />
* It will be better if we can know what kind of noises was removed in the clean version. Also, simply removing the overlapping data is wasteful. It would be better to just put them into one of the train and test samples.<br />
* This paper indicate that the new searching method and loss function have induced more effective face recognition result than other six methods. But there is no mention of the increase or decrease in computational efficiency since only very little difference exist between those methods and the real time evaluation is often required at the face recognition application level.<br />
* There are some loss functions that receives more than 2 inputs. For example, the ''triplet loss'' function, developed by Google, takes 3 inputs: positive input, negative input and anchor input. This makes sense because for face recognition, we want to model to learn not only what it is supposed to predict but also what it is not supposed to predict. Typically, triplet loss handles false positives much better. This paper can extend its scope to such loss function that takes more than 2 inputs.<br />
* It would be good to also know what the training time is like for the method, specifically the "Reward-Guided Search" which uses RL. Also the authors mention some data preprocessing that was performed, was this same preprocessing also performed for the methods they compared against?<br />
* Sections on Data Processing and Results can be improved. About the datasets, I have some questions about why they are divided in the current fashion. It is mentioned that "CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c" are used as training datasets. But the comparison of algorithms are divided into three groups: Megaface and TrillionPairs, RFW, and a group of other datasets. In general, when we are comparing algorithms, we want to have a holistic view of how each algorithm compare. So I have some concerns about dividing the results into three section. More explanation can be provided. It also seems like Random-Softmax and Search Softmax outperform all other algorithms across all datasets. So it would make even more sense to have a big table including all the results. About data preprocessing, I believe that giving more information about which noisy data are removed would be nice.<br />
* Despite thorough comparison between each method against the proposed method, it does not give a reason to why it was the case that it was either better or worse, and it does not necessarily need to be a mathematical explanation but an intuitive one to demonstrate how it can be replicated and whether the results require a certain condition to achieve. <br />
* Though we have a graph demonstrating the training loss with Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax with regards to the number of Epochs as an independent variable which we may deduce the number of epochs used in later graphs but since one of the main features is that "Meanwhile, our optimization strategy enables that the dynamic loss can guide<br />
* Did the paper address why the average model performs worse on African faces, would it be a lack of data points?<br />
the model training of different epochs, which helps further boost the discrimination power." it is imperative that the results are comparable along the same scale (for example, for 20 epochs, then take the average of the losses).<br />
* The result summary is overwhelming with numbers and representation of result is lacking. It would be great if the result can be explained. Introduction of model and its component is lacking and could be explained more.<br />
* It would be better if the paper contains some Face Recognition visualization, i.e. show actually face recognition example to show the improvement.<br />
* The introduction of data and the analysis of data processing are important because there might be some limitations. Also, it would be better to give theoretical analysis of the effects of reducing softmax probability and the number of sampled models, which explains the update of the parameters for better performance.<br />
* It would be better to include time performance in the evaluation section.<br />
* The paper is missing details on datasets. It would be better to know if the datasets were balanced or unbalanced and how this would affect the accuracy. Also, computational comparisons between the new loss function versus traditional method would be interesting to know.<br />
* The paper included a dataset that measures racial bias, however it is a widely known fact that majority of face recognition models are trained on biased and imbalanced datasets themselves. For example, AI that has bias towards classifying a black person as a prisoner since the training set of prisoners is predominantly black. A question that remains unanswered is how training a model using the proposed loss function helps to combat racial bias in machine learning, and how these results in particular improved (or worsened) with its use.<br />
<br />
* There are too much data in the conclusion part. A brief conclusion based on several sentences should be enough to present the ideas.<br />
* The author could add the time efficiency of fave recognition in the result to compare the models with other current models for facial recognition since nowadays many application that uses face recognition rely on fast recognition(e.g. unlock phone with face id)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] X. Wang, S. Wang, C. Chi, S. Zhang and T. Mei, "Loss Function Search for Face Recognition", in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020, pp. 1-10.<br />
<br />
[2] Li, C., Yuan, X., Lin, C., Guo, M., Wu, W., Yan, J., and Ouyang, W. Am-lfs: Automl for loss function search. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 8410–8419, 2019.<br />
2020].<br />
<br />
[3] S. L. AI, “Reinforcement Learning algorithms - an intuitive overview,” Medium, 18-Feb-2019. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@SmartLabAI/reinforcement-learning-algorithms-an-intuitive-overview-904e2dff5bbc. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020]. <br />
<br />
[4] “Reinforcement learning,” Wikipedia, 17-Nov-2020. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2020].<br />
<br />
[5] B. Osiński, “What is reinforcement learning? The complete guide,” deepsense.ai, 23-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available: https://deepsense.ai/what-is-reinforcement-learning-the-complete-guide/. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020].</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Loss_Function_Search_for_Face_Recognition&diff=49609Loss Function Search for Face Recognition2020-12-06T23:23:51Z<p>Y52wen: /* Analysis of Margin-based Softmax Loss */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by ==<br />
Jan Lau, Anas Mahdi, Will Thibault, Jiwon Yang<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Face recognition is a technology that can label a face to a specific identity. The field of study involves two tasks: 1. Identifying and classifying a face to a certain identity and 2. Verifying if this face image and another face image map to the same identity. Loss functions play an important role in evaluating how well the prediction models the given data. In the application of face recognition, they are used for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with discriminative features. A discriminative feature is one that is able to successfully discriminate the labeled data, and is typically a result of feature engineering/selection. However, traditional softmax loss lacks the power of feature discrimination. To solve this problem, a center loss was developed to learn centers for each identity to enhance the intra-class compactness. Hence, the paper introduced a new loss function using a scale parameter to produce higher gradients to well-separated samples which can reduce the softmax probability. <br />
<br />
Margin-based (angular, additive, additive angular margins) soft-max loss functions are important in learning discriminative features in face recognition. There have been hand-crafted methods previously developed that require much efforts such as A-softmax, V-softmax, AM-Softmax, and Arc-softmax. Li et al. proposed an AutoML for loss function search method also known as AM-LFS from a hyper-parameter optimization perspective [2]. It automatically determines the search space by leveraging reinforcement learning to the search loss functions during the training process, though the drawback is the complex and unstable search space.<br />
<br />
'''Soft Max'''<br />
Softmax probability is the probability for each class. It contains a vector of values that add up to 1 while ranging between 0 and 1. Cross-entropy loss is the negative value of target values times the log of the probabilities. When softmax probability is combined with cross-entropy loss in the last fully connected layer of the CNN, it yields the softmax loss function:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_1=-\log\frac{e^{w^T_yx}}{e^{w^T_yx} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{w^T_yx}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
<br />
Specifically for face recognition, <math>L_1</math> is modified such that <math>w^T_yx</math> is normalized and <math>s</math> represents the magnitude of <math>w^T_yx</math>:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_2=-\log\frac{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
Where <math> \cos{(\theta_{{w_k},x})} = w^T_y </math> is cosine similarity and <math>\theta_{{w_k},x}</math> is angle between <math> w_k</math> and x. The learnt features with this soft max loss are prone to be separable (as desired).<br />
<br />
'''Margin-based Softmax'''<br />
<br />
This function is crucial in face recognition because it is used for enhancing feature discrimination. While there are different variations of the softmax loss function, they build upon the same structure as the equation above.<br />
<br />
The margin-based softmax function is:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_3=-\log\frac{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}} </math> </center><br />
<br />
Here, <math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} \leq \cos (\theta_{w_y,x})</math> is a carefully chosen margin function.<br />
<br />
Some other variations of chosen functions:<br />
<br />
'''A-Softmax Loss:''' <math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x})</math> , where m1 >= 1 and a integer.<br />
<br />
'''Arc-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2)</math>, where m2 > 0<br />
<br />
'''AM-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2) - m_3</math>, where m1 >= 1 and a integer; m2,m3 > 0<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this paper, the authors first identified that reducing the softmax probability is a key contribution to feature discrimination and designed two search spaces (random and reward-guided method). They then evaluated their Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax approaches by comparing the results against other face recognition algorithms using nine popular face recognition benchmarks.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
Previous algorithms for facial recognition frequently rely on CNNs that may include metric learning loss functions such as contrastive loss or triplet loss. Without sensitive sample mining strategies, the computational cost for these functions is high. This drawback prompts the redesign of classical softmax loss that cannot discriminate features. Multiple softmax loss functions have since been developed, and including margin-based formulations, they often require fine-tuning of parameters and are susceptible to instability. Therefore, researchers need to put in a lot of effort in creating their method in the large design space. AM-LFS takes an optimization approach for selecting hyperparameters for the margin-based softmax functions, but its aforementioned drawbacks are caused by the lack of direction in designing the search space.<br />
<br />
To solve the issues associated with hand-tuned softmax loss functions and AM-LFS, the authors attempt to reduce the softmax probability to improve feature discrimination when using margin-based softmax loss functions. The development of margin-based softmax loss with only one required parameter and an improved search space using a reward-based method was determined by the authors to be the best option for their loss function.<br />
<br />
== Problem Formulation ==<br />
=== Analysis of Margin-based Softmax Loss ===<br />
Based on the softmax probability and the margin-based softmax probability, the following function can be developed [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>p_m=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}*p</math></center><br />
<center> where <math>a=1-e^{s\,{cos{(\theta_{w_y},x)}-f{(m,\theta_{w_y},x)}}}</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
<math>a</math> is considered as a modulating factor and <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)} \in (0,1]</math> is a modulating function [1]. Therefore, regardless of the margin function (<math>f</math>), the minimization of the softmax probability will ensure success.<br />
<br />
Compared to AM-LFS, this method involves only one parameter (<math>a</math>) that is also constrained, versus AM-LFS which has 2M parameters without constraints that specify the piecewise linear functions the method requires. Also, the piecewise linear functions of AM-LFS (<math>p_m={a_i}p+b_i</math>) may not be discriminative because it could be larger than the softmax probability.<br />
<br />
=== Random Search ===<br />
Unified formulation <math>L_5</math> is generated by inserting a simple modulating function <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}</math> into the original softmax loss. It can be written as below [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_5=-log{(h{(a,p)}*p)}</math> where <math>h \in (0,1]</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
This encourages the feature margin between different classes and has the capability of feature discrimination. This leads to defining the search space as the choice of <math>h{(a,p)}</math> whose impacts on the training procedure are decided by the modulating factor <math>a</math>. In order to validate the unified formulation, a modulating factor is randomly set at each training epoch. This is noted as Random-Softmax in this paper.<br />
<br />
=== Reward-Guided Search ===<br />
Random search has no guidance for training. To solve this, the authors use reinforcement learning. Unlike supervised learning, reinforcement learning (RL) is a behavioral learning model. It does not need to have input/output labelled and it does not need a sub-optimal action to be explicitly corrected. The algorithm receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. The system has an agent that guides the process by taking an action that maximizes the notion of cumulative reward [3]. The process of RL is shown in figure 1. The equation of the cumulative reward function is: <br />
<br />
<center><math>G_t \overset{\Delta}{=} R_t+R_{t+1}+R_{t+2}+⋯+R_T</math></center><br />
<br />
where <math>G_t</math> = cumulative reward, <math>R_t</math> = immediate reward, and <math>R_T</math> = end of episode.<br />
<br />
<math>G_t</math> is the sum of immediate rewards from arbitrary time <math>t</math>. It is a random variable because it depends on the immediate reward which depends on the agent action and the environment's reaction to this action.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure1.png|300px |link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning#/media/File:Reinforcement_learning_diagram.svg |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 1: Reinforcement Learning scenario [4]</center><br />
<br />
The reward function is what guides the agent to move in a certain direction. As mentioned above, the system receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. This is caused by the reward being edited based on the feedback it receives when a task is completed [5]. <br />
<br />
In this paper, RL is being used to generate a distribution of the hyperparameter <math>\mu</math> for the SoftMax equation using the reward function. At each epoch, <math>B</math> hyper-parameters <math>{a_1, a_2, ..., a_B }</math> are sampled as <math>a \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma)</math>. In each epoch, <math>B</math> models are generated with rewards <math>R(a_i), i \in [1, B]</math>. <math>\mu</math> updates after each epoch from the reward function. <br />
<br />
<center><math>\mu_{e+1}=\mu_e + \eta \frac{1}{B} \sum_{i=1}^B R{(a_i)}{\nabla_a}log{(g(a_i;\mu,\sigma))}</math></center><br />
<br />
Where <math>{g(a_i; \mu, \sigma})</math> is the PDF of a Gaussian distribution. The distributions of <math>{a}</math> are updated and the best model if found from the <math>{B}</math> candidates for the next epoch.<br />
<br />
=== Optimization ===<br />
Calculating the reward involves a standard bi-level optimization problem. A standard bi-level optimization problem is a hierarchy of two optimization tasks, an upper-level or leader and lower-level or follower problems, which involves a hyperparameter ({<math>a_1,a_2,…,a_B</math>}) that can be used for minimizing one objective function while maximizing another objective function simultaneously:<br />
<br />
<center><math>max_a R(a)=r(M_{w^*(a)},S_v)</math></center><br />
<center><math>w^*(a)=_w \sum_{(x,y) \in S_t} L^a (M_w(x),y)</math></center><br />
<br />
In this case, the loss function takes the training set <math>S_t</math> and the reward function takes the validation set <math>S_v</math>. The weights <math>w</math> are trained such that the loss function is minimized while the reward function is maximized. The calculated reward for each model ({<math>M_{we1},M_{we2},…,M_{weB}</math>}) yields the corresponding score, then the algorithm chooses the one with the highest score for model index selection. With the model containing the highest score being used in the next epoch, this process is repeated until the training reaches convergence. In the end, the algorithm takes the model with the highest score without retraining.<br />
<br />
== Results and Discussion ==<br />
=== Data Preprocessing ===<br />
The training datasets consisted of cleaned versions of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c to remove the impact of noisy labels in the original sets.<br />
Furthermore, it is important to perform open-set evaluation for face recognition problem. That is, there shall be no overlapping identities between training and testing sets. As a result, there were a total of 15,414 identities removed from the testing sets. For fairness during comparison, all summarized results will be based on refined datasets.<br />
<br />
=== Results on LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB, DFP ===<br />
For LFW, there is not a noticeable difference between the algorithms proposed in this paper and the other algorithms, however, AM-Softmax achieved higher results than Search-Softmax. Random-Softmax achieved the highest results by 0.03%.<br />
<br />
Random-Softmax outperforms baseline Soft-max and is comparable to most of the margin-based softmax. Search-Softmax boosts the performance and better most methods specifically when training CASIA-WebFace-R data set, it achieves 0.72% average improvement over AM-Softmax. The reason the model proposed by the paper gives better results is because of their optimization strategy which helps boost the discrimination power. Also the sampled candidate from the paper’s proposed search space can well approximate the margin-based loss functions. More tests need to happen to more complicated protocols to test the performance further. Not a lot of improvement has been shown on those test sets, since they are relatively simple and the performance of all the methods on these test sets are near saturation. The following table gives a summary of the performance of each model.<br />
<br />
<center>Table 1.Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test sets LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB and CFP. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table1.png|900px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on RFW ===<br />
The RFW dataset measures racial bias which consists of Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and African. Using this as the test set, Random-softmax and Search-softmax performed better than the other methods. Random-softmax outperforms the baseline softmax by a large margin which means reducing the softmax probability will enhance the feature discrimination for face recognition. It is also observed that the reward guided search-softmax method is more likely to enhance the discriminative feature learning resulting in higher performance as shown in Table 2 and Table 3. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 2. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table2.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 3. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table3.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs ===<br />
The different loss functions are tested again with more complicated protocols. The identification (Id.) Rank-1 and the verification (Veri.) with the true positive rate (TPR) at low false acceptance rate (FAR) at <math>1e^{-3}</math> on MegaFace, the identification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-6}</math> and the verification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-9}</math> on Trillion-Pairs are reported on Table 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
On the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs, Search-Softmax achieves the best performance over all other alternative methods. On MegaFace, Search-Softmax beat the best competitor AM-softmax by a large margin. It also outperformed AM-LFS due to new designed search space. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 4. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table4.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 5. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table5.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
From the CMC curves and ROC curves in Figure 2, similar trends are observed at other measures. There is a similar trend with Trillion-Pairs where Search-Softmax loss is found to be superior with 4% improvements with CASIA-WebFace-R and 1% improvements with MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R at both the identification and verification. Based on these experiments, Search-Softmax loss can perform well, especially with a low false positive rate and it shows a strong generalization ability for face recognition.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure2_left.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]] [[Image:G25_Figure2_right.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 2. From Left to Right: CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set CASIA-WebFace-R, CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R [1].</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
The paper discussed that in order to enhance feature discrimination for face recognition, it is crucial to reduce the softmax probability. To achieve this goal, unified formulation for the margin-based softmax losses is designed. Two search methods have been developed using a random and a reward-guided loss function and they were validated to be effective over six other methods using nine different test data sets. While these developed methods were generally more effective in increasing accuracy versus previous methods, there is very little difference between the two. It can be seen that Search-Softmax performs slightly better than Random-Softmax most of the time.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
* Thorough experimentation and comparison of results to state-of-the-art provided a convincing argument.<br />
* Datasets used did require some preprocessing, which may have improved the results beyond what the method otherwise would.<br />
* AM-LFS was created by the authors for experimentation (the code was not made public) so the comparison may not be accurate.<br />
* The test data set they used to test Search-Softmax and Random-Softmax are simple and they saturate in other methods. So the results of their methods didn’t show many advantages since they produce very similar results. A more complicated data set needs to be tested to prove the method's reliability.<br />
* There is another paper Large-Margin Softmax Loss for Convolutional Neural Networks[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.02295.pdf] that provides a more detailed explanation about how to reduce margin-based softmax loss.<br />
* It is questionable when it comes to the accuracy of testing sets, as they only used the clean version of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-vlc for training instead of these two training sets with noisy labels.<br />
* In a similar [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09773.pdf?utm_source=thenewstack&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=platform paper], written by Tae-Hyun Oh et al., they also discuss an optimal loss function for face recognition. However, since in the other paper, they were doing face recognition from voice audio, the loss function used was slightly different than the ones discussed in this paper.<br />
* This model has many applications such as identifying disguised prisoners for police. But we need to do a good data preprocessing otherwise we might not get a good predicted result. But authors did not mention about the data preprocessing which is a key part of this model.<br />
* It will be better if we can know what kind of noises was removed in the clean version. Also, simply removing the overlapping data is wasteful. It would be better to just put them into one of the train and test samples.<br />
* This paper indicate that the new searching method and loss function have induced more effective face recognition result than other six methods. But there is no mention of the increase or decrease in computational efficiency since only very little difference exist between those methods and the real time evaluation is often required at the face recognition application level.<br />
* There are some loss functions that receives more than 2 inputs. For example, the ''triplet loss'' function, developed by Google, takes 3 inputs: positive input, negative input and anchor input. This makes sense because for face recognition, we want to model to learn not only what it is supposed to predict but also what it is not supposed to predict. Typically, triplet loss handles false positives much better. This paper can extend its scope to such loss function that takes more than 2 inputs.<br />
* It would be good to also know what the training time is like for the method, specifically the "Reward-Guided Search" which uses RL. Also the authors mention some data preprocessing that was performed, was this same preprocessing also performed for the methods they compared against?<br />
* Sections on Data Processing and Results can be improved. About the datasets, I have some questions about why they are divided in the current fashion. It is mentioned that "CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c" are used as training datasets. But the comparison of algorithms are divided into three groups: Megaface and TrillionPairs, RFW, and a group of other datasets. In general, when we are comparing algorithms, we want to have a holistic view of how each algorithm compare. So I have some concerns about dividing the results into three section. More explanation can be provided. It also seems like Random-Softmax and Search Softmax outperform all other algorithms across all datasets. So it would make even more sense to have a big table including all the results. About data preprocessing, I believe that giving more information about which noisy data are removed would be nice.<br />
* Despite thorough comparison between each method against the proposed method, it does not give a reason to why it was the case that it was either better or worse, and it does not necessarily need to be a mathematical explanation but an intuitive one to demonstrate how it can be replicated and whether the results require a certain condition to achieve. <br />
* Though we have a graph demonstrating the training loss with Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax with regards to the number of Epochs as an independent variable which we may deduce the number of epochs used in later graphs but since one of the main features is that "Meanwhile, our optimization strategy enables that the dynamic loss can guide<br />
* Did the paper address why the average model performs worse on African faces, would it be a lack of data points?<br />
the model training of different epochs, which helps further boost the discrimination power." it is imperative that the results are comparable along the same scale (for example, for 20 epochs, then take the average of the losses).<br />
* The result summary is overwhelming with numbers and representation of result is lacking. It would be great if the result can be explained. Introduction of model and its component is lacking and could be explained more.<br />
* It would be better if the paper contains some Face Recognition visualization, i.e. show actually face recognition example to show the improvement.<br />
* The introduction of data and the analysis of data processing are important because there might be some limitations. Also, it would be better to give theoretical analysis of the effects of reducing softmax probability and the number of sampled models, which explains the update of the parameters for better performance.<br />
* It would be better to include time performance in the evaluation section.<br />
* The paper is missing details on datasets. It would be better to know if the datasets were balanced or unbalanced and how this would affect the accuracy. Also, computational comparisons between the new loss function versus traditional method would be interesting to know.<br />
* The paper included a dataset that measures racial bias, however it is a widely known fact that majority of face recognition models are trained on biased and imbalanced datasets themselves. For example, AI that has bias towards classifying a black person as a prisoner since the training set of prisoners is predominantly black. A question that remains unanswered is how training a model using the proposed loss function helps to combat racial bias in machine learning, and how these results in particular improved (or worsened) with its use.<br />
<br />
* There are too much data in the conclusion part. A brief conclusion based on several sentences should be enough to present the ideas.<br />
* The author could add the time efficiency of fave recognition in the result to compare the models with other current models for facial recognition since nowadays many application that uses face recognition rely on fast recognition(e.g. unlock phone with face id)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] X. Wang, S. Wang, C. Chi, S. Zhang and T. Mei, "Loss Function Search for Face Recognition", in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020, pp. 1-10.<br />
<br />
[2] Li, C., Yuan, X., Lin, C., Guo, M., Wu, W., Yan, J., and Ouyang, W. Am-lfs: Automl for loss function search. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 8410–8419, 2019.<br />
2020].<br />
<br />
[3] S. L. AI, “Reinforcement Learning algorithms - an intuitive overview,” Medium, 18-Feb-2019. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@SmartLabAI/reinforcement-learning-algorithms-an-intuitive-overview-904e2dff5bbc. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020]. <br />
<br />
[4] “Reinforcement learning,” Wikipedia, 17-Nov-2020. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2020].<br />
<br />
[5] B. Osiński, “What is reinforcement learning? The complete guide,” deepsense.ai, 23-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available: https://deepsense.ai/what-is-reinforcement-learning-the-complete-guide/. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020].</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Loss_Function_Search_for_Face_Recognition&diff=49608Loss Function Search for Face Recognition2020-12-06T23:23:40Z<p>Y52wen: /* Analysis of Margin-based Softmax Loss */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by ==<br />
Jan Lau, Anas Mahdi, Will Thibault, Jiwon Yang<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Face recognition is a technology that can label a face to a specific identity. The field of study involves two tasks: 1. Identifying and classifying a face to a certain identity and 2. Verifying if this face image and another face image map to the same identity. Loss functions play an important role in evaluating how well the prediction models the given data. In the application of face recognition, they are used for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with discriminative features. A discriminative feature is one that is able to successfully discriminate the labeled data, and is typically a result of feature engineering/selection. However, traditional softmax loss lacks the power of feature discrimination. To solve this problem, a center loss was developed to learn centers for each identity to enhance the intra-class compactness. Hence, the paper introduced a new loss function using a scale parameter to produce higher gradients to well-separated samples which can reduce the softmax probability. <br />
<br />
Margin-based (angular, additive, additive angular margins) soft-max loss functions are important in learning discriminative features in face recognition. There have been hand-crafted methods previously developed that require much efforts such as A-softmax, V-softmax, AM-Softmax, and Arc-softmax. Li et al. proposed an AutoML for loss function search method also known as AM-LFS from a hyper-parameter optimization perspective [2]. It automatically determines the search space by leveraging reinforcement learning to the search loss functions during the training process, though the drawback is the complex and unstable search space.<br />
<br />
'''Soft Max'''<br />
Softmax probability is the probability for each class. It contains a vector of values that add up to 1 while ranging between 0 and 1. Cross-entropy loss is the negative value of target values times the log of the probabilities. When softmax probability is combined with cross-entropy loss in the last fully connected layer of the CNN, it yields the softmax loss function:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_1=-\log\frac{e^{w^T_yx}}{e^{w^T_yx} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{w^T_yx}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
<br />
Specifically for face recognition, <math>L_1</math> is modified such that <math>w^T_yx</math> is normalized and <math>s</math> represents the magnitude of <math>w^T_yx</math>:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_2=-\log\frac{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
Where <math> \cos{(\theta_{{w_k},x})} = w^T_y </math> is cosine similarity and <math>\theta_{{w_k},x}</math> is angle between <math> w_k</math> and x. The learnt features with this soft max loss are prone to be separable (as desired).<br />
<br />
'''Margin-based Softmax'''<br />
<br />
This function is crucial in face recognition because it is used for enhancing feature discrimination. While there are different variations of the softmax loss function, they build upon the same structure as the equation above.<br />
<br />
The margin-based softmax function is:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_3=-\log\frac{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}} </math> </center><br />
<br />
Here, <math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} \leq \cos (\theta_{w_y,x})</math> is a carefully chosen margin function.<br />
<br />
Some other variations of chosen functions:<br />
<br />
'''A-Softmax Loss:''' <math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x})</math> , where m1 >= 1 and a integer.<br />
<br />
'''Arc-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2)</math>, where m2 > 0<br />
<br />
'''AM-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2) - m_3</math>, where m1 >= 1 and a integer; m2,m3 > 0<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this paper, the authors first identified that reducing the softmax probability is a key contribution to feature discrimination and designed two search spaces (random and reward-guided method). They then evaluated their Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax approaches by comparing the results against other face recognition algorithms using nine popular face recognition benchmarks.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
Previous algorithms for facial recognition frequently rely on CNNs that may include metric learning loss functions such as contrastive loss or triplet loss. Without sensitive sample mining strategies, the computational cost for these functions is high. This drawback prompts the redesign of classical softmax loss that cannot discriminate features. Multiple softmax loss functions have since been developed, and including margin-based formulations, they often require fine-tuning of parameters and are susceptible to instability. Therefore, researchers need to put in a lot of effort in creating their method in the large design space. AM-LFS takes an optimization approach for selecting hyperparameters for the margin-based softmax functions, but its aforementioned drawbacks are caused by the lack of direction in designing the search space.<br />
<br />
To solve the issues associated with hand-tuned softmax loss functions and AM-LFS, the authors attempt to reduce the softmax probability to improve feature discrimination when using margin-based softmax loss functions. The development of margin-based softmax loss with only one required parameter and an improved search space using a reward-based method was determined by the authors to be the best option for their loss function.<br />
<br />
== Problem Formulation ==<br />
=== Analysis of Margin-based Softmax Loss ===<br />
Based on the softmax probability and the margin-based softmax probability, the following function can be developed [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>p_m=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}*p</math></center><br />
<center> where <math>a=1-e^{s\;{cos{(\theta_{w_y},x)}-f{(m,\theta_{w_y},x)}}}</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
<math>a</math> is considered as a modulating factor and <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)} \in (0,1]</math> is a modulating function [1]. Therefore, regardless of the margin function (<math>f</math>), the minimization of the softmax probability will ensure success.<br />
<br />
Compared to AM-LFS, this method involves only one parameter (<math>a</math>) that is also constrained, versus AM-LFS which has 2M parameters without constraints that specify the piecewise linear functions the method requires. Also, the piecewise linear functions of AM-LFS (<math>p_m={a_i}p+b_i</math>) may not be discriminative because it could be larger than the softmax probability.<br />
<br />
=== Random Search ===<br />
Unified formulation <math>L_5</math> is generated by inserting a simple modulating function <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}</math> into the original softmax loss. It can be written as below [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_5=-log{(h{(a,p)}*p)}</math> where <math>h \in (0,1]</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
This encourages the feature margin between different classes and has the capability of feature discrimination. This leads to defining the search space as the choice of <math>h{(a,p)}</math> whose impacts on the training procedure are decided by the modulating factor <math>a</math>. In order to validate the unified formulation, a modulating factor is randomly set at each training epoch. This is noted as Random-Softmax in this paper.<br />
<br />
=== Reward-Guided Search ===<br />
Random search has no guidance for training. To solve this, the authors use reinforcement learning. Unlike supervised learning, reinforcement learning (RL) is a behavioral learning model. It does not need to have input/output labelled and it does not need a sub-optimal action to be explicitly corrected. The algorithm receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. The system has an agent that guides the process by taking an action that maximizes the notion of cumulative reward [3]. The process of RL is shown in figure 1. The equation of the cumulative reward function is: <br />
<br />
<center><math>G_t \overset{\Delta}{=} R_t+R_{t+1}+R_{t+2}+⋯+R_T</math></center><br />
<br />
where <math>G_t</math> = cumulative reward, <math>R_t</math> = immediate reward, and <math>R_T</math> = end of episode.<br />
<br />
<math>G_t</math> is the sum of immediate rewards from arbitrary time <math>t</math>. It is a random variable because it depends on the immediate reward which depends on the agent action and the environment's reaction to this action.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure1.png|300px |link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning#/media/File:Reinforcement_learning_diagram.svg |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 1: Reinforcement Learning scenario [4]</center><br />
<br />
The reward function is what guides the agent to move in a certain direction. As mentioned above, the system receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. This is caused by the reward being edited based on the feedback it receives when a task is completed [5]. <br />
<br />
In this paper, RL is being used to generate a distribution of the hyperparameter <math>\mu</math> for the SoftMax equation using the reward function. At each epoch, <math>B</math> hyper-parameters <math>{a_1, a_2, ..., a_B }</math> are sampled as <math>a \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma)</math>. In each epoch, <math>B</math> models are generated with rewards <math>R(a_i), i \in [1, B]</math>. <math>\mu</math> updates after each epoch from the reward function. <br />
<br />
<center><math>\mu_{e+1}=\mu_e + \eta \frac{1}{B} \sum_{i=1}^B R{(a_i)}{\nabla_a}log{(g(a_i;\mu,\sigma))}</math></center><br />
<br />
Where <math>{g(a_i; \mu, \sigma})</math> is the PDF of a Gaussian distribution. The distributions of <math>{a}</math> are updated and the best model if found from the <math>{B}</math> candidates for the next epoch.<br />
<br />
=== Optimization ===<br />
Calculating the reward involves a standard bi-level optimization problem. A standard bi-level optimization problem is a hierarchy of two optimization tasks, an upper-level or leader and lower-level or follower problems, which involves a hyperparameter ({<math>a_1,a_2,…,a_B</math>}) that can be used for minimizing one objective function while maximizing another objective function simultaneously:<br />
<br />
<center><math>max_a R(a)=r(M_{w^*(a)},S_v)</math></center><br />
<center><math>w^*(a)=_w \sum_{(x,y) \in S_t} L^a (M_w(x),y)</math></center><br />
<br />
In this case, the loss function takes the training set <math>S_t</math> and the reward function takes the validation set <math>S_v</math>. The weights <math>w</math> are trained such that the loss function is minimized while the reward function is maximized. The calculated reward for each model ({<math>M_{we1},M_{we2},…,M_{weB}</math>}) yields the corresponding score, then the algorithm chooses the one with the highest score for model index selection. With the model containing the highest score being used in the next epoch, this process is repeated until the training reaches convergence. In the end, the algorithm takes the model with the highest score without retraining.<br />
<br />
== Results and Discussion ==<br />
=== Data Preprocessing ===<br />
The training datasets consisted of cleaned versions of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c to remove the impact of noisy labels in the original sets.<br />
Furthermore, it is important to perform open-set evaluation for face recognition problem. That is, there shall be no overlapping identities between training and testing sets. As a result, there were a total of 15,414 identities removed from the testing sets. For fairness during comparison, all summarized results will be based on refined datasets.<br />
<br />
=== Results on LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB, DFP ===<br />
For LFW, there is not a noticeable difference between the algorithms proposed in this paper and the other algorithms, however, AM-Softmax achieved higher results than Search-Softmax. Random-Softmax achieved the highest results by 0.03%.<br />
<br />
Random-Softmax outperforms baseline Soft-max and is comparable to most of the margin-based softmax. Search-Softmax boosts the performance and better most methods specifically when training CASIA-WebFace-R data set, it achieves 0.72% average improvement over AM-Softmax. The reason the model proposed by the paper gives better results is because of their optimization strategy which helps boost the discrimination power. Also the sampled candidate from the paper’s proposed search space can well approximate the margin-based loss functions. More tests need to happen to more complicated protocols to test the performance further. Not a lot of improvement has been shown on those test sets, since they are relatively simple and the performance of all the methods on these test sets are near saturation. The following table gives a summary of the performance of each model.<br />
<br />
<center>Table 1.Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test sets LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB and CFP. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table1.png|900px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on RFW ===<br />
The RFW dataset measures racial bias which consists of Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and African. Using this as the test set, Random-softmax and Search-softmax performed better than the other methods. Random-softmax outperforms the baseline softmax by a large margin which means reducing the softmax probability will enhance the feature discrimination for face recognition. It is also observed that the reward guided search-softmax method is more likely to enhance the discriminative feature learning resulting in higher performance as shown in Table 2 and Table 3. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 2. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table2.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 3. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table3.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs ===<br />
The different loss functions are tested again with more complicated protocols. The identification (Id.) Rank-1 and the verification (Veri.) with the true positive rate (TPR) at low false acceptance rate (FAR) at <math>1e^{-3}</math> on MegaFace, the identification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-6}</math> and the verification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-9}</math> on Trillion-Pairs are reported on Table 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
On the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs, Search-Softmax achieves the best performance over all other alternative methods. On MegaFace, Search-Softmax beat the best competitor AM-softmax by a large margin. It also outperformed AM-LFS due to new designed search space. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 4. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table4.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 5. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table5.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
From the CMC curves and ROC curves in Figure 2, similar trends are observed at other measures. There is a similar trend with Trillion-Pairs where Search-Softmax loss is found to be superior with 4% improvements with CASIA-WebFace-R and 1% improvements with MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R at both the identification and verification. Based on these experiments, Search-Softmax loss can perform well, especially with a low false positive rate and it shows a strong generalization ability for face recognition.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure2_left.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]] [[Image:G25_Figure2_right.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 2. From Left to Right: CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set CASIA-WebFace-R, CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R [1].</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
The paper discussed that in order to enhance feature discrimination for face recognition, it is crucial to reduce the softmax probability. To achieve this goal, unified formulation for the margin-based softmax losses is designed. Two search methods have been developed using a random and a reward-guided loss function and they were validated to be effective over six other methods using nine different test data sets. While these developed methods were generally more effective in increasing accuracy versus previous methods, there is very little difference between the two. It can be seen that Search-Softmax performs slightly better than Random-Softmax most of the time.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
* Thorough experimentation and comparison of results to state-of-the-art provided a convincing argument.<br />
* Datasets used did require some preprocessing, which may have improved the results beyond what the method otherwise would.<br />
* AM-LFS was created by the authors for experimentation (the code was not made public) so the comparison may not be accurate.<br />
* The test data set they used to test Search-Softmax and Random-Softmax are simple and they saturate in other methods. So the results of their methods didn’t show many advantages since they produce very similar results. A more complicated data set needs to be tested to prove the method's reliability.<br />
* There is another paper Large-Margin Softmax Loss for Convolutional Neural Networks[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.02295.pdf] that provides a more detailed explanation about how to reduce margin-based softmax loss.<br />
* It is questionable when it comes to the accuracy of testing sets, as they only used the clean version of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-vlc for training instead of these two training sets with noisy labels.<br />
* In a similar [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09773.pdf?utm_source=thenewstack&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=platform paper], written by Tae-Hyun Oh et al., they also discuss an optimal loss function for face recognition. However, since in the other paper, they were doing face recognition from voice audio, the loss function used was slightly different than the ones discussed in this paper.<br />
* This model has many applications such as identifying disguised prisoners for police. But we need to do a good data preprocessing otherwise we might not get a good predicted result. But authors did not mention about the data preprocessing which is a key part of this model.<br />
* It will be better if we can know what kind of noises was removed in the clean version. Also, simply removing the overlapping data is wasteful. It would be better to just put them into one of the train and test samples.<br />
* This paper indicate that the new searching method and loss function have induced more effective face recognition result than other six methods. But there is no mention of the increase or decrease in computational efficiency since only very little difference exist between those methods and the real time evaluation is often required at the face recognition application level.<br />
* There are some loss functions that receives more than 2 inputs. For example, the ''triplet loss'' function, developed by Google, takes 3 inputs: positive input, negative input and anchor input. This makes sense because for face recognition, we want to model to learn not only what it is supposed to predict but also what it is not supposed to predict. Typically, triplet loss handles false positives much better. This paper can extend its scope to such loss function that takes more than 2 inputs.<br />
* It would be good to also know what the training time is like for the method, specifically the "Reward-Guided Search" which uses RL. Also the authors mention some data preprocessing that was performed, was this same preprocessing also performed for the methods they compared against?<br />
* Sections on Data Processing and Results can be improved. About the datasets, I have some questions about why they are divided in the current fashion. It is mentioned that "CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c" are used as training datasets. But the comparison of algorithms are divided into three groups: Megaface and TrillionPairs, RFW, and a group of other datasets. In general, when we are comparing algorithms, we want to have a holistic view of how each algorithm compare. So I have some concerns about dividing the results into three section. More explanation can be provided. It also seems like Random-Softmax and Search Softmax outperform all other algorithms across all datasets. So it would make even more sense to have a big table including all the results. About data preprocessing, I believe that giving more information about which noisy data are removed would be nice.<br />
* Despite thorough comparison between each method against the proposed method, it does not give a reason to why it was the case that it was either better or worse, and it does not necessarily need to be a mathematical explanation but an intuitive one to demonstrate how it can be replicated and whether the results require a certain condition to achieve. <br />
* Though we have a graph demonstrating the training loss with Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax with regards to the number of Epochs as an independent variable which we may deduce the number of epochs used in later graphs but since one of the main features is that "Meanwhile, our optimization strategy enables that the dynamic loss can guide<br />
* Did the paper address why the average model performs worse on African faces, would it be a lack of data points?<br />
the model training of different epochs, which helps further boost the discrimination power." it is imperative that the results are comparable along the same scale (for example, for 20 epochs, then take the average of the losses).<br />
* The result summary is overwhelming with numbers and representation of result is lacking. It would be great if the result can be explained. Introduction of model and its component is lacking and could be explained more.<br />
* It would be better if the paper contains some Face Recognition visualization, i.e. show actually face recognition example to show the improvement.<br />
* The introduction of data and the analysis of data processing are important because there might be some limitations. Also, it would be better to give theoretical analysis of the effects of reducing softmax probability and the number of sampled models, which explains the update of the parameters for better performance.<br />
* It would be better to include time performance in the evaluation section.<br />
* The paper is missing details on datasets. It would be better to know if the datasets were balanced or unbalanced and how this would affect the accuracy. Also, computational comparisons between the new loss function versus traditional method would be interesting to know.<br />
* The paper included a dataset that measures racial bias, however it is a widely known fact that majority of face recognition models are trained on biased and imbalanced datasets themselves. For example, AI that has bias towards classifying a black person as a prisoner since the training set of prisoners is predominantly black. A question that remains unanswered is how training a model using the proposed loss function helps to combat racial bias in machine learning, and how these results in particular improved (or worsened) with its use.<br />
<br />
* There are too much data in the conclusion part. A brief conclusion based on several sentences should be enough to present the ideas.<br />
* The author could add the time efficiency of fave recognition in the result to compare the models with other current models for facial recognition since nowadays many application that uses face recognition rely on fast recognition(e.g. unlock phone with face id)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] X. Wang, S. Wang, C. Chi, S. Zhang and T. Mei, "Loss Function Search for Face Recognition", in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020, pp. 1-10.<br />
<br />
[2] Li, C., Yuan, X., Lin, C., Guo, M., Wu, W., Yan, J., and Ouyang, W. Am-lfs: Automl for loss function search. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 8410–8419, 2019.<br />
2020].<br />
<br />
[3] S. L. AI, “Reinforcement Learning algorithms - an intuitive overview,” Medium, 18-Feb-2019. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@SmartLabAI/reinforcement-learning-algorithms-an-intuitive-overview-904e2dff5bbc. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020]. <br />
<br />
[4] “Reinforcement learning,” Wikipedia, 17-Nov-2020. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2020].<br />
<br />
[5] B. Osiński, “What is reinforcement learning? The complete guide,” deepsense.ai, 23-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available: https://deepsense.ai/what-is-reinforcement-learning-the-complete-guide/. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020].</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Loss_Function_Search_for_Face_Recognition&diff=49607Loss Function Search for Face Recognition2020-12-06T23:22:37Z<p>Y52wen: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by ==<br />
Jan Lau, Anas Mahdi, Will Thibault, Jiwon Yang<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Face recognition is a technology that can label a face to a specific identity. The field of study involves two tasks: 1. Identifying and classifying a face to a certain identity and 2. Verifying if this face image and another face image map to the same identity. Loss functions play an important role in evaluating how well the prediction models the given data. In the application of face recognition, they are used for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with discriminative features. A discriminative feature is one that is able to successfully discriminate the labeled data, and is typically a result of feature engineering/selection. However, traditional softmax loss lacks the power of feature discrimination. To solve this problem, a center loss was developed to learn centers for each identity to enhance the intra-class compactness. Hence, the paper introduced a new loss function using a scale parameter to produce higher gradients to well-separated samples which can reduce the softmax probability. <br />
<br />
Margin-based (angular, additive, additive angular margins) soft-max loss functions are important in learning discriminative features in face recognition. There have been hand-crafted methods previously developed that require much efforts such as A-softmax, V-softmax, AM-Softmax, and Arc-softmax. Li et al. proposed an AutoML for loss function search method also known as AM-LFS from a hyper-parameter optimization perspective [2]. It automatically determines the search space by leveraging reinforcement learning to the search loss functions during the training process, though the drawback is the complex and unstable search space.<br />
<br />
'''Soft Max'''<br />
Softmax probability is the probability for each class. It contains a vector of values that add up to 1 while ranging between 0 and 1. Cross-entropy loss is the negative value of target values times the log of the probabilities. When softmax probability is combined with cross-entropy loss in the last fully connected layer of the CNN, it yields the softmax loss function:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_1=-\log\frac{e^{w^T_yx}}{e^{w^T_yx} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{w^T_yx}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
<br />
Specifically for face recognition, <math>L_1</math> is modified such that <math>w^T_yx</math> is normalized and <math>s</math> represents the magnitude of <math>w^T_yx</math>:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_2=-\log\frac{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}}</math> [1] </center><br />
<br />
Where <math> \cos{(\theta_{{w_k},x})} = w^T_y </math> is cosine similarity and <math>\theta_{{w_k},x}</math> is angle between <math> w_k</math> and x. The learnt features with this soft max loss are prone to be separable (as desired).<br />
<br />
'''Margin-based Softmax'''<br />
<br />
This function is crucial in face recognition because it is used for enhancing feature discrimination. While there are different variations of the softmax loss function, they build upon the same structure as the equation above.<br />
<br />
The margin-based softmax function is:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_3=-\log\frac{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}{e^{s f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})}} + \sum_{k≠y}^K{e^{s \cos{(\theta_{{w_y},x})}}}} </math> </center><br />
<br />
Here, <math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} \leq \cos (\theta_{w_y,x})</math> is a carefully chosen margin function.<br />
<br />
Some other variations of chosen functions:<br />
<br />
'''A-Softmax Loss:''' <math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x})</math> , where m1 >= 1 and a integer.<br />
<br />
'''Arc-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m_1,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2)</math>, where m2 > 0<br />
<br />
'''AM-Softmax Loss:'''<math>f{(m,\theta_{{w_y},x})} = \cos (m_1\theta_{w_y,x} + m_2) - m_3</math>, where m1 >= 1 and a integer; m2,m3 > 0<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this paper, the authors first identified that reducing the softmax probability is a key contribution to feature discrimination and designed two search spaces (random and reward-guided method). They then evaluated their Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax approaches by comparing the results against other face recognition algorithms using nine popular face recognition benchmarks.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
Previous algorithms for facial recognition frequently rely on CNNs that may include metric learning loss functions such as contrastive loss or triplet loss. Without sensitive sample mining strategies, the computational cost for these functions is high. This drawback prompts the redesign of classical softmax loss that cannot discriminate features. Multiple softmax loss functions have since been developed, and including margin-based formulations, they often require fine-tuning of parameters and are susceptible to instability. Therefore, researchers need to put in a lot of effort in creating their method in the large design space. AM-LFS takes an optimization approach for selecting hyperparameters for the margin-based softmax functions, but its aforementioned drawbacks are caused by the lack of direction in designing the search space.<br />
<br />
To solve the issues associated with hand-tuned softmax loss functions and AM-LFS, the authors attempt to reduce the softmax probability to improve feature discrimination when using margin-based softmax loss functions. The development of margin-based softmax loss with only one required parameter and an improved search space using a reward-based method was determined by the authors to be the best option for their loss function.<br />
<br />
== Problem Formulation ==<br />
=== Analysis of Margin-based Softmax Loss ===<br />
Based on the softmax probability and the margin-based softmax probability, the following function can be developed [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>p_m=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}*p</math></center><br />
<center> where <math>a=1-e^{s{cos{(\theta_{w_y},x)}-f{(m,\theta_{w_y},x)}}}</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
<math>a</math> is considered as a modulating factor and <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)} \in (0,1]</math> is a modulating function [1]. Therefore, regardless of the margin function (<math>f</math>), the minimization of the softmax probability will ensure success.<br />
<br />
Compared to AM-LFS, this method involves only one parameter (<math>a</math>) that is also constrained, versus AM-LFS which has 2M parameters without constraints that specify the piecewise linear functions the method requires. Also, the piecewise linear functions of AM-LFS (<math>p_m={a_i}p+b_i</math>) may not be discriminative because it could be larger than the softmax probability.<br />
<br />
=== Random Search ===<br />
Unified formulation <math>L_5</math> is generated by inserting a simple modulating function <math>h{(a,p)}=\frac{1}{ap+(1-a)}</math> into the original softmax loss. It can be written as below [1]:<br />
<br />
<center><math>L_5=-log{(h{(a,p)}*p)}</math> where <math>h \in (0,1]</math> and <math>a≤0</math></center><br />
<br />
This encourages the feature margin between different classes and has the capability of feature discrimination. This leads to defining the search space as the choice of <math>h{(a,p)}</math> whose impacts on the training procedure are decided by the modulating factor <math>a</math>. In order to validate the unified formulation, a modulating factor is randomly set at each training epoch. This is noted as Random-Softmax in this paper.<br />
<br />
=== Reward-Guided Search ===<br />
Random search has no guidance for training. To solve this, the authors use reinforcement learning. Unlike supervised learning, reinforcement learning (RL) is a behavioral learning model. It does not need to have input/output labelled and it does not need a sub-optimal action to be explicitly corrected. The algorithm receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. The system has an agent that guides the process by taking an action that maximizes the notion of cumulative reward [3]. The process of RL is shown in figure 1. The equation of the cumulative reward function is: <br />
<br />
<center><math>G_t \overset{\Delta}{=} R_t+R_{t+1}+R_{t+2}+⋯+R_T</math></center><br />
<br />
where <math>G_t</math> = cumulative reward, <math>R_t</math> = immediate reward, and <math>R_T</math> = end of episode.<br />
<br />
<math>G_t</math> is the sum of immediate rewards from arbitrary time <math>t</math>. It is a random variable because it depends on the immediate reward which depends on the agent action and the environment's reaction to this action.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure1.png|300px |link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning#/media/File:Reinforcement_learning_diagram.svg |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 1: Reinforcement Learning scenario [4]</center><br />
<br />
The reward function is what guides the agent to move in a certain direction. As mentioned above, the system receives feedback from the data to achieve the best outcome. This is caused by the reward being edited based on the feedback it receives when a task is completed [5]. <br />
<br />
In this paper, RL is being used to generate a distribution of the hyperparameter <math>\mu</math> for the SoftMax equation using the reward function. At each epoch, <math>B</math> hyper-parameters <math>{a_1, a_2, ..., a_B }</math> are sampled as <math>a \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma)</math>. In each epoch, <math>B</math> models are generated with rewards <math>R(a_i), i \in [1, B]</math>. <math>\mu</math> updates after each epoch from the reward function. <br />
<br />
<center><math>\mu_{e+1}=\mu_e + \eta \frac{1}{B} \sum_{i=1}^B R{(a_i)}{\nabla_a}log{(g(a_i;\mu,\sigma))}</math></center><br />
<br />
Where <math>{g(a_i; \mu, \sigma})</math> is the PDF of a Gaussian distribution. The distributions of <math>{a}</math> are updated and the best model if found from the <math>{B}</math> candidates for the next epoch.<br />
<br />
=== Optimization ===<br />
Calculating the reward involves a standard bi-level optimization problem. A standard bi-level optimization problem is a hierarchy of two optimization tasks, an upper-level or leader and lower-level or follower problems, which involves a hyperparameter ({<math>a_1,a_2,…,a_B</math>}) that can be used for minimizing one objective function while maximizing another objective function simultaneously:<br />
<br />
<center><math>max_a R(a)=r(M_{w^*(a)},S_v)</math></center><br />
<center><math>w^*(a)=_w \sum_{(x,y) \in S_t} L^a (M_w(x),y)</math></center><br />
<br />
In this case, the loss function takes the training set <math>S_t</math> and the reward function takes the validation set <math>S_v</math>. The weights <math>w</math> are trained such that the loss function is minimized while the reward function is maximized. The calculated reward for each model ({<math>M_{we1},M_{we2},…,M_{weB}</math>}) yields the corresponding score, then the algorithm chooses the one with the highest score for model index selection. With the model containing the highest score being used in the next epoch, this process is repeated until the training reaches convergence. In the end, the algorithm takes the model with the highest score without retraining.<br />
<br />
== Results and Discussion ==<br />
=== Data Preprocessing ===<br />
The training datasets consisted of cleaned versions of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c to remove the impact of noisy labels in the original sets.<br />
Furthermore, it is important to perform open-set evaluation for face recognition problem. That is, there shall be no overlapping identities between training and testing sets. As a result, there were a total of 15,414 identities removed from the testing sets. For fairness during comparison, all summarized results will be based on refined datasets.<br />
<br />
=== Results on LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB, DFP ===<br />
For LFW, there is not a noticeable difference between the algorithms proposed in this paper and the other algorithms, however, AM-Softmax achieved higher results than Search-Softmax. Random-Softmax achieved the highest results by 0.03%.<br />
<br />
Random-Softmax outperforms baseline Soft-max and is comparable to most of the margin-based softmax. Search-Softmax boosts the performance and better most methods specifically when training CASIA-WebFace-R data set, it achieves 0.72% average improvement over AM-Softmax. The reason the model proposed by the paper gives better results is because of their optimization strategy which helps boost the discrimination power. Also the sampled candidate from the paper’s proposed search space can well approximate the margin-based loss functions. More tests need to happen to more complicated protocols to test the performance further. Not a lot of improvement has been shown on those test sets, since they are relatively simple and the performance of all the methods on these test sets are near saturation. The following table gives a summary of the performance of each model.<br />
<br />
<center>Table 1.Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test sets LFW, SLLFW, CALFW, CPLFW, AgeDB and CFP. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table1.png|900px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on RFW ===<br />
The RFW dataset measures racial bias which consists of Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and African. Using this as the test set, Random-softmax and Search-softmax performed better than the other methods. Random-softmax outperforms the baseline softmax by a large margin which means reducing the softmax probability will enhance the feature discrimination for face recognition. It is also observed that the reward guided search-softmax method is more likely to enhance the discriminative feature learning resulting in higher performance as shown in Table 2 and Table 3. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 2. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table2.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 3. Verification performance (%) of different methods on the test set RFW. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table3.png|500px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
=== Results on MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs ===<br />
The different loss functions are tested again with more complicated protocols. The identification (Id.) Rank-1 and the verification (Veri.) with the true positive rate (TPR) at low false acceptance rate (FAR) at <math>1e^{-3}</math> on MegaFace, the identification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-6}</math> and the verification TPR@FAR = <math>1e^{-9}</math> on Trillion-Pairs are reported on Table 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
On the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs, Search-Softmax achieves the best performance over all other alternative methods. On MegaFace, Search-Softmax beat the best competitor AM-softmax by a large margin. It also outperformed AM-LFS due to new designed search space. <br />
<br />
<center>Table 4. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''CASIA-WebFace-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table4.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Table 5. Performance (%) of different loss functions on the test sets MegaFace and Trillion-Pairs. The training set is '''MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R''' [1].</center><br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Table5.png|450px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<br />
From the CMC curves and ROC curves in Figure 2, similar trends are observed at other measures. There is a similar trend with Trillion-Pairs where Search-Softmax loss is found to be superior with 4% improvements with CASIA-WebFace-R and 1% improvements with MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R at both the identification and verification. Based on these experiments, Search-Softmax loss can perform well, especially with a low false positive rate and it shows a strong generalization ability for face recognition.<br />
<br />
<center>[[Image:G25_Figure2_left.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]] [[Image:G25_Figure2_right.png|800px |alt=Alt text|Title text]]</center><br />
<center>Figure 2. From Left to Right: CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set CASIA-WebFace-R, CMC curves and ROC curves on MegaFace Set with training set MS-Celeb-1M-v1c-R [1].</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
The paper discussed that in order to enhance feature discrimination for face recognition, it is crucial to reduce the softmax probability. To achieve this goal, unified formulation for the margin-based softmax losses is designed. Two search methods have been developed using a random and a reward-guided loss function and they were validated to be effective over six other methods using nine different test data sets. While these developed methods were generally more effective in increasing accuracy versus previous methods, there is very little difference between the two. It can be seen that Search-Softmax performs slightly better than Random-Softmax most of the time.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
* Thorough experimentation and comparison of results to state-of-the-art provided a convincing argument.<br />
* Datasets used did require some preprocessing, which may have improved the results beyond what the method otherwise would.<br />
* AM-LFS was created by the authors for experimentation (the code was not made public) so the comparison may not be accurate.<br />
* The test data set they used to test Search-Softmax and Random-Softmax are simple and they saturate in other methods. So the results of their methods didn’t show many advantages since they produce very similar results. A more complicated data set needs to be tested to prove the method's reliability.<br />
* There is another paper Large-Margin Softmax Loss for Convolutional Neural Networks[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.02295.pdf] that provides a more detailed explanation about how to reduce margin-based softmax loss.<br />
* It is questionable when it comes to the accuracy of testing sets, as they only used the clean version of CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-vlc for training instead of these two training sets with noisy labels.<br />
* In a similar [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09773.pdf?utm_source=thenewstack&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=platform paper], written by Tae-Hyun Oh et al., they also discuss an optimal loss function for face recognition. However, since in the other paper, they were doing face recognition from voice audio, the loss function used was slightly different than the ones discussed in this paper.<br />
* This model has many applications such as identifying disguised prisoners for police. But we need to do a good data preprocessing otherwise we might not get a good predicted result. But authors did not mention about the data preprocessing which is a key part of this model.<br />
* It will be better if we can know what kind of noises was removed in the clean version. Also, simply removing the overlapping data is wasteful. It would be better to just put them into one of the train and test samples.<br />
* This paper indicate that the new searching method and loss function have induced more effective face recognition result than other six methods. But there is no mention of the increase or decrease in computational efficiency since only very little difference exist between those methods and the real time evaluation is often required at the face recognition application level.<br />
* There are some loss functions that receives more than 2 inputs. For example, the ''triplet loss'' function, developed by Google, takes 3 inputs: positive input, negative input and anchor input. This makes sense because for face recognition, we want to model to learn not only what it is supposed to predict but also what it is not supposed to predict. Typically, triplet loss handles false positives much better. This paper can extend its scope to such loss function that takes more than 2 inputs.<br />
* It would be good to also know what the training time is like for the method, specifically the "Reward-Guided Search" which uses RL. Also the authors mention some data preprocessing that was performed, was this same preprocessing also performed for the methods they compared against?<br />
* Sections on Data Processing and Results can be improved. About the datasets, I have some questions about why they are divided in the current fashion. It is mentioned that "CASIA-WebFace and MS-Celeb-1M-v1c" are used as training datasets. But the comparison of algorithms are divided into three groups: Megaface and TrillionPairs, RFW, and a group of other datasets. In general, when we are comparing algorithms, we want to have a holistic view of how each algorithm compare. So I have some concerns about dividing the results into three section. More explanation can be provided. It also seems like Random-Softmax and Search Softmax outperform all other algorithms across all datasets. So it would make even more sense to have a big table including all the results. About data preprocessing, I believe that giving more information about which noisy data are removed would be nice.<br />
* Despite thorough comparison between each method against the proposed method, it does not give a reason to why it was the case that it was either better or worse, and it does not necessarily need to be a mathematical explanation but an intuitive one to demonstrate how it can be replicated and whether the results require a certain condition to achieve. <br />
* Though we have a graph demonstrating the training loss with Random-Softmax and Search-Softmax with regards to the number of Epochs as an independent variable which we may deduce the number of epochs used in later graphs but since one of the main features is that "Meanwhile, our optimization strategy enables that the dynamic loss can guide<br />
* Did the paper address why the average model performs worse on African faces, would it be a lack of data points?<br />
the model training of different epochs, which helps further boost the discrimination power." it is imperative that the results are comparable along the same scale (for example, for 20 epochs, then take the average of the losses).<br />
* The result summary is overwhelming with numbers and representation of result is lacking. It would be great if the result can be explained. Introduction of model and its component is lacking and could be explained more.<br />
* It would be better if the paper contains some Face Recognition visualization, i.e. show actually face recognition example to show the improvement.<br />
* The introduction of data and the analysis of data processing are important because there might be some limitations. Also, it would be better to give theoretical analysis of the effects of reducing softmax probability and the number of sampled models, which explains the update of the parameters for better performance.<br />
* It would be better to include time performance in the evaluation section.<br />
* The paper is missing details on datasets. It would be better to know if the datasets were balanced or unbalanced and how this would affect the accuracy. Also, computational comparisons between the new loss function versus traditional method would be interesting to know.<br />
* The paper included a dataset that measures racial bias, however it is a widely known fact that majority of face recognition models are trained on biased and imbalanced datasets themselves. For example, AI that has bias towards classifying a black person as a prisoner since the training set of prisoners is predominantly black. A question that remains unanswered is how training a model using the proposed loss function helps to combat racial bias in machine learning, and how these results in particular improved (or worsened) with its use.<br />
<br />
* There are too much data in the conclusion part. A brief conclusion based on several sentences should be enough to present the ideas.<br />
* The author could add the time efficiency of fave recognition in the result to compare the models with other current models for facial recognition since nowadays many application that uses face recognition rely on fast recognition(e.g. unlock phone with face id)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] X. Wang, S. Wang, C. Chi, S. Zhang and T. Mei, "Loss Function Search for Face Recognition", in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020, pp. 1-10.<br />
<br />
[2] Li, C., Yuan, X., Lin, C., Guo, M., Wu, W., Yan, J., and Ouyang, W. Am-lfs: Automl for loss function search. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 8410–8419, 2019.<br />
2020].<br />
<br />
[3] S. L. AI, “Reinforcement Learning algorithms - an intuitive overview,” Medium, 18-Feb-2019. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@SmartLabAI/reinforcement-learning-algorithms-an-intuitive-overview-904e2dff5bbc. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020]. <br />
<br />
[4] “Reinforcement learning,” Wikipedia, 17-Nov-2020. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2020].<br />
<br />
[5] B. Osiński, “What is reinforcement learning? The complete guide,” deepsense.ai, 23-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available: https://deepsense.ai/what-is-reinforcement-learning-the-complete-guide/. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2020].</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Research_Papers_Classification_System&diff=49595Research Papers Classification System2020-12-06T23:02:27Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critique */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Presented by =<br />
Jill Wang, Junyi (Jay) Yang, Yu Min (Chris) Wu, Chun Kit (Calvin) Li<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
With the increasing advance of computer science and information technology, there is an increasingly overwhelming number of papers that have been published. Because of the mass number of papers, it has become incredibly hard to find and categorize papers. This paper introduces a paper classification system that utilizes the Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), and K-means clustering. The most important technology the system used to process big data is the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS). The system can handle quantitatively complex research paper classification problems efficiently and accurately.<br />
<br />
===General Framework===<br />
<br />
The paper classification system classifies research papers based on the abstracts given that the core of most papers is presented in the abstracts. <br />
<br />
[[ File:Systemflow.png |right|image on right| 400px]]<br />
<ol><li>Paper Crawling <br />
<p>Collects abstracts from research papers published during a given period</p></li><br />
<li>Preprocessing<br />
<p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li>Removes stop words in the papers crawled, in which only nouns are extracted from the papers</li><br />
<li>generates a keyword dictionary, keeping only the top-N keywords with the highest frequencies</li> </ol><br />
</p></li> <br />
<li>Topic Modelling<br />
<p> Use the LDA to group the keywords into topics</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Paper Length Calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the total number of occurrences of words to prevent an unbalanced TF values caused by the various length of abstracts using the map-reduce algorithm</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Word Frequency Calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the Term Frequency (TF) values which represent the frequency of keywords in a research paper</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Document Frequency Calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the Document Frequency (DF) values which represents the frequency of keywords in a collection of research papers. The higher the DF value, the lower the importance of a keyword.</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>TF-IDF calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the inverse of the DF which represents the importance of a keyword.</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Paper Classification<br />
<p> Classify papers by topics using the K-means clustering algorithm.</p><br />
</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<br />
===Technologies===<br />
<br />
The HDFS with a Hadoop cluster composed of one master node, one sub-node, and four data nodes is what is used to process the massive paper data. Hadoop-2.6.5 version in Java is what is used to perform the TF-IDF calculation. Spark MLlib is what is used to perform the LDA. The Scikit-learn library is what is used to perform the K-means clustering.<br />
<br />
===HDFS===<br />
<br />
Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) was used to process big data in this system. HFDS has been shown to process big data rapidly and stably with high scalability which makes it a perfect choice for this problem. What Hadoop does is to break a big collection of data into different partitions and pass each partition to one individual processor. Each processor will only have information about the partition of data it has received.<br />
<br />
'''In this summary, we are going to focus on introducing the main algorithms of what this system uses, namely LDA, TF-IDF, and K-Means.'''<br />
<br />
=Data Preprocessing=<br />
===Crawling of Abstract Data===<br />
<br />
Under the assumption that audiences tend to first read the abstract of a paper to gain an overall understanding of the material, it is reasonable to assume the abstract section includes “core words” that can be used to effectively classify a paper's subject.<br />
<br />
An abstract is crawled to have its stop words removed. Stop words are words that are usually ignored by search engines, such as “the”, “a”, and etc. Afterward, nouns are extracted, as a more condensed representation for efficient analysis.<br />
<br />
This is managed on HDFS. The TF-IDF value of each paper is calculated through map-reduce, an easy-to-use programming model and implementation for processing and generating large data sets. The user must specify (i) a map procedure, that filters and sorts the input data to produce a set of intermediate key/value pairs and (ii) a reduce function, which performs a summary operation on the intermediate values with the same key and returns a smaller set of output key/value pairs. The MapReduce interface enables this process by grouping the intermediate values with the same key and passing them as input to the reduce function. For example, one could count the number of times various words appear in a large number of documents by setting your map procedure to count the number of occurrences of each word in a single document, and your reduce function to sum all counts of a given word [[https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1327452.1327492?casa_token=_Zg_DWxQzKEAAAAA:EHII0CaP36_ojGMT8huqTGLNMSEc-CKzZAoXBxSXe6pr2WB0DCQvEKa30CFQW0NSbB2-CVo8GcBcJAg 1]].<br />
<br />
===Managing Paper Data===<br />
<br />
To construct an effective keyword dictionary using abstract data and keywords data in all of the crawled papers, the authors categorized keywords with similar meanings using a single representative keyword. The approach is called stemming, which is common in cleaning data, where words are reduced to their word stem. An example is "running" and "ran" would be reduced to "run". 1394 keyword categories are extracted, which is still too much to compute. Hence, only the top 30 keyword categories are used.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_1_kswf.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
=Topic Modeling Using LDA=<br />
<br />
Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is a generative probabilistic model that views documents as random mixtures over latent topics. Each topic is a distribution over words, and the goal is to extract these topics from documents.<br />
<br />
LDA estimates the topic-word distribution <math>P\left(t | z\right)</math> (probability of word "z" having topic "t") and the document-topic distribution <math>P\left(z | d\right)</math> (probability of finding word "z" within a given document "d") using Dirichlet priors for the distributions with a fixed number of topics. For each document, obtain a feature vector:<br />
<br />
\[F = \left( P\left(z_1 | d\right), P\left(z_2 | d\right), \cdots, P\left(z_k | d\right) \right)\]<br />
<br />
In the paper, authors extract topics from preprocessed paper to generate three kinds of topic sets, each with 10, 20, and 30 topics respectively. The following is a table of the 10 topic sets of highest frequency keywords.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_2_tswtebls.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
===LDA Intuition===<br />
<br />
LDA uses the Dirichlet priors of the Dirichlet distribution, which allows the algorithm to model a probability distribution ''over prior probability distributions of words and topics''. The following picture illustrates 2-simplex Dirichlet distributions with different alpha values, one for each corner of the triangles. <br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:dirichlet_dist.png|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
Simplex is a generalization of the notion of a triangle in k-1 dimension where k is the number of classes. For example, if you wish to classify essays into three groups, English, History and Math then the simplex would be a 2 dimension triangle, if you add philosophy as one of your potential class, then we would need a tetrahedron in 3 deminsion. In Dirichlet distribution, each parameter will be represented by a corner in simplex, so adding additional parameters implies increasing the dimensions of simplex. As illustrated, when alphas are smaller than 1 the distribution is dense at the corners. When the alphas are greater than 1 the distribution is dense at the centers.<br />
<br />
The following illustration shows an example LDA with 3 topics, 4 words and 7 documents.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:LDA_example.png|800px]]</div><br />
<br />
In the left diagram, there are three topics, hence it is a 2-simplex. In the right diagram there are four words, hence it is a 3-simplex. LDA essentially adjusts parameters in Dirichlet distributions and multinomial distributions (represented by the points), such that, in the left diagram, all the yellow points representing documents and, in the right diagram, all the points representing topics, are as close to a corner as possible. In other words, LDA finds topics for documents and also finds words for topics. At the end topic-word distribution <math>P\left(t | z\right)</math> and the document-topic distribution <math>P\left(z | d\right)</math> are produced.<br />
<br />
=Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) Calculation=<br />
<br />
TF-IDF is widely used to evaluate the importance of a set of words in the fields of information retrieval and text mining. It is a combination of term frequency (TF) and inverse document frequency (IDF). The idea behind this combination is<br />
* It evaluates the importance of a word within a document<br />
* It evaluates the importance of the word among the collection of all documents<br />
<br />
The inverse of the document frequency accounts for the fact that term frequency will naturally increase as document frequency increases. Thus IDF is needed to counteract a word's TF to give an accurate representation of a word's importance.<br />
<br />
The TF-IDF formula has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[TF-IDF_{i,j} = TF_{i,j} \times IDF_{i}\]<br />
<br />
where i stands for the <math>i^{th}</math> word and j stands for the <math>j^{th}</math> document.<br />
<br />
===Term Frequency (TF)===<br />
<br />
TF evaluates the percentage of a given word in a document. Thus, TF value indicates the importance of a word. The TF has a positive relation with the importance.<br />
<br />
In this paper, we only calculate TF for words in the keyword dictionary obtained. For a given keyword i, <math>TF_{i,j}</math> is the number of times word i appears in document j divided by the total number of words in document j.<br />
<br />
The formula for TF has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[TF_{i,j} = \frac{n_{i,j} }{\sum_k n_{k,j} }\]<br />
<br />
where i stands for the <math>i^{th}</math> word, j stands for the <math>j^{th}</math> document, <math>n_{i,j}</math> stands for the number of times words <math>t_i</math> appear in document <math>d_j</math> and <math>\sum_k n_{k,j} </math> stands for total number of occurence of words in document <math>d_j</math>.<br />
<br />
Note that the denominator is the total number of words remaining in document j after crawling.<br />
<br />
===Document Frequency (DF)===<br />
<br />
DF evaluates the percentage of documents that contain a given word over the entire collection of documents. Thus, the higher DF value is, the less important the word is.<br />
<br />
<math>DF_{i}</math> is the number of documents in the collection with word i divided by the total number of documents in the collection. The formula for DF has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[DF_{i} = \frac{|d_k \in D: n_{i,k} > 0|}{|D|}\]<br />
<br />
where <math>n_{i,k}</math> is the number of times word i appears in document k, |D| is the total number of documents in the collection.<br />
<br />
Since DF and the importance of the word have an inverse relation, we use inverse document frequency (IDF) instead of DF.<br />
<br />
===Inverse Document Frequency (IDF)===<br />
<br />
In this paper, IDF is calculated in a log scale. Since we will receive a large number of documents, i.e, we will have a large |D|<br />
<br />
The formula for IDF has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[IDF_{i} = log\left(\frac{|D|}{|\{d_k \in D: n_{i,k} > 0\}|}\right)\]<br />
<br />
As mentioned before, we will use HDFS. The actual formula applied is:<br />
<br />
\[IDF_{i} = log\left(\frac{|D|+1}{|\{d_k \in D: n_{i,k} > 0\}|+1}\right)\]<br />
<br />
The inverse document frequency gives a measure of how rare a certain term is in a given document corpus.<br />
<br />
=Paper Classification Using K-means Clustering=<br />
<br />
The K-means clustering is an unsupervised classification algorithm that groups similar data into the same class. It is an efficient and simple method that can be applied to different types of data attributes. It is also flexible enough to handle various kinds of noise and outliers.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Given a set of <math>d</math> by <math>n</math> dataset <math>\mathbf{X} = \left[ \mathbf{x}_1 \cdots \mathbf{x}_n \right]</math>, the algorithm will assign each <math>\mathbf{x}_j</math> into <math>k</math> different clusters based on the characteristics of <math>\mathbf{x}_j</math> itself.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Moreover, when assigning data into a cluster, the algorithm will also try to minimise the distances between the data and the centre of the cluster which the data belongs to. That is, k-means clustering will minimize the sum of square error:<br />
<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
min \sum_{i=1}^{k} \sum_{j \in C_i} ||x_j - \mu_i||^2<br />
\end{align*}<br />
<br />
where<br />
<ul><br />
<li><math>k</math>: the number of clusters</li><br />
<li><math>C_i</math>: the <math>i^th</math> cluster</li><br />
<li><math>x_j</math>: the <math>j^th</math> data in the <math>C_i</math></li><br />
<li><math>mu_i</math>: the centroid of <math>C_i</math></li><br />
<li><math>||x_j - \mu_i||^2</math>: the Euclidean distance between <math>x_j</math> and <math>\mu_i</math></li><br />
</ul><br />
<br><br />
<br />
K-means Clustering algorithm, an unsupervised algorithm, is chosen because of its advantages to deal with different types of attributes, to run with minimal requirement of domain knowledge, to deal with noise and outliers, to realize clusters with similarities. <br />
<br />
<br />
Since the goal for this paper is to classify research papers and group papers with similar topics based on keywords, the paper uses the K-means clustering algorithm. The algorithm first computes the cluster centroid for each group of papers with a specific topic. Then, it will assign a paper into a cluster based on the Euclidean distance between the cluster centroid and the paper’s TF-IDF value.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
However, different values of <math>k</math> (the number of clusters) will return different clustering results. Therefore, it is important to define the number of clusters before clustering. For example, in this paper, the authors choose to use the Elbow scheme to determine the value of <math>k</math>. The Elbow scheme is a somewhat subjective way of choosing an optimal <math>k</math> that involves plotting the average of the squared distances from the cluster centers of the respective clusters (distortion) as a function of <math>k</math> and choosing a <math>k</math> at which point the decrease in distortion is outweighed by the increase in complexity. Also, to measure the performance of clustering, the authors decide to use the Silhouette scheme. The Silhouette scheme is a measure of how well the objects lie within each cluster. Silhouette scores lie from -1 to 1. A positive score indicates that the object is well-matched with its own cluster, while a negative score indicates the opposite (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005). The results of clustering are validated if the Silhouette scheme returns a value greater than <math>0.5</math>.<br />
<br />
=System Testing Results=<br />
<br />
In this paper, the dataset has 3264 research papers from the Future Generation Computer System (FGCS) journal between 1984 and 2017. For constructing keyword dictionaries for each paper, the authors have introduced three methods as shown below:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_3_tmtckd.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Then, the authors use the Elbow scheme to define the number of clusters for each method with different numbers of keywords before running the K-means clustering algorithm. The results are shown below:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_4_nocobes.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
According to Table 4, there is a positive correlation between the number of keywords and the number of clusters. In addition, method 3 combines the advantages for both method 1 and method 2; thus, method 3 requires the least clusters in total. On the other hand, the wrong keywords might be presented in papers; hence, it might not be possible to group papers with similar subjects correctly by using method 1 and so method 1 needs the most number of clusters in total.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next, the Silhouette scheme had been used for measuring the performance for clustering. The average of the Silhouette values for each method with different numbers of keywords are shown below:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_5_asv.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
Since the clustering is validated if the Silhouette’s value is greater than 0.5, for methods with 10 and 30 keywords, the K-means clustering algorithm produces good results.<br />
<br />
<br />
To evaluate the accuracy of the classification system in this paper, the authors use the F-Score. The authors execute 5 times of experiment and use 500 randomly selected research papers for each trial. The following histogram shows the average value of F-Score for the three methods and different numbers of keywords:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:fig_16_fsvotm.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
Note that “TFIDF” means method 1, “LDA” means method 2, and “TFIDF-LDA” means method 3. The number 10, 20, and 30 after each method is the number of keywords the method has used.<br />
According to the histogram above, method 3 has the highest F-Score values than the other two methods with different numbers of keywords. Therefore, the classification system is most accurate when using method 3 as it combines the advantages for both method 1 and method 2.<br />
<br />
=Conclusion=<br />
<br />
This paper introduces a classification system that classifies research papers into different topics by using TF-IDF and LDA scheme with K-means clustering algorithm. The experimental results showed that the proposed system can classify the papers with similar subjects according to the keywords extracted from the abstracts of papers. The authors emphasized that the system can be implemented efficiently on high performance computing infrastructure, using industry-standard technologies. This system allows users to search the papers they want quickly and with the most productivity.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, this classification system might be also used in different types of texts (e.g. documents, tweets, etc.) instead of only classifying research papers.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
In this paper, DF values are calculated within each partition. This results that for each partition, DF value for a given word will vary and may have an inconsistent result for different partition methods. As mentioned above, there might be a divide by zero problem since some partitions do not have documents containing a given word, but this can be solved by introducing a dummy document as the authors did. Another method that might be better at solving inconsistent results and the divide by zero problems is to have all partitions to communicate with their DF value. Then pass the merged DF value to all partitions to do the final IDF and TF-IDF value. Having all partitions to communicate with the DF value will guarantee a consistent DF value across all partitions and helps avoid a divide by zero problem as words in the keyword dictionary must appear in some documents in the whole collection.<br />
<br />
This paper treated the words in the different parts of a document equivalently, it might perform better if it gives different weights to the same word in different parts. For example, if a word appears in the title of the document, it usually shows it's a main topic of this document so we can put more weight on it to categorize.<br />
<br />
When discussing the potential processing advantages of this classification system for other types of text samples, has the effect of processing mixed samples (text and image or text and video) taken into consideration? IF not, in terms of text classification only, does it have an overwhelming advantage over traditional classification models?<br />
<br />
The preprocessing should also include <math>n</math>-gram tokenization for topic modelling because some topics are inherently two words, such as machine learning where if it is seen separately, it implies different topics.<br />
<br />
This system is very compute-intensive due to the large volumes of dictionaries that can be generated by processing large volumes of data. It would be nice to see how much data HDFS had to process and similarly how much time was saved by using Hadoop for data processing as opposed to centralized approach.<br />
<br />
This system can be improved further in terms of computation times by utilizing other big data framework MapReduce, that can also use HDFS, by parallelizing their computation across multiple nodes for K-means clustering as discussed in (Jin, et al) [5].<br />
<br />
It's not exactly clear what method 3 (TFIDF-LDA) is doing, how is it performing TF-IDF on the topics? Also it seems like the preprocessing step only keeps 10/20/30 top words? This seems like an extremely low number especially in comparison with the LDA which has 10/20/30 topics - what is the reason for so strongly limiting the number of words? It would also be interesting to see if both key words and topics are necessary - an ablation study showing the significance of both would be interesting.<br />
<br />
It is better if the paper has an example with some topics on some research papers. Also it is better if we can visualize the distance between each research paper and the topic names<br />
<br />
I am interested in the first step of the general framework, which is the Paper Crawling step. Many conferences actually require the authors to indicate several key words that best describe a paper. For example, a database paper may have keywords such as "large-scale database management", "information retrieval", and "relational table mining". So in addition to crawling text from abstract, it may be more effective to crawl these keywords directly. Not only does this require less time, these keywords may also lead to better performance than the nouns extracted from the abstract section. I am also slightly concerned about the claim made in the paper that "Our methodologies can be applied to text outside of research papers". Research papers are usually carefully revised and well-structured. Extending the algorithm described in the paper to any kind of free-text could be difficult in practice.<br />
<br />
The paper has very meaningful motivation, since the association of research topics and finding all the relevant previous work is indeed a challenging task at the initials stage of the research. It is often easy to miss a relevant paper published years ago which might be crucial to your own work. However, the classification task that the author tested in this work is almost useless, as the classification is too high-level. The overall scheme of classifying paper between categories like "cloud bigdata" or "IoT privacy" is too general to be meaningful. It is simply classifying the primary field computer science into its direct subfield, while most researchers only work on a niche much narrower than the subfield. Most online paper database, including arxiv, takes care of the subfield and even subsubfield classifcation during the stage of submission, which leaves the author's system with limited applicabilty. What we truly need is an algorithm able to classify and cluster papers based on detailed research topics and methodology. <br />
<br />
It would be better if the author could provide some application or example of the research algorithm in the real world. It would be helpful for the readers to understand the algorithm.<br />
<br />
The summary clearly goes through the model framework well, starting from data-preprocessing, prediction, and testing. It can be enhanced by applying this model to other similar use-cases and how well the prediction goes.<br />
<br />
It will be better if their is a comparison on the BM25 algorithm v.s. TF-IDF, which is usually get compared in IR papers<br />
<br />
The paper misses the details on subjects of research papers used to perform classifications. If the majority of research papers were about one subject, it could potentially produce biased results.<br />
<br />
The paper omits the details of the reason why Method 3 for constructing the Keyword dictionaries requires the least number of k-clusters as method 3 is a combination of methods 1 and 2. It would be of interest to investigate why Method 3 uses so little clusters (in comparison) as it seemed to be the most accurate of the 3 methods. (Also the graph comparing the results could be improved by using a variety of different hues of colours as it is difficult to distinguish some scores such as TFIDF_30 and TFIDF-LDA_30)<br />
<br />
The TF-IDF is interesting as it provides a normalized method to extract the most frequent term contained in the paper, while this method still has spaces of improvements. For example, in some machine learning papers, where special operations have to be done on the datasets, the name of dataset may appear multiple times within the paper. In fact, the main theme of the paper is on the novel machine learning algorithm, which may only be mentioned once. In that case, mis-predictions may occur, and a possible improvement here is to add weights to keywords appearing in each section. i.e the most frequent word in Abstract will have more weights than the most frequent word in Introduction.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the paper glosses over a few technicalities. First, how does the proposed algorithm deal with subgroups and nested groups. The paper is assuming only one level of sorting, which may work for a sufficiently unique set of paper, but since the problem is meant to be generalized, many papers will have to have multi-level sorts. For example, the category 'machine learning' can be further divided into 'supervised' and 'unsupervised'. Is the algorithm able to handle this or would it create 2 groups (i.e. ML-supervised and ML-unsupervised)? Second, a popular LDA model is available through the gensim package which utilizes relevancy and saliency metrics - how does that factor into the quality of the topics? Third, what is the motivation in using TF-IDF scores for clustering? In my experience, using Word2Vec and BERT has been the industry standard for obtaining vectors to perform clustering on text.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<br />
[1] Blei DM, el. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022<br />
<br />
[2] Gil, JM, Kim, SW. (2019). Research paper classification systems based on TF-IDF and LDA schemes. ''Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences'', 9, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-019-0192-7<br />
<br />
[3] Liu, S. (2019, January 11). Dirichlet distribution Motivating LDA. Retrieved November 2020, from https://towardsdatascience.com/dirichlet-distribution-a82ab942a879<br />
<br />
[4] Serrano, L. (Director). (2020, March 18). Latent Dirichlet Allocation (Part 1 of 2) [Video file]. Retrieved 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T05t-SqKArY<br />
<br />
[5] Jin, Cui, Yu. (2016). A New Parallelization Method for K-means. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.06347.pdf<br />
<br />
[6] Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2005). Graphical Output Concerning Each Clustering. In Finding groups in data : An introduction to cluster analysis (pp. 84-85). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470316801</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Research_Papers_Classification_System&diff=49592Research Papers Classification System2020-12-06T23:01:21Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critique */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Presented by =<br />
Jill Wang, Junyi (Jay) Yang, Yu Min (Chris) Wu, Chun Kit (Calvin) Li<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
With the increasing advance of computer science and information technology, there is an increasingly overwhelming number of papers that have been published. Because of the mass number of papers, it has become incredibly hard to find and categorize papers. This paper introduces a paper classification system that utilizes the Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), and K-means clustering. The most important technology the system used to process big data is the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS). The system can handle quantitatively complex research paper classification problems efficiently and accurately.<br />
<br />
===General Framework===<br />
<br />
The paper classification system classifies research papers based on the abstracts given that the core of most papers is presented in the abstracts. <br />
<br />
[[ File:Systemflow.png |right|image on right| 400px]]<br />
<ol><li>Paper Crawling <br />
<p>Collects abstracts from research papers published during a given period</p></li><br />
<li>Preprocessing<br />
<p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li>Removes stop words in the papers crawled, in which only nouns are extracted from the papers</li><br />
<li>generates a keyword dictionary, keeping only the top-N keywords with the highest frequencies</li> </ol><br />
</p></li> <br />
<li>Topic Modelling<br />
<p> Use the LDA to group the keywords into topics</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Paper Length Calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the total number of occurrences of words to prevent an unbalanced TF values caused by the various length of abstracts using the map-reduce algorithm</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Word Frequency Calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the Term Frequency (TF) values which represent the frequency of keywords in a research paper</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Document Frequency Calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the Document Frequency (DF) values which represents the frequency of keywords in a collection of research papers. The higher the DF value, the lower the importance of a keyword.</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>TF-IDF calculation<br />
<p> Calculates the inverse of the DF which represents the importance of a keyword.</p><br />
</li><br />
<li>Paper Classification<br />
<p> Classify papers by topics using the K-means clustering algorithm.</p><br />
</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<br />
===Technologies===<br />
<br />
The HDFS with a Hadoop cluster composed of one master node, one sub-node, and four data nodes is what is used to process the massive paper data. Hadoop-2.6.5 version in Java is what is used to perform the TF-IDF calculation. Spark MLlib is what is used to perform the LDA. The Scikit-learn library is what is used to perform the K-means clustering.<br />
<br />
===HDFS===<br />
<br />
Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) was used to process big data in this system. HFDS has been shown to process big data rapidly and stably with high scalability which makes it a perfect choice for this problem. What Hadoop does is to break a big collection of data into different partitions and pass each partition to one individual processor. Each processor will only have information about the partition of data it has received.<br />
<br />
'''In this summary, we are going to focus on introducing the main algorithms of what this system uses, namely LDA, TF-IDF, and K-Means.'''<br />
<br />
=Data Preprocessing=<br />
===Crawling of Abstract Data===<br />
<br />
Under the assumption that audiences tend to first read the abstract of a paper to gain an overall understanding of the material, it is reasonable to assume the abstract section includes “core words” that can be used to effectively classify a paper's subject.<br />
<br />
An abstract is crawled to have its stop words removed. Stop words are words that are usually ignored by search engines, such as “the”, “a”, and etc. Afterward, nouns are extracted, as a more condensed representation for efficient analysis.<br />
<br />
This is managed on HDFS. The TF-IDF value of each paper is calculated through map-reduce, an easy-to-use programming model and implementation for processing and generating large data sets. The user must specify (i) a map procedure, that filters and sorts the input data to produce a set of intermediate key/value pairs and (ii) a reduce function, which performs a summary operation on the intermediate values with the same key and returns a smaller set of output key/value pairs. The MapReduce interface enables this process by grouping the intermediate values with the same key and passing them as input to the reduce function. For example, one could count the number of times various words appear in a large number of documents by setting your map procedure to count the number of occurrences of each word in a single document, and your reduce function to sum all counts of a given word [[https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1327452.1327492?casa_token=_Zg_DWxQzKEAAAAA:EHII0CaP36_ojGMT8huqTGLNMSEc-CKzZAoXBxSXe6pr2WB0DCQvEKa30CFQW0NSbB2-CVo8GcBcJAg 1]].<br />
<br />
===Managing Paper Data===<br />
<br />
To construct an effective keyword dictionary using abstract data and keywords data in all of the crawled papers, the authors categorized keywords with similar meanings using a single representative keyword. The approach is called stemming, which is common in cleaning data, where words are reduced to their word stem. An example is "running" and "ran" would be reduced to "run". 1394 keyword categories are extracted, which is still too much to compute. Hence, only the top 30 keyword categories are used.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_1_kswf.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
=Topic Modeling Using LDA=<br />
<br />
Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is a generative probabilistic model that views documents as random mixtures over latent topics. Each topic is a distribution over words, and the goal is to extract these topics from documents.<br />
<br />
LDA estimates the topic-word distribution <math>P\left(t | z\right)</math> (probability of word "z" having topic "t") and the document-topic distribution <math>P\left(z | d\right)</math> (probability of finding word "z" within a given document "d") using Dirichlet priors for the distributions with a fixed number of topics. For each document, obtain a feature vector:<br />
<br />
\[F = \left( P\left(z_1 | d\right), P\left(z_2 | d\right), \cdots, P\left(z_k | d\right) \right)\]<br />
<br />
In the paper, authors extract topics from preprocessed paper to generate three kinds of topic sets, each with 10, 20, and 30 topics respectively. The following is a table of the 10 topic sets of highest frequency keywords.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_2_tswtebls.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
===LDA Intuition===<br />
<br />
LDA uses the Dirichlet priors of the Dirichlet distribution, which allows the algorithm to model a probability distribution ''over prior probability distributions of words and topics''. The following picture illustrates 2-simplex Dirichlet distributions with different alpha values, one for each corner of the triangles. <br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:dirichlet_dist.png|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
Simplex is a generalization of the notion of a triangle in k-1 dimension where k is the number of classes. For example, if you wish to classify essays into three groups, English, History and Math then the simplex would be a 2 dimension triangle, if you add philosophy as one of your potential class, then we would need a tetrahedron in 3 deminsion. In Dirichlet distribution, each parameter will be represented by a corner in simplex, so adding additional parameters implies increasing the dimensions of simplex. As illustrated, when alphas are smaller than 1 the distribution is dense at the corners. When the alphas are greater than 1 the distribution is dense at the centers.<br />
<br />
The following illustration shows an example LDA with 3 topics, 4 words and 7 documents.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:LDA_example.png|800px]]</div><br />
<br />
In the left diagram, there are three topics, hence it is a 2-simplex. In the right diagram there are four words, hence it is a 3-simplex. LDA essentially adjusts parameters in Dirichlet distributions and multinomial distributions (represented by the points), such that, in the left diagram, all the yellow points representing documents and, in the right diagram, all the points representing topics, are as close to a corner as possible. In other words, LDA finds topics for documents and also finds words for topics. At the end topic-word distribution <math>P\left(t | z\right)</math> and the document-topic distribution <math>P\left(z | d\right)</math> are produced.<br />
<br />
=Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) Calculation=<br />
<br />
TF-IDF is widely used to evaluate the importance of a set of words in the fields of information retrieval and text mining. It is a combination of term frequency (TF) and inverse document frequency (IDF). The idea behind this combination is<br />
* It evaluates the importance of a word within a document<br />
* It evaluates the importance of the word among the collection of all documents<br />
<br />
The inverse of the document frequency accounts for the fact that term frequency will naturally increase as document frequency increases. Thus IDF is needed to counteract a word's TF to give an accurate representation of a word's importance.<br />
<br />
The TF-IDF formula has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[TF-IDF_{i,j} = TF_{i,j} \times IDF_{i}\]<br />
<br />
where i stands for the <math>i^{th}</math> word and j stands for the <math>j^{th}</math> document.<br />
<br />
===Term Frequency (TF)===<br />
<br />
TF evaluates the percentage of a given word in a document. Thus, TF value indicates the importance of a word. The TF has a positive relation with the importance.<br />
<br />
In this paper, we only calculate TF for words in the keyword dictionary obtained. For a given keyword i, <math>TF_{i,j}</math> is the number of times word i appears in document j divided by the total number of words in document j.<br />
<br />
The formula for TF has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[TF_{i,j} = \frac{n_{i,j} }{\sum_k n_{k,j} }\]<br />
<br />
where i stands for the <math>i^{th}</math> word, j stands for the <math>j^{th}</math> document, <math>n_{i,j}</math> stands for the number of times words <math>t_i</math> appear in document <math>d_j</math> and <math>\sum_k n_{k,j} </math> stands for total number of occurence of words in document <math>d_j</math>.<br />
<br />
Note that the denominator is the total number of words remaining in document j after crawling.<br />
<br />
===Document Frequency (DF)===<br />
<br />
DF evaluates the percentage of documents that contain a given word over the entire collection of documents. Thus, the higher DF value is, the less important the word is.<br />
<br />
<math>DF_{i}</math> is the number of documents in the collection with word i divided by the total number of documents in the collection. The formula for DF has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[DF_{i} = \frac{|d_k \in D: n_{i,k} > 0|}{|D|}\]<br />
<br />
where <math>n_{i,k}</math> is the number of times word i appears in document k, |D| is the total number of documents in the collection.<br />
<br />
Since DF and the importance of the word have an inverse relation, we use inverse document frequency (IDF) instead of DF.<br />
<br />
===Inverse Document Frequency (IDF)===<br />
<br />
In this paper, IDF is calculated in a log scale. Since we will receive a large number of documents, i.e, we will have a large |D|<br />
<br />
The formula for IDF has the following form:<br />
<br />
\[IDF_{i} = log\left(\frac{|D|}{|\{d_k \in D: n_{i,k} > 0\}|}\right)\]<br />
<br />
As mentioned before, we will use HDFS. The actual formula applied is:<br />
<br />
\[IDF_{i} = log\left(\frac{|D|+1}{|\{d_k \in D: n_{i,k} > 0\}|+1}\right)\]<br />
<br />
The inverse document frequency gives a measure of how rare a certain term is in a given document corpus.<br />
<br />
=Paper Classification Using K-means Clustering=<br />
<br />
The K-means clustering is an unsupervised classification algorithm that groups similar data into the same class. It is an efficient and simple method that can be applied to different types of data attributes. It is also flexible enough to handle various kinds of noise and outliers.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Given a set of <math>d</math> by <math>n</math> dataset <math>\mathbf{X} = \left[ \mathbf{x}_1 \cdots \mathbf{x}_n \right]</math>, the algorithm will assign each <math>\mathbf{x}_j</math> into <math>k</math> different clusters based on the characteristics of <math>\mathbf{x}_j</math> itself.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Moreover, when assigning data into a cluster, the algorithm will also try to minimise the distances between the data and the centre of the cluster which the data belongs to. That is, k-means clustering will minimize the sum of square error:<br />
<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
min \sum_{i=1}^{k} \sum_{j \in C_i} ||x_j - \mu_i||^2<br />
\end{align*}<br />
<br />
where<br />
<ul><br />
<li><math>k</math>: the number of clusters</li><br />
<li><math>C_i</math>: the <math>i^th</math> cluster</li><br />
<li><math>x_j</math>: the <math>j^th</math> data in the <math>C_i</math></li><br />
<li><math>mu_i</math>: the centroid of <math>C_i</math></li><br />
<li><math>||x_j - \mu_i||^2</math>: the Euclidean distance between <math>x_j</math> and <math>\mu_i</math></li><br />
</ul><br />
<br><br />
<br />
K-means Clustering algorithm, an unsupervised algorithm, is chosen because of its advantages to deal with different types of attributes, to run with minimal requirement of domain knowledge, to deal with noise and outliers, to realize clusters with similarities. <br />
<br />
<br />
Since the goal for this paper is to classify research papers and group papers with similar topics based on keywords, the paper uses the K-means clustering algorithm. The algorithm first computes the cluster centroid for each group of papers with a specific topic. Then, it will assign a paper into a cluster based on the Euclidean distance between the cluster centroid and the paper’s TF-IDF value.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
However, different values of <math>k</math> (the number of clusters) will return different clustering results. Therefore, it is important to define the number of clusters before clustering. For example, in this paper, the authors choose to use the Elbow scheme to determine the value of <math>k</math>. The Elbow scheme is a somewhat subjective way of choosing an optimal <math>k</math> that involves plotting the average of the squared distances from the cluster centers of the respective clusters (distortion) as a function of <math>k</math> and choosing a <math>k</math> at which point the decrease in distortion is outweighed by the increase in complexity. Also, to measure the performance of clustering, the authors decide to use the Silhouette scheme. The Silhouette scheme is a measure of how well the objects lie within each cluster. Silhouette scores lie from -1 to 1. A positive score indicates that the object is well-matched with its own cluster, while a negative score indicates the opposite (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005). The results of clustering are validated if the Silhouette scheme returns a value greater than <math>0.5</math>.<br />
<br />
=System Testing Results=<br />
<br />
In this paper, the dataset has 3264 research papers from the Future Generation Computer System (FGCS) journal between 1984 and 2017. For constructing keyword dictionaries for each paper, the authors have introduced three methods as shown below:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_3_tmtckd.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Then, the authors use the Elbow scheme to define the number of clusters for each method with different numbers of keywords before running the K-means clustering algorithm. The results are shown below:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_4_nocobes.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
According to Table 4, there is a positive correlation between the number of keywords and the number of clusters. In addition, method 3 combines the advantages for both method 1 and method 2; thus, method 3 requires the least clusters in total. On the other hand, the wrong keywords might be presented in papers; hence, it might not be possible to group papers with similar subjects correctly by using method 1 and so method 1 needs the most number of clusters in total.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next, the Silhouette scheme had been used for measuring the performance for clustering. The average of the Silhouette values for each method with different numbers of keywords are shown below:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:table_5_asv.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
Since the clustering is validated if the Silhouette’s value is greater than 0.5, for methods with 10 and 30 keywords, the K-means clustering algorithm produces good results.<br />
<br />
<br />
To evaluate the accuracy of the classification system in this paper, the authors use the F-Score. The authors execute 5 times of experiment and use 500 randomly selected research papers for each trial. The following histogram shows the average value of F-Score for the three methods and different numbers of keywords:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:fig_16_fsvotm.JPG|700px]]</div><br />
<br />
Note that “TFIDF” means method 1, “LDA” means method 2, and “TFIDF-LDA” means method 3. The number 10, 20, and 30 after each method is the number of keywords the method has used.<br />
According to the histogram above, method 3 has the highest F-Score values than the other two methods with different numbers of keywords. Therefore, the classification system is most accurate when using method 3 as it combines the advantages for both method 1 and method 2.<br />
<br />
=Conclusion=<br />
<br />
This paper introduces a classification system that classifies research papers into different topics by using TF-IDF and LDA scheme with K-means clustering algorithm. The experimental results showed that the proposed system can classify the papers with similar subjects according to the keywords extracted from the abstracts of papers. The authors emphasized that the system can be implemented efficiently on high performance computing infrastructure, using industry-standard technologies. This system allows users to search the papers they want quickly and with the most productivity.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, this classification system might be also used in different types of texts (e.g. documents, tweets, etc.) instead of only classifying research papers.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
In this paper, DF values are calculated within each partition. This results that for each partition, DF value for a given word will vary and may have an inconsistent result for different partition methods. As mentioned above, there might be a divide by zero problem since some partitions do not have documents containing a given word, but this can be solved by introducing a dummy document as the authors did. Another method that might be better at solving inconsistent results and the divide by zero problems is to have all partitions to communicate with their DF value. Then pass the merged DF value to all partitions to do the final IDF and TF-IDF value. Having all partitions to communicate with the DF value will guarantee a consistent DF value across all partitions and helps avoid a divide by zero problem as words in the keyword dictionary must appear in some documents in the whole collection.<br />
<br />
The paper has very meaningful motivation, since the association of research topics and finding all the relevant previous work is indeed a challenging task at the initials stage of the research. It is often easy to miss a relevant paper published years ago which might be crucial to your own work. However, the classification task that the author tested in this work is almost useless, as the classification is too high-level. The overall scheme of classifying paper between categories like "cloud bigdata" or "IoT privacy" is too general to be meaningful. It is simply classifying the primary field computer science into its direct subfield, while most researchers only work on a niche much narrower than the subfield. Most online paper database, including arxiv, takes care of the subfield and even subsubfield classifcation during the stage of submission, which leaves the author's system with limited applicabilty. What we truly need is an algorithm able to classify and cluster papers based on detailed research topics and methodology. <br />
<br />
This paper treated the words in the different parts of a document equivalently, it might perform better if it gives different weights to the same word in different parts. For example, if a word appears in the title of the document, it usually shows it's a main topic of this document so we can put more weight on it to categorize.<br />
<br />
When discussing the potential processing advantages of this classification system for other types of text samples, has the effect of processing mixed samples (text and image or text and video) taken into consideration? IF not, in terms of text classification only, does it have an overwhelming advantage over traditional classification models?<br />
<br />
The preprocessing should also include <math>n</math>-gram tokenization for topic modelling because some topics are inherently two words, such as machine learning where if it is seen separately, it implies different topics.<br />
<br />
This system is very compute-intensive due to the large volumes of dictionaries that can be generated by processing large volumes of data. It would be nice to see how much data HDFS had to process and similarly how much time was saved by using Hadoop for data processing as opposed to centralized approach.<br />
<br />
This system can be improved further in terms of computation times by utilizing other big data framework MapReduce, that can also use HDFS, by parallelizing their computation across multiple nodes for K-means clustering as discussed in (Jin, et al) [5].<br />
<br />
It's not exactly clear what method 3 (TFIDF-LDA) is doing, how is it performing TF-IDF on the topics? Also it seems like the preprocessing step only keeps 10/20/30 top words? This seems like an extremely low number especially in comparison with the LDA which has 10/20/30 topics - what is the reason for so strongly limiting the number of words? It would also be interesting to see if both key words and topics are necessary - an ablation study showing the significance of both would be interesting.<br />
<br />
It is better if the paper has an example with some topics on some research papers. Also it is better if we can visualize the distance between each research paper and the topic names<br />
<br />
I am interested in the first step of the general framework, which is the Paper Crawling step. Many conferences actually require the authors to indicate several key words that best describe a paper. For example, a database paper may have keywords such as "large-scale database management", "information retrieval", and "relational table mining". So in addition to crawling text from abstract, it may be more effective to crawl these keywords directly. Not only does this require less time, these keywords may also lead to better performance than the nouns extracted from the abstract section. I am also slightly concerned about the claim made in the paper that "Our methodologies can be applied to text outside of research papers". Research papers are usually carefully revised and well-structured. Extending the algorithm described in the paper to any kind of free-text could be difficult in practice.<br />
<br />
It would be better if the author could provide some application or example of the research algorithm in the real world. It would be helpful for the readers to understand the algorithm.<br />
<br />
The summary clearly goes through the model framework well, starting from data-preprocessing, prediction, and testing. It can be enhanced by applying this model to other similar use-cases and how well the prediction goes.<br />
<br />
It will be better if their is a comparison on the BM25 algorithm v.s. TF-IDF, which is usually get compared in IR papers<br />
<br />
The paper misses the details on subjects of research papers used to perform classifications. If the majority of research papers were about one subject, it could potentially produce biased results.<br />
<br />
The paper omits the details of the reason why Method 3 for constructing the Keyword dictionaries requires the least number of k-clusters as method 3 is a combination of methods 1 and 2. It would be of interest to investigate why Method 3 uses so little clusters (in comparison) as it seemed to be the most accurate of the 3 methods. (Also the graph comparing the results could be improved by using a variety of different hues of colours as it is difficult to distinguish some scores such as TFIDF_30 and TFIDF-LDA_30)<br />
<br />
The TF-IDF is interesting as it provides a normalized method to extract the most frequent term contained in the paper, while this method still has spaces of improvements. For example, in some machine learning papers, where special operations have to be done on the datasets, the name of dataset may appear multiple times within the paper. In fact, the main theme of the paper is on the novel machine learning algorithm, which may only be mentioned once. In that case, mis-predictions may occur, and a possible improvement here is to add weights to keywords appearing in each section. i.e the most frequent word in Abstract will have more weights than the most frequent word in Introduction.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the paper glosses over a few technicalities. First, how does the proposed algorithm deal with subgroups and nested groups. The paper is assuming only one level of sorting, which may work for a sufficiently unique set of paper, but since the problem is meant to be generalized, many papers will have to have multi-level sorts. For example, the category 'machine learning' can be further divided into 'supervised' and 'unsupervised'. Is the algorithm able to handle this or would it create 2 groups (i.e. ML-supervised and ML-unsupervised)? Second, a popular LDA model is available through the gensim package which utilizes relevancy and saliency metrics - how does that factor into the quality of the topics? Third, what is the motivation in using TF-IDF scores for clustering? In my experience, using Word2Vec and BERT has been the industry standard for obtaining vectors to perform clustering on text.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<br />
[1] Blei DM, el. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022<br />
<br />
[2] Gil, JM, Kim, SW. (2019). Research paper classification systems based on TF-IDF and LDA schemes. ''Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences'', 9, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-019-0192-7<br />
<br />
[3] Liu, S. (2019, January 11). Dirichlet distribution Motivating LDA. Retrieved November 2020, from https://towardsdatascience.com/dirichlet-distribution-a82ab942a879<br />
<br />
[4] Serrano, L. (Director). (2020, March 18). Latent Dirichlet Allocation (Part 1 of 2) [Video file]. Retrieved 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T05t-SqKArY<br />
<br />
[5] Jin, Cui, Yu. (2016). A New Parallelization Method for K-means. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.06347.pdf<br />
<br />
[6] Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2005). Graphical Output Concerning Each Clustering. In Finding groups in data : An introduction to cluster analysis (pp. 84-85). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470316801</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Evaluating_Machine_Accuracy_on_ImageNet&diff=49574Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet2020-12-06T22:33:46Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critiques */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Siyuan Xia, Jiaxiang Liu, Jiabao Dong, Yipeng Du<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
ImageNet is the most influential dataset in machine learning with images and corresponding labels over 1000 classes. This paper intends to explore the causes for performance differences between human experts and machine learning models, more specifically, CNN, on ImageNet. <br />
<br />
Firstly, some images could belong to multiple classes. As a result, it is possible to underestimate the performance if we assign each image with only one label, which is what is being done in the top-1 metric. On the other hand, the top-5 metric looks at the top five predictions by the model for an image and checks if the target label is within those five predictions (Krizhevsky, Sutskever, & Hinton). Therefore, we adopt both top-1 and top-5 metrics where the performances of models, unlike human labelers, are linearly correlated in both cases.<br />
<br />
Secondly, in contrast to the uniform performance of models in classes, humans tend to achieve better performances on inanimate objects. Human labelers achieve similar overall accuracies as the models, which indicates spaces of improvements on specific classes for machines.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the setup of drawing training and test sets from the same distribution may favor models over human labelers. That is, the accuracy of multi-class prediction from models drops when the testing set is drawn from a different distribution than the training set, ImageNetV2. But this shift in distribution does not cause a problem for human labelers.<br />
<br />
== Experiment Setup ==<br />
=== Overview ===<br />
There are four main phases to the experiment, which are (i) initial multilabel annotation, (ii) human labeler training, (iii) human labeler evaluation, and (iv) final annotation overview. The five authors of the paper are the participants in the experiments. <br />
<br />
A brief overview of the four phases is as follows:<br />
[[File:Experiment Set Up.png |800px| center]]<br />
<br />
=== Initial multi-label annotation ===<br />
Three labelers A, B, and C provided multi-label annotations for a subset from the ImageNet validation set, and all images from the ImageNetV2 test sets. These experiences give A, B, and C extensive experience with the ImageNet dataset. <br />
<br />
=== Human Labeler Training === <br />
All five labelers trained on labeling a subset of the remaining ImageNet images. "Training" the human labelers consisted of teaching the humans the distinctions between very similar classes in the training set. For example, there are 118 classes of "dog" within ImageNet and typical human participants will not have working knowledge of the names of each breed of dog seen even if they can recognize and distinguish that breed from others. Local members of the American Kennel Club were even contacted to help with dog breed classification. To do this labelers were trained on class-specific tasks for groups like dogs, insects, monkeys beaver and others. They were also given immediate feedback on whether they were correct and then were asked where they thought they needed more training to improve. Unlike the two annotators in (Russakovsky et al., 2015), who had insufficient training data, the labelers in this experiment had up to 100 training images per class while labeling. This allowed the labelers to really understand the finer details of each class.<br />
<br />
=== Human Labeler Evaluation ===<br />
Class-balanced random samples, which contains 1,000 images from the 20,000 annotated images are generated from both the ImageNet validation set and ImageNetV2. Five participants labeled these images over 28 days.<br />
<br />
=== Final annotation Review ===<br />
All labelers reviewed the additional annotations generated in the human labeler evaluation phase.<br />
<br />
== Multi-label annotations==<br />
[[File:Categories Multilabel.png|800px|center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3</div><br />
<br />
===Top-1 accuracy===<br />
With Top-1 accuracy being the standard accuracy measure used in classification studies, it measures the proportions of examples for which the predicted label matches the single target label. As many images often contain more than one object for classification, for example, Figure 3a contains a desk, laptop, keyboard, space bar, and more. With Figure 3b showing a centered prominent figure yet labeled otherwise (people vs picket fence), it can be seen how a single target label is inaccurate for such a task since identifying the main objects in the image does not suffice due to its overly stringent and punishes predictions that are the main image yet does not match its label.<br />
===Top-5 accuracy===<br />
With Top-5 considers a classification correct if the object label is in the top 5 predicted labels. Although it partially resolves the problem with Top-1 labeling, it is still not ideal since it can trivialize class distinctions. For instance, within the dataset, five turtle classes are given which is difficult to distinguish under such classification evaluations.<br />
<br />
===Multi-label accuracy===<br />
The paper then proposes that for every image, the image shall have a set of target labels and a prediction; if such prediction matches one of the labels, it will be considered as correct labeling. Due to the above-discussed limitations of Top-1 and Top-5 metrics, the paper claims it is necessary for rigorous accuracy evaluation on the dataset. <br />
<br />
===Types of Multi-label annotations===<br />
====Multiple objects or organisms====<br />
For the images containing more than one object or organism that corresponds to ImageNet, the paper proposed to add an additional target label for each entity in the image. With the discussed image in Figure 3b, the class groom, bow tie, suit, gown, and hoopskirt are all present in the foreground which is then subsequently added to the set of labels.<br />
====Synonym or subset relations====<br />
For similar classes, the paper considers them as under the same bigger class, that is, for two similarly labeled images, classification is considered correct if the produced label matches either one of the labels. For instance, warthog, African elephant, and Indian element all have prominent tusks, they will be considered subclasses of the tusker, Figure 3c shows a modification of labels to contain tusker as a correct label.<br />
====Unclear Image====<br />
In certain cases such as Figure 3d, there is a distinctive difficulty to determine whether a label was correct due to ambiguities in the class hierarchy.<br />
===Collecting multi-label annotations===<br />
Participants reviewed all predictions made by the models on the dataset ImageNet and ImageNet-V2, the participants then categorized every unique prediction made by the models on the dataset into correct and incorrect labels in order to allow all images to have multiple correct labels to satisfy the above-listed method.<br />
===The multi-label accuracy metric===<br />
One prediction is only correct if and only if it was marked correct by the expert reviewers during the annotation stage. As discussed in the experiment setup section, after human labelers have completed labeling, a second annotation stage is conducted. In Figure 4, a comparison of Top-1, Top-5, and multi-label accuracies showed higher Top-1 and Top-5 accuracy corresponds with higher multi-label accuracy as expected. With multi-label accuracies measures consistently higher than Top-1 yet lower than Top-5 which shows a high correlation between the three metrics, the paper concludes that multi-label metrics measures a semantically more meaningful notion of accuracy compared to its counterparts.<br />
<br />
== Human Accuracy Measurement Process ==<br />
=== Bias Control ===<br />
Since three participants participated in the initial round of annotation, they did not look at the data for six months, and two additional annotators are introduced in the final evaluation phase to ensure fairness of the experiment. <br />
<br />
=== Human Labeler Training ===<br />
The three main difficulties encountered during human labeler training are fine-grained distinctions, class unawareness, and insufficient training images. Thus, three training regimens are provided to address the problems listed above, respectively. First, labelers will be assigned extra training tasks with immediate feedbacks on similar classes. Second, labelers will be provided access to search for specific classes during labeling. Finally, the training set will contain a reasonable amount of images for each class.<br />
<br />
=== Labeling Guide ===<br />
A labeling guide is constructed to distill class analysis learned during training into discriminative traits that could be used as a reference during the final labeling evaluation.<br />
<br />
=== Final Evaluation and Review ===<br />
Two samples, each containing 1000 images, are sampled from ImageNet and ImageNetV2, respectively, They are sampled in a class-balanced manner and shuffled together. Over 28 days, all five participants labeled all images. They spent a median of 26 seconds per image. After labeling is completed, an additional multi-label annotation session was conducted, in which human predictions for all images are manually reviewed. Comparing to the initial round of labeling, 37% of the labels changes due to participants' greater familiarity with the classes.<br />
<br />
== Main Results ==<br />
[[File:Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet Figure 1.png | center]]<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1</div><br />
<br />
===Comparison of Human and Machine Accuracies on Image Net===<br />
From Figure 1, we can see that the difference in accuracies between the datasets is within 1% for all human participants. As hypothesized, human testers indeed performed better than the automated models on both datasets. It's worth noticing that labelers D and E, who did not participate in the initial annotation period, actually performed better than the best automated model.<br />
===Comparison of Human and Machine Accuracies on Image Net===<br />
Based on the results shown in Figure 1, we can see that the confidence interval of the best 4 human participants and 4 best model overlap; however, with a p-value of 0.037 using the McNemar's paired test, it rejects the hypothesis that the FixResNeXt model and Human E labeler have the same accuracy with respect to the ImageNet validation dataset. Figure 1 also shows that the confidence intervals of the labeling accuracies for human labelers C, D, E do not overlap with the confidence interval of the best model with respect to ImageNet-V2 and with the McNemar's test yielding a p-value of <math>2\times 10^{-4}</math>, it is clear that the hypothesis human and machined models have same robustness to model distribution shifts ought to be rejected.<br />
<br />
== Other Observations ==<br />
<br />
[[File: Results_Summary_Table.png| 800px|center]]<br />
<br />
=== Difficult Images ===<br />
<br />
The experiment also shed some light on images that are difficult to label. 10 images were misclassified by all of the human labelers. Among those 10 images, there was 1 image of a monkey and 9 of dogs. In addition, 27 images, with 19 in object classes and 8 in organism classes, were misclassified by all 72 machine learning models in this experiment. Only 2 images were labeled wrong by all human labelers and models. Both images contained dogs. Researchers also noted that difficult images for models are mostly images of objects and exclusively images of animals for human labelers.<br />
<br />
=== Accuracies without dogs ===<br />
<br />
As previously discussed in the paper, machine learning models tend to outperform human labelers when classifying the 118 dog classes. To better understand to what extent does models outperform human labelers, researchers computed the accuracies again by excluding all the dog classes. Results showed a 0.6% increase in accuracy on the ImageNet images using the best model and a 1.1% increase on the ImageNet V2 images. In comparison, the mean increases in accuracy for human labelers are 1.9% and 1.8% on the ImageNet and ImageNet V2 images respectively. Researchers also conducted a simulation to demonstrate that the increase in human labeling accuracy on non-dog images is significant. This simulation was done by bootstrapping to estimate the changes in accuracy when only using data for the non-dog classes, and simulation results show smaller increases than in the experiment. <br />
<br />
In conclusion, it's more difficult for human labelers to classify images with dogs than it is for machine learning models.<br />
<br />
=== Accuracies on objects ===<br />
Researchers also computed machine and human labelers' accuracies on a subset of data with only objects, as opposed to organisms, to better illustrate the differences in performance. This test involved 590 object classes. As shown in the table above, there is a 3.3% and 3.4% increase in mean accuracies for human labelers on the ImageNet and ImageNet V2 images. In contrast, there is a 0.5% decrease in accuracy for the best model on both ImageNet and ImageNet V2. This indicates that human labelers are much better at classifying objects than these models are.<br />
<br />
=== Accuracies on fast images ===<br />
Unlike the CNN models, human labelers spent different amounts of time on different images, spanning from several seconds to 40 minutes. To further analyze the images that take human labelers less time to classify, researchers took a subset of images with median labeling time spent by human labelers of at most 60 seconds. These images were referred to as "fast images". There are 756 and 714 fast images from ImageNet and ImageNet V2 respectively, out of the total 2000 images used for evaluation. Accuracies of models and humans on the fast images increased significantly, especially for humans. <br />
<br />
This result suggests that human labelers know when an image is difficult to label and would spend more time on it. It also shows that the models are more likely to correctly label images that human labelers can label relatively quickly.<br />
<br />
== Related Work ==<br />
<br />
=== Human accuracy on ImageNet ===<br />
<br />
Russakovsky et al. (2015) studied two trained human labelers' accuracies on 1500 and 258 images in the context of the ImageNet challenge. The top-5 accuracy of the labeler who labeled 1500 images was the well-known human baseline on ImageNet. <br />
<br />
As introduced before, the researchers went beyond by using multi-label accuracy, using more labelers, and focusing on robustness to small distribution shifts. Although the researchers had some different findings, some results are also consistent with results from (Russakovsky et al., 2015). An example is that both experiments indicated that it takes human labelers around one minute to label an image. The time distribution also has a long tail, due to the difficult images as mentioned before.<br />
<br />
=== Human performance in computer vision broadly ===<br />
There are many examples of recent studies about humans in the area of computer vision, such as investigating human robustness to synthetic distribution change (Geirhos et al., 2017) and studying what characteristics do humans use to recognize objects (Geirhos et al., 2018). Other examples include the adversarial examples constructed to fool both machines and time-limited humans (Elsayed et al., 2018) and illustrating foreground/background objects' effects on human and machine performance (Zhu et al., 2016). <br />
<br />
=== Multi-label annotations ===<br />
Stock & Cissé (2017) also studied ImageNet's multi-label nature, which aligns with the researchers' study in this paper. According to Stock & Cissé (2017), the top-1 accuracy measure could underestimate multi-label by up to 13.2%. The author's suggest that releasing these labelled data to the public will allow for more robust models in the future.<br />
<br />
=== ImageNet inconsistencies and label error ===<br />
Researches have found and recorded some incorrectly labeled images from ImageNet and ImageNet V2 during this study. Earlier studies (Van Horn et al., 2015) also shown that at least 4% of the birds in ImageNet are misclassified. This work also noted that the inconsistent taxonomic structure in birds' classes could lead to weak class boundaries. Researchers also noted that the majority of the fine-grained organism classes also had similar taxonomic issues.<br />
<br />
=== Distribution shift ===<br />
There has been an increasing amount of studies in this area. One focus of the studies is distributionally robust optimization (DRO), which finds the model that has the smallest worst-case expected error over a set of probability distributions. Another focus is on finding the model with the lowest error rates on adversarial examples. Work in both areas has been productive, but none was shown to resolve the drop in accuracies between ImageNet and ImageNet V2. A recent [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2019/file/8558cb408c1d76621371888657d2eb1d-Paper.pdf paper] also discusses quantifying uncertainty under a distribution shift, in other words whether the output of probabilistic deep learning models should or should not be trusted.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Future Work ==<br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
Researchers noted that in order to achieve truly reliable machine learning, researchers need a deeper understanding of the range of parameters where the model still remain robust. Techniques from Combinatorics and sensitivity analysis, in particular, might yield fruitful results. This study has provided valuable insights into the desired robustness properties by comparing model performance to human performance. This is especially evident given the results of the experiment which show humans drastically outperforming machine learning in many cases and proposes the question of how much accuracy one is willing to give up in exchange for efficiency. The results have shown that current performance benchmarks are not addressing the robustness to small and natural distribution shifts, which are easily handled by humans.<br />
<br />
=== Future work ===<br />
Other than improving the robustness of models, researchers should consider investigating if less-trained human labelers can achieve a similar level of robustness to distributional shifts. In addition, researchers can study the robustness to temporal changes, which is another form of natural distribution shift (Gu et al., 2019; Shankar et al., 2019). Also, Convolutional Neural Network can be a candidate to improve the accuracy of classifying images.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
# The method of using human to classify Imagenet is fully circular, since the label of imagenet itself is originally annotated by human beings. In fact, the classification scheme itself is intrinsically human construction. It is not logical to test human performance with human performance. This circular contsruction completely violates scientific principles.<br />
# Table 1 simply showed a difference in ImageNet multi-label accuracy yet does not give an explicit reason as to why such a difference is present. Although the paper suggested the distribution shift has caused the difference, it does not give other factors to concretely explain why the distribution shift was the cause.<br />
# With the recommendation to future machine evaluations, the paper proposed to "Report performances on dogs, other animals, and inanimate objects separately.". Despite its intentions, it is narrowly specific and requires further generalization for it to be convincing. <br />
# With choosing human subjects as samplers, no further information was given as to how they are chosen nor there are any background information was given. As it is a classification problem involving many classes as specific to species, a biology student would give far more accurate results than a computer science student or a math student. <br />
# As explaining the importance of multi-label metrics using comparison to Top-5 metric, the turtle example falls within the overall similarity (simony) classification of the multi-label evaluation metric, as such, if the Top-5 evaluation suggests any one of the turtle species were selected, the algorithm is considered to produce a correct prediction which is the intention. The example does not convey the necessity of changing to the proposed metric over the Top-5 metric. <br />
# With the definition in the paper regarding multi-label metrics, it is hard to see why expanding the label set is different from a traditional Top-5 metric or rather necessary, ergo does not yield the claim which the proposed metric is necessary for rigorous accuracy evaluation on ImageNet.<br />
# When discussing the main results, the paper discusses the hypothesis on distribution shift having no effects on human and machine model accuracies; the presentation is poor at best with no clear centric to what they are trying to convey to how (in detail) they resulted in such claims.<br />
# In the experiment setup of the presentation, there are a lot of key terms without detailed description. For example, Human labeler training using a subset of the remaining 30,000 unannotated images in the ImageNet validation set, labelers A, B, C, D, and E underwent extensive training to understand the intricacies of fine-grained class distinctions in the ImageNet class hierarchy. Authors should clarify each key term in the presentation otherwise readers are hard to follow.<br />
# Not sure how the human samplers were determined and simply picking several people will have really high bias because the sample is too small and they have different background which will definitely affect the results a lot. Also, it will be better if there are more comparisons between the model introduced and other models.<br />
# Given the low amount of human participants, it is hard to take the results seriously (there is too much variance). Also it's not exactly clear how the authors determined that the multi-label accuracy metric measures a semantically more meaningful notion of accuracy compared to its counterparts. For example, one of the issues with top-5 accuracy that they mention is: "For instance, within the dataset, five turtle classes are given which is difficult to distinguish under such classification evaluations." But it's not clear how multi-label accuracy would be better in this instance.<br />
# It is unclear how well the human labeler can perform labeling after training. So the final result is not that trust-worthy.<br />
# In this experiment set up, label annotators are the same as participants of the experiments. Even if there's a break between the annotating and evaluating human labeler evaluation, the impact of the break in reducing bias is not clear. One potential human labeling data is google's "I'm not a robot" verification test. One variation of the verification test asks users to select all the photos from 9 images that are related to a certain keyword. This allows for a more accurate measurement of human performance vs ImageNet performance. In addition, it's going to reduce the biases from the small number of experiment participants.<br />
# Following Table 2, the authors appear to try and claim that the model is better than the human labelers, simply because the model experienced a better increase in classification following the removal of dog photos then the human labeler did, however, a quick look at the table shows that most human labelers still performed better than the best model. The authors should be making the claim that human labelers are better at labeling dogs than the modal, but are still better overall after removing the dogs dataset.<br />
# The reason why human labeler outperforms CNN could be human had much more training. It would be more convincing if the paper could provide a metric in order to measure human labelers' training data set size.<br />
# Actually, in the multi-label case, it is vague to determine whether the machine learning model or the human labellers were giving the correct label. The structure of the dataset is pretty essential in training a network, in which data with uncertain label (even determined by human) should be avoided.<br />
# The authors mentioned that untrained labelers will likely be in lower accuracy, they can give a standard or definition about a well-trained labeler.<br />
# I believe the authors needed to include more information about how they determined the samples such as human samplers, and also more details on how to define unclear images.<br />
# It would be more convincing if the author could provide the criteria of being human samplers and unclear images, and the accuracy of the human labeler.<br />
# The summary only explains some model components but does not thoroughly goes through the big picture of the model; data-preprocessing, training, and prediction procedures. It would be nice to know the details as well.<br />
# It seems the core problem is more about the dataset itself and not the evaluation procedure. We would not have issues with top 1 and top 5 if Imagenet contained discernable classes with good labels. Of course, this is very expensive, and imagenet is an _excellent_ dataset given these constraints. It does not seem like their proposed solution, multiple labels per image, addresses their concerns properly, as other critiques have already mentioned. Furthermore, having multiple labels per image does not translate to real-life value the same way that the top 5 or top 1 metric does, as in the common case, there is one right answer for a classification problem.<br />
# The paper could provide details on ways to improve the accuracy and robustness of the model. Since the paper mentions CNN, it could provide details of the model and why CNN is a good candidate.<br />
# The accuracy of the model is directly correlated with how the images are labelled. In all multi-label annotations, the authors describe a predicted label as correct if it is within a set of "correct labels" where each image has a different number of correct labels. Perhaps it would yield better results if the model were to first identify the number of objects in the image first and then by using some form of criteria, it labels those identified objects in order of importance (i.e. objects that are closer are labelled first). The authors also never specified what criteria the model uses to "pick out" which object it will label in the image.<br />
# The paper mentions difficult images and fast images. It would be better if the paper had generalized the type of images that constitute difficult images (i.e., the paper mentions 118 dog classes, what are some general characteristics of difficult images?) In addition, it would be interesting to compare the performance between human and machine accuracy on non-fast images.<br />
# The paper meaingfully and correctly points out the problem that the current evaluation of ML algorithm by only using the accuracy on Imagnet as the bechmark is simplistic and probelmatic. However, the idea of comparing human performance with ML models is problematic, since it is hard or even impossible to control the various variables that can drastically change human performance: training time, domain knowledge, cognitive function, amount of work-load, and various environmental factors. In order to compare different experimental methods, the most important step is to carefully control the confounding variables to reach any meaningful conclusion.<br />
<br />
== Reference ==<br />
[1] Shankar, V., Roelofs, R., Mania, H., Fang, A., Recht, B., & Schmidt, L. (2020). Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet. ICML 2020.<br />
<br />
[2] Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. 2. Retrieved from http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/imagenet.pdf</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Evaluating_Machine_Accuracy_on_ImageNet&diff=49573Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet2020-12-06T22:32:31Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critiques */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Siyuan Xia, Jiaxiang Liu, Jiabao Dong, Yipeng Du<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
ImageNet is the most influential dataset in machine learning with images and corresponding labels over 1000 classes. This paper intends to explore the causes for performance differences between human experts and machine learning models, more specifically, CNN, on ImageNet. <br />
<br />
Firstly, some images could belong to multiple classes. As a result, it is possible to underestimate the performance if we assign each image with only one label, which is what is being done in the top-1 metric. On the other hand, the top-5 metric looks at the top five predictions by the model for an image and checks if the target label is within those five predictions (Krizhevsky, Sutskever, & Hinton). Therefore, we adopt both top-1 and top-5 metrics where the performances of models, unlike human labelers, are linearly correlated in both cases.<br />
<br />
Secondly, in contrast to the uniform performance of models in classes, humans tend to achieve better performances on inanimate objects. Human labelers achieve similar overall accuracies as the models, which indicates spaces of improvements on specific classes for machines.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the setup of drawing training and test sets from the same distribution may favor models over human labelers. That is, the accuracy of multi-class prediction from models drops when the testing set is drawn from a different distribution than the training set, ImageNetV2. But this shift in distribution does not cause a problem for human labelers.<br />
<br />
== Experiment Setup ==<br />
=== Overview ===<br />
There are four main phases to the experiment, which are (i) initial multilabel annotation, (ii) human labeler training, (iii) human labeler evaluation, and (iv) final annotation overview. The five authors of the paper are the participants in the experiments. <br />
<br />
A brief overview of the four phases is as follows:<br />
[[File:Experiment Set Up.png |800px| center]]<br />
<br />
=== Initial multi-label annotation ===<br />
Three labelers A, B, and C provided multi-label annotations for a subset from the ImageNet validation set, and all images from the ImageNetV2 test sets. These experiences give A, B, and C extensive experience with the ImageNet dataset. <br />
<br />
=== Human Labeler Training === <br />
All five labelers trained on labeling a subset of the remaining ImageNet images. "Training" the human labelers consisted of teaching the humans the distinctions between very similar classes in the training set. For example, there are 118 classes of "dog" within ImageNet and typical human participants will not have working knowledge of the names of each breed of dog seen even if they can recognize and distinguish that breed from others. Local members of the American Kennel Club were even contacted to help with dog breed classification. To do this labelers were trained on class-specific tasks for groups like dogs, insects, monkeys beaver and others. They were also given immediate feedback on whether they were correct and then were asked where they thought they needed more training to improve. Unlike the two annotators in (Russakovsky et al., 2015), who had insufficient training data, the labelers in this experiment had up to 100 training images per class while labeling. This allowed the labelers to really understand the finer details of each class.<br />
<br />
=== Human Labeler Evaluation ===<br />
Class-balanced random samples, which contains 1,000 images from the 20,000 annotated images are generated from both the ImageNet validation set and ImageNetV2. Five participants labeled these images over 28 days.<br />
<br />
=== Final annotation Review ===<br />
All labelers reviewed the additional annotations generated in the human labeler evaluation phase.<br />
<br />
== Multi-label annotations==<br />
[[File:Categories Multilabel.png|800px|center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3</div><br />
<br />
===Top-1 accuracy===<br />
With Top-1 accuracy being the standard accuracy measure used in classification studies, it measures the proportions of examples for which the predicted label matches the single target label. As many images often contain more than one object for classification, for example, Figure 3a contains a desk, laptop, keyboard, space bar, and more. With Figure 3b showing a centered prominent figure yet labeled otherwise (people vs picket fence), it can be seen how a single target label is inaccurate for such a task since identifying the main objects in the image does not suffice due to its overly stringent and punishes predictions that are the main image yet does not match its label.<br />
===Top-5 accuracy===<br />
With Top-5 considers a classification correct if the object label is in the top 5 predicted labels. Although it partially resolves the problem with Top-1 labeling, it is still not ideal since it can trivialize class distinctions. For instance, within the dataset, five turtle classes are given which is difficult to distinguish under such classification evaluations.<br />
<br />
===Multi-label accuracy===<br />
The paper then proposes that for every image, the image shall have a set of target labels and a prediction; if such prediction matches one of the labels, it will be considered as correct labeling. Due to the above-discussed limitations of Top-1 and Top-5 metrics, the paper claims it is necessary for rigorous accuracy evaluation on the dataset. <br />
<br />
===Types of Multi-label annotations===<br />
====Multiple objects or organisms====<br />
For the images containing more than one object or organism that corresponds to ImageNet, the paper proposed to add an additional target label for each entity in the image. With the discussed image in Figure 3b, the class groom, bow tie, suit, gown, and hoopskirt are all present in the foreground which is then subsequently added to the set of labels.<br />
====Synonym or subset relations====<br />
For similar classes, the paper considers them as under the same bigger class, that is, for two similarly labeled images, classification is considered correct if the produced label matches either one of the labels. For instance, warthog, African elephant, and Indian element all have prominent tusks, they will be considered subclasses of the tusker, Figure 3c shows a modification of labels to contain tusker as a correct label.<br />
====Unclear Image====<br />
In certain cases such as Figure 3d, there is a distinctive difficulty to determine whether a label was correct due to ambiguities in the class hierarchy.<br />
===Collecting multi-label annotations===<br />
Participants reviewed all predictions made by the models on the dataset ImageNet and ImageNet-V2, the participants then categorized every unique prediction made by the models on the dataset into correct and incorrect labels in order to allow all images to have multiple correct labels to satisfy the above-listed method.<br />
===The multi-label accuracy metric===<br />
One prediction is only correct if and only if it was marked correct by the expert reviewers during the annotation stage. As discussed in the experiment setup section, after human labelers have completed labeling, a second annotation stage is conducted. In Figure 4, a comparison of Top-1, Top-5, and multi-label accuracies showed higher Top-1 and Top-5 accuracy corresponds with higher multi-label accuracy as expected. With multi-label accuracies measures consistently higher than Top-1 yet lower than Top-5 which shows a high correlation between the three metrics, the paper concludes that multi-label metrics measures a semantically more meaningful notion of accuracy compared to its counterparts.<br />
<br />
== Human Accuracy Measurement Process ==<br />
=== Bias Control ===<br />
Since three participants participated in the initial round of annotation, they did not look at the data for six months, and two additional annotators are introduced in the final evaluation phase to ensure fairness of the experiment. <br />
<br />
=== Human Labeler Training ===<br />
The three main difficulties encountered during human labeler training are fine-grained distinctions, class unawareness, and insufficient training images. Thus, three training regimens are provided to address the problems listed above, respectively. First, labelers will be assigned extra training tasks with immediate feedbacks on similar classes. Second, labelers will be provided access to search for specific classes during labeling. Finally, the training set will contain a reasonable amount of images for each class.<br />
<br />
=== Labeling Guide ===<br />
A labeling guide is constructed to distill class analysis learned during training into discriminative traits that could be used as a reference during the final labeling evaluation.<br />
<br />
=== Final Evaluation and Review ===<br />
Two samples, each containing 1000 images, are sampled from ImageNet and ImageNetV2, respectively, They are sampled in a class-balanced manner and shuffled together. Over 28 days, all five participants labeled all images. They spent a median of 26 seconds per image. After labeling is completed, an additional multi-label annotation session was conducted, in which human predictions for all images are manually reviewed. Comparing to the initial round of labeling, 37% of the labels changes due to participants' greater familiarity with the classes.<br />
<br />
== Main Results ==<br />
[[File:Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet Figure 1.png | center]]<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1</div><br />
<br />
===Comparison of Human and Machine Accuracies on Image Net===<br />
From Figure 1, we can see that the difference in accuracies between the datasets is within 1% for all human participants. As hypothesized, human testers indeed performed better than the automated models on both datasets. It's worth noticing that labelers D and E, who did not participate in the initial annotation period, actually performed better than the best automated model.<br />
===Comparison of Human and Machine Accuracies on Image Net===<br />
Based on the results shown in Figure 1, we can see that the confidence interval of the best 4 human participants and 4 best model overlap; however, with a p-value of 0.037 using the McNemar's paired test, it rejects the hypothesis that the FixResNeXt model and Human E labeler have the same accuracy with respect to the ImageNet validation dataset. Figure 1 also shows that the confidence intervals of the labeling accuracies for human labelers C, D, E do not overlap with the confidence interval of the best model with respect to ImageNet-V2 and with the McNemar's test yielding a p-value of <math>2\times 10^{-4}</math>, it is clear that the hypothesis human and machined models have same robustness to model distribution shifts ought to be rejected.<br />
<br />
== Other Observations ==<br />
<br />
[[File: Results_Summary_Table.png| 800px|center]]<br />
<br />
=== Difficult Images ===<br />
<br />
The experiment also shed some light on images that are difficult to label. 10 images were misclassified by all of the human labelers. Among those 10 images, there was 1 image of a monkey and 9 of dogs. In addition, 27 images, with 19 in object classes and 8 in organism classes, were misclassified by all 72 machine learning models in this experiment. Only 2 images were labeled wrong by all human labelers and models. Both images contained dogs. Researchers also noted that difficult images for models are mostly images of objects and exclusively images of animals for human labelers.<br />
<br />
=== Accuracies without dogs ===<br />
<br />
As previously discussed in the paper, machine learning models tend to outperform human labelers when classifying the 118 dog classes. To better understand to what extent does models outperform human labelers, researchers computed the accuracies again by excluding all the dog classes. Results showed a 0.6% increase in accuracy on the ImageNet images using the best model and a 1.1% increase on the ImageNet V2 images. In comparison, the mean increases in accuracy for human labelers are 1.9% and 1.8% on the ImageNet and ImageNet V2 images respectively. Researchers also conducted a simulation to demonstrate that the increase in human labeling accuracy on non-dog images is significant. This simulation was done by bootstrapping to estimate the changes in accuracy when only using data for the non-dog classes, and simulation results show smaller increases than in the experiment. <br />
<br />
In conclusion, it's more difficult for human labelers to classify images with dogs than it is for machine learning models.<br />
<br />
=== Accuracies on objects ===<br />
Researchers also computed machine and human labelers' accuracies on a subset of data with only objects, as opposed to organisms, to better illustrate the differences in performance. This test involved 590 object classes. As shown in the table above, there is a 3.3% and 3.4% increase in mean accuracies for human labelers on the ImageNet and ImageNet V2 images. In contrast, there is a 0.5% decrease in accuracy for the best model on both ImageNet and ImageNet V2. This indicates that human labelers are much better at classifying objects than these models are.<br />
<br />
=== Accuracies on fast images ===<br />
Unlike the CNN models, human labelers spent different amounts of time on different images, spanning from several seconds to 40 minutes. To further analyze the images that take human labelers less time to classify, researchers took a subset of images with median labeling time spent by human labelers of at most 60 seconds. These images were referred to as "fast images". There are 756 and 714 fast images from ImageNet and ImageNet V2 respectively, out of the total 2000 images used for evaluation. Accuracies of models and humans on the fast images increased significantly, especially for humans. <br />
<br />
This result suggests that human labelers know when an image is difficult to label and would spend more time on it. It also shows that the models are more likely to correctly label images that human labelers can label relatively quickly.<br />
<br />
== Related Work ==<br />
<br />
=== Human accuracy on ImageNet ===<br />
<br />
Russakovsky et al. (2015) studied two trained human labelers' accuracies on 1500 and 258 images in the context of the ImageNet challenge. The top-5 accuracy of the labeler who labeled 1500 images was the well-known human baseline on ImageNet. <br />
<br />
As introduced before, the researchers went beyond by using multi-label accuracy, using more labelers, and focusing on robustness to small distribution shifts. Although the researchers had some different findings, some results are also consistent with results from (Russakovsky et al., 2015). An example is that both experiments indicated that it takes human labelers around one minute to label an image. The time distribution also has a long tail, due to the difficult images as mentioned before.<br />
<br />
=== Human performance in computer vision broadly ===<br />
There are many examples of recent studies about humans in the area of computer vision, such as investigating human robustness to synthetic distribution change (Geirhos et al., 2017) and studying what characteristics do humans use to recognize objects (Geirhos et al., 2018). Other examples include the adversarial examples constructed to fool both machines and time-limited humans (Elsayed et al., 2018) and illustrating foreground/background objects' effects on human and machine performance (Zhu et al., 2016). <br />
<br />
=== Multi-label annotations ===<br />
Stock & Cissé (2017) also studied ImageNet's multi-label nature, which aligns with the researchers' study in this paper. According to Stock & Cissé (2017), the top-1 accuracy measure could underestimate multi-label by up to 13.2%. The author's suggest that releasing these labelled data to the public will allow for more robust models in the future.<br />
<br />
=== ImageNet inconsistencies and label error ===<br />
Researches have found and recorded some incorrectly labeled images from ImageNet and ImageNet V2 during this study. Earlier studies (Van Horn et al., 2015) also shown that at least 4% of the birds in ImageNet are misclassified. This work also noted that the inconsistent taxonomic structure in birds' classes could lead to weak class boundaries. Researchers also noted that the majority of the fine-grained organism classes also had similar taxonomic issues.<br />
<br />
=== Distribution shift ===<br />
There has been an increasing amount of studies in this area. One focus of the studies is distributionally robust optimization (DRO), which finds the model that has the smallest worst-case expected error over a set of probability distributions. Another focus is on finding the model with the lowest error rates on adversarial examples. Work in both areas has been productive, but none was shown to resolve the drop in accuracies between ImageNet and ImageNet V2. A recent [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2019/file/8558cb408c1d76621371888657d2eb1d-Paper.pdf paper] also discusses quantifying uncertainty under a distribution shift, in other words whether the output of probabilistic deep learning models should or should not be trusted.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Future Work ==<br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
Researchers noted that in order to achieve truly reliable machine learning, researchers need a deeper understanding of the range of parameters where the model still remain robust. Techniques from Combinatorics and sensitivity analysis, in particular, might yield fruitful results. This study has provided valuable insights into the desired robustness properties by comparing model performance to human performance. This is especially evident given the results of the experiment which show humans drastically outperforming machine learning in many cases and proposes the question of how much accuracy one is willing to give up in exchange for efficiency. The results have shown that current performance benchmarks are not addressing the robustness to small and natural distribution shifts, which are easily handled by humans.<br />
<br />
=== Future work ===<br />
Other than improving the robustness of models, researchers should consider investigating if less-trained human labelers can achieve a similar level of robustness to distributional shifts. In addition, researchers can study the robustness to temporal changes, which is another form of natural distribution shift (Gu et al., 2019; Shankar et al., 2019). Also, Convolutional Neural Network can be a candidate to improve the accuracy of classifying images.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
<br />
# Table 1 simply showed a difference in ImageNet multi-label accuracy yet does not give an explicit reason as to why such a difference is present. Although the paper suggested the distribution shift has caused the difference, it does not give other factors to concretely explain why the distribution shift was the cause.<br />
# With the recommendation to future machine evaluations, the paper proposed to "Report performances on dogs, other animals, and inanimate objects separately.". Despite its intentions, it is narrowly specific and requires further generalization for it to be convincing. <br />
# With choosing human subjects as samplers, no further information was given as to how they are chosen nor there are any background information was given. As it is a classification problem involving many classes as specific to species, a biology student would give far more accurate results than a computer science student or a math student. <br />
# As explaining the importance of multi-label metrics using comparison to Top-5 metric, the turtle example falls within the overall similarity (simony) classification of the multi-label evaluation metric, as such, if the Top-5 evaluation suggests any one of the turtle species were selected, the algorithm is considered to produce a correct prediction which is the intention. The example does not convey the necessity of changing to the proposed metric over the Top-5 metric. <br />
# With the definition in the paper regarding multi-label metrics, it is hard to see why expanding the label set is different from a traditional Top-5 metric or rather necessary, ergo does not yield the claim which the proposed metric is necessary for rigorous accuracy evaluation on ImageNet.<br />
# When discussing the main results, the paper discusses the hypothesis on distribution shift having no effects on human and machine model accuracies; the presentation is poor at best with no clear centric to what they are trying to convey to how (in detail) they resulted in such claims.<br />
# In the experiment setup of the presentation, there are a lot of key terms without detailed description. For example, Human labeler training using a subset of the remaining 30,000 unannotated images in the ImageNet validation set, labelers A, B, C, D, and E underwent extensive training to understand the intricacies of fine-grained class distinctions in the ImageNet class hierarchy. Authors should clarify each key term in the presentation otherwise readers are hard to follow.<br />
# Not sure how the human samplers were determined and simply picking several people will have really high bias because the sample is too small and they have different background which will definitely affect the results a lot. Also, it will be better if there are more comparisons between the model introduced and other models.<br />
# Given the low amount of human participants, it is hard to take the results seriously (there is too much variance). Also it's not exactly clear how the authors determined that the multi-label accuracy metric measures a semantically more meaningful notion of accuracy compared to its counterparts. For example, one of the issues with top-5 accuracy that they mention is: "For instance, within the dataset, five turtle classes are given which is difficult to distinguish under such classification evaluations." But it's not clear how multi-label accuracy would be better in this instance.<br />
# It is unclear how well the human labeler can perform labeling after training. So the final result is not that trust-worthy.<br />
# In this experiment set up, label annotators are the same as participants of the experiments. Even if there's a break between the annotating and evaluating human labeler evaluation, the impact of the break in reducing bias is not clear. One potential human labeling data is google's "I'm not a robot" verification test. One variation of the verification test asks users to select all the photos from 9 images that are related to a certain keyword. This allows for a more accurate measurement of human performance vs ImageNet performance. In addition, it's going to reduce the biases from the small number of experiment participants.<br />
# Following Table 2, the authors appear to try and claim that the model is better than the human labelers, simply because the model experienced a better increase in classification following the removal of dog photos then the human labeler did, however, a quick look at the table shows that most human labelers still performed better than the best model. The authors should be making the claim that human labelers are better at labeling dogs than the modal, but are still better overall after removing the dogs dataset.<br />
# The reason why human labeler outperforms CNN could be human had much more training. It would be more convincing if the paper could provide a metric in order to measure human labelers' training data set size.<br />
# Actually, in the multi-label case, it is vague to determine whether the machine learning model or the human labellers were giving the correct label. The structure of the dataset is pretty essential in training a network, in which data with uncertain label (even determined by human) should be avoided.<br />
# The authors mentioned that untrained labelers will likely be in lower accuracy, they can give a standard or definition about a well-trained labeler.<br />
# I believe the authors needed to include more information about how they determined the samples such as human samplers, and also more details on how to define unclear images.<br />
# It would be more convincing if the author could provide the criteria of being human samplers and unclear images, and the accuracy of the human labeler.<br />
# The summary only explains some model components but does not thoroughly goes through the big picture of the model; data-preprocessing, training, and prediction procedures. It would be nice to know the details as well.<br />
# It seems the core problem is more about the dataset itself and not the evaluation procedure. We would not have issues with top 1 and top 5 if Imagenet contained discernable classes with good labels. Of course, this is very expensive, and imagenet is an _excellent_ dataset given these constraints. It does not seem like their proposed solution, multiple labels per image, addresses their concerns properly, as other critiques have already mentioned. Furthermore, having multiple labels per image does not translate to real-life value the same way that the top 5 or top 1 metric does, as in the common case, there is one right answer for a classification problem.<br />
# The paper could provide details on ways to improve the accuracy and robustness of the model. Since the paper mentions CNN, it could provide details of the model and why CNN is a good candidate.<br />
# The accuracy of the model is directly correlated with how the images are labelled. In all multi-label annotations, the authors describe a predicted label as correct if it is within a set of "correct labels" where each image has a different number of correct labels. Perhaps it would yield better results if the model were to first identify the number of objects in the image first and then by using some form of criteria, it labels those identified objects in order of importance (i.e. objects that are closer are labelled first). The authors also never specified what criteria the model uses to "pick out" which object it will label in the image.<br />
# The paper mentions difficult images and fast images. It would be better if the paper had generalized the type of images that constitute difficult images (i.e., the paper mentions 118 dog classes, what are some general characteristics of difficult images?) In addition, it would be interesting to compare the performance between human and machine accuracy on non-fast images.<br />
# The paper meaingfully and correctly points out the problem that the current evaluation of ML algorithm by only using the accuracy on Imagnet as the bechmark is simplistic and probelmatic. However, the idea of comparing human performance with ML models is problematic, since it is hard or even impossible to control the various variables that can drastically change human performance: training time, domain knowledge, cognitive function, amount of work-load, and various environmental factors. In order to compare different experimental methods, the most important step is to carefully control the confounding variables to reach any meaningful conclusion. In addition, the method of using human to classify Imagenet is also fully circular, since the label of imagenet itself is originally annotated by human beings. In fact, the classification scheme itself is intrinsically human construction. It is not logical to test human performance with human performance.<br />
<br />
== Reference ==<br />
[1] Shankar, V., Roelofs, R., Mania, H., Fang, A., Recht, B., & Schmidt, L. (2020). Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet. ICML 2020.<br />
<br />
[2] Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. 2. Retrieved from http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/imagenet.pdf</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Mask_RCNN&diff=49562Mask RCNN2020-12-06T22:02:28Z<p>Y52wen: /* Visual Perception Tasks */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Qing Guo, Xueguang Ma, James Ni, Yuanxin Wang<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Mask RCNN [1] is a deep neural network architecture that aims to solve instance segmentation problems in computer vision which is important when attempting to identify different objects within the same image.It combines elements from classical computer vision of object detection and semantic segmentation. RCNN base architectures first extract a regional proposal (a region of the image where the object of interest is proposed to lie) and then attempts to classify the object within it. <br />
Mask R-CNN extends Faster R-CNN [2] by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. This is done by using a Fully Convolutional Network as each mask branch in a pixel-by-pixel way. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps. Moreover, Mask R-CNN is easy to generalize to other tasks, e.g., allowing us to estimate human poses in the same framework. Mask R-CNN achieved top results in all three tracks of the COCO suite of challenges [3], including instance segmentation, bounding-box object detection, and person keypoint detection.<br />
<br />
== Visual Perception Tasks == <br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows a visual representation of different types of visual perception tasks:<br />
<br />
- Image Classification: Predict a set of labels to characterize the contents of an input image<br />
<br />
- Object Detection: Build on image classification but localize each object in an image by placing bounding boxes around the objects. The current baseline system for object detection is Fast/Faster R-CNN.<br />
<br />
- Semantic Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image with a class label. The common baseline system for semantic segmentation is FCN (Fully Convolutional Network).<br />
<br />
- Instance Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image to a specific object. Instance segmentation combines image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation making it a complex task.<br />
<br />
[[File:instance segmentation.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Visual Perception tasks</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network architecture combining multiple state-of-art techniques for the task of Instance Segmentation.<br />
<br />
== Related Architecture to Mask RCNN == <br />
Region Proposal Network: A Region Proposal Network (RPN) proposes candidate object bounding boxes, which is the first step for effective object detection. It takes an image (of any size) as input and outputs a set of rectangular object boxes, each with an objectness score.<br />
<br />
ROI Pooling: The main use of ROI (Region of Interest) Pooling is to adjust the proposal to a uniform size. It’s better for the subsequent network to process. It maps the proposal to the corresponding position of the feature map, divide the mapped area into sections of the same size, and performs max pooling or average pooling operations on each section.<br />
<br />
Faster R-CNN: Faster R-CNN consists of two stages: Region Proposal Network and Fast R-CNN using ROI Pooling. Region Proposal Network proposes candidate object bounding boxes. ROI Pooling, which is in essence Fast R-CNN, extracts features using RoIPool from each candidate box and performs classification and bounding-box regression. The features used by both stages can be shared for faster inference.<br />
<br />
[[File:FasterRCNN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 2: Faster RCNN architecture</div><br />
<br />
<br />
ResNet-FPN: FPN uses a top-down architecture with lateral connections to build an in-network feature pyramid from a single-scale input. FPN is a general architecture that can be used in conjunction with various networks, such as VGG, ResNet, etc. Faster R-CNN with an FPN backbone extracts RoI features from different levels of the feature pyramid according to their scale. Other than FPN, the rest of the approach is similar to vanilla ResNet. Using a ResNet-FPN backbone for feature extraction with Mask RCNN gives excellent gains in both accuracy and speed.<br />
<br />
[[File:ResNetFPN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3: ResNetFPN architecture</div><br />
<br />
== Model Architecture == <br />
The structure of mask R-CNN is quite similar to the structure of faster R-CNN. <br />
Faster R-CNN has two stages, the RPN(Region Proposal Network) first proposes candidate object bounding boxes. Then RoIPool extracts the features from these boxes. After the features are extracted, these features data can be analyzed using classification and bounding-box regression. Mask R-CNN shares the identical first stage. But the second stage is adjusted to tackle the issue of simplifying the stages pipeline. Instead of only performing classification and bounding-box regression, it also outputs a binary mask for each RoI as <math>L=L_{cls}+L_{box}+L_{mask}</math>, where <math>L_{cls}</math>, <math>L_{box}</math>, <math>L_{mask}</math> represent the classification loss, bounding box loss and the average binary cross-entropy loss respectively.<br />
<br />
The important concept here is that, for most recent network systems, there's a certain order to follow when performing classification and regression, because classification depends on mask predictions. Mask R-CNN, on the other hand, applies bounding-box classification and regression in parallel, which effectively simplifies the multi-stage pipeline of the original R-CNN. And just for comparison, complete R-CNN pipeline stages involve 1. Make region proposals; 2. Feature extraction from region proposals; 3. SVM for object classification; 4. Bounding box regression. In conclusion, stages 3 and 4 are adjusted to simplify the network procedures.<br />
<br />
The system follows the multi-task loss, which by formula equals classification loss plus bounding-box loss plus the average binary cross-entropy loss.<br />
One thing worth noticing is that for other network systems, those masks across classes compete with each other. However, in this particular case with a <br />
per-pixel sigmoid and a binary loss the masks across classes no longer compete, it makes this formula the key for good instance segmentation results.<br />
<br />
'' RoIAlign''<br />
<br />
This concept is useful in stage 2 where the RoIPool extracts features from bounding-boxes. For each RoI as input, there will be a mask and a feature map as output. The mask is obtained using the FCN(Fully Convolutional Network) and the feature map is obtained using the RoIPool. The mask helps with spatial layout, which is crucial to the pixel-to-pixel correspondence. <br />
<br />
The two things we desire along the procedure are: pixel-to-pixel correspondence; no quantization is performed on any coordinates involved in the RoI, its bins, or the sampling points. Pixel-to-pixel correspondence makes sure that the input and output match in size. If there is a size difference, there will be information loss, and coordinates cannot be matched. <br />
<br />
RoIPool is standard for extracting a small feature map from each RoI. However, it performs quantization before subdividing into spatial bins which are further quantized. Quantization produces misalignments when it comes to predicting pixel accurate masks. Therefore, instead of quantization, the coordinates are computed using bilinear interpolation They use bilinear interpolation to get the exact values of the inputs features at the 4 RoI bins and aggregate the result (using max or average). These results are robust to the sampling location and number of points and to guarantee spatial correspondence.<br />
<br />
The network architectures utilized are called ResNet and ResNeXt. The depth can be either 50 or 101. ResNet-FPN(Feature Pyramid Network) is used for feature extraction. <br />
<br />
Some implementation details should be mentioned: first, an RoI is considered positive if it has IoU with a ground-truth box of at least 0.5 and negative otherwise. It is important because the mask loss Lmask is defined only on positive RoIs. Second, image-centric training is used to rescale images so that pixel correspondence is achieved. An example complete structure is, the proposal number is 1000 for FPN, and then run the box prediction branch on these proposals. The mask branch is then applied to the highest scoring 100 detection boxes. The mask branch can predict K masks per RoI, but only the kth mask will be used, where k is the predicted class by the classification branch. The m-by-m floating-number mask output is then resized to the RoI size and binarized at a threshold of 0.5.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
[[File:ExpInstanceSeg.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 4: Instance Segmentation Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Instance Segmentation: Based on COCO dataset, Mask R-CNN outperforms all categories comparing to MNC and FCIS which are state of the art model <br />
<br />
[[File:BoundingBoxExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 5: Bounding Box Detection Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Bounding Box Detection: Mask R-CNN outperforms the base variants of all previous state-of-the-art models, including the winner of the COCO 2016 Detection Challenge.<br />
<br />
== Ablation Experiments ==<br />
[[File:BackboneExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 6: Backbone Architecture Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(a) Backbone Architecture: Better backbones bring expected gains: deeper networks do better, FPN outperforms C4 features, and ResNeXt improves on ResNet. <br />
<br />
[[File:MultiVSInde.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 7: Multinomial vs. Independent Masks Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(b) Multinomial vs. Independent Masks (ResNet-50-C4): Decoupling via perclass binary masks (sigmoid) gives large gains over multinomial masks (softmax).<br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlign.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 8: RoIAlign Experiments 1</div><br />
<br />
(c) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C4): Mask results with various RoI layers. Our RoIAlign layer improves AP by ∼3 points and AP75 by ∼5 points. Using proper alignment is the only factor that contributes to the large gap between RoI layers. <br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlignExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 9: RoIAlign Experiments w Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(d) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C5, stride 32): Mask-level and box-level AP using large-stride features. Misalignments are more severe than with stride-16 features, resulting in big accuracy gaps.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskBranchExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 10: Mask Branch Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(e) Mask Branch (ResNet-50-FPN): Fully convolutional networks (FCN) vs. multi-layer perceptrons (MLP, fully-connected) for mask prediction. FCNs improve results as they take advantage of explicitly encoding spatial layout.<br />
<br />
== Human Pose Estimation ==<br />
Mask RCNN can be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
<br />
The simple approach the paper presents is to model a keypoint’s location as a one-hot mask, and adopt Mask R-CNN to predict K masks, one for each of K keypoint types such as left shoulder, right elbow. The model has minimal knowledge of human pose and this example illustrates the generality of the model.<br />
<br />
[[File:HumanPose.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 11: Keypoint Detection Results</div><br />
<br />
== Experiments on Cityscapes ==<br />
The model was also tested on Cityscapes dataset. From this dataset the authors used 2975 annotated images for training, 500 for validation, and 1525 for testing. The instance segmentation task involved eight categories: person, rider, car, truck, bus, train, motorcycle and bicycle. When the Mask R-CNN model was applied to the data it achieved 26.2 AP on the testing data which was an over 30% improvement on the previous best entry. <br />
<br />
<center><br />
[[ File:cityscapeDataset.png ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 12. Cityscapes Results<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network aimed to solve the instance segmentation problems in machine learning or computer vision. Mask R-CNN is a conceptually simple, flexible, and general framework for object instance segmentation. It can efficiently detect objects in an image while simultaneously generating a high-quality segmentation mask for each instance. It does object detection and instance segmentation, and can also be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
It extends Faster R-CNN by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
In Faster RCNN, the ROI boundary is quantized. However, mask RCNN avoids quantization and used the bilinear interpolation to compute exact values of features. By solving the misalignments due to quantization, the number and location of sampling points have no impact on the result.<br />
<br />
It may be better to compare the proposed model with other NN models or even non-NN methods like spectral clustering. Also, the applications can be further discussed like geometric mesh processing and motion analysis.<br />
<br />
The paper lacks the comparisons of different methods and Mask RNN on unlabeled data, as the paper only briefly mentioned that the authors found out that Mask R_CNN can benefit from extra data, even if the data is unlabelled.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN has many practical applications as well. A particular example, where Mask RCNNs are applied would be in autonomous vehicles. Namely, it would be able to help with isolating pedestrians, other vehicles, lights, etc.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN could be a candidate model to do short-term predictions on the physical behaviors of a person, which could be very useful at crime scenes.<br />
<br />
For the most part, instance segmentation is now quite achievable, and it’s time to start thinking about innovative ways of using this idea of doing computer vision algorithms at a pixel by pixel level such as the DensePose algorithm. <br />
<br />
An interesting application of Mask RCNN would be on face recognition from CCTVs. Flurry pictures of crowded people could be obtained from CCTV, so that mask RCNN can be applied to distinguish each person.<br />
<br />
The main problem for CNN architectures like Mask RCNN is the running time. Due to slow running times, Single Shot Detector algorithms are preferred for applications like video or live stream detections, where a faster running time would mean a better response to changes in frames. It would be beneficial to have a graphical representation of the Mask RCNN running times against single shot detector algorithms such as YOLOv3.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate a solution of embedding instance segmentation with semantic segmentation to improve time performance. Because in many situations, knowing the exact boundary of an object is not necessary.<br />
<br />
<br />
It will be better if we can have more comparisons with other models. It will also be nice if we can have more details about why Mask RCNN can perform better, and how about the efficiency of it?<br />
The authors mentioned that Mask R-CNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation. It's better to include more background information about this task. For example, challenges of this task (e.g. the model will need to take into account the overlapping of objects) and limitations of existing methods.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see how a postprocessing step with conditional random fields (CRF) might improve (or not?) segmentation. It would also have been interesting to see the performance of the method with lighter backbones since the backbones used to have a very large inference time which makes them unsuitable for many applications.<br />
<br />
An extension of the application of Mask RCNN in medical AI is to highlight areas of an MRI scan that correlate to certain behavioral/psychological patterns.<br />
<br />
The use of these in medical imaging systems seems rather useful, but it can also be extended to more general CCTV camera systems which can also detect physiological patterns.<br />
<br />
In the Human Pose Estimation section, we assume that Mask RCNN does not have any knowledge of human poses, and all the predictions are based on keypoints on human bodies, for example, left shoulder and right elbow. While in fact we may be able to achieve better performances here because currently this approach is strongly dependent on correct classifications of human body parts. That is, if the model messed up the position of left shoulder, the position estimation will be awful. It is important to remove the dependency on preceding predictions, so that even when previous steps fail, we may still expect a fair performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if applying dropout can boost this Mask RCNN architecture's performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting if mask RCNN is applied to human faces and how it classify each individual also would be nice to see how the technical calculations such as classification and predictions are done.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to know how the RCNN model will perform on unbalanced data and how the performance compares with other models in this circumstances.<br />
<br />
The authors omitted the details of the training and the computational cost of training the model. Since RCNN combines stages 3 and 4 (SVM to categorize and bounding box regression), how does this affect the computational cost of the model? Similar architectures to the RCNN have long training times so it is of interest to know the computational runtime of this model in comparison to other models.<br />
<br />
It's amazing what these researchers were able to achieve with adding minimal overhead, and how well it generalizes using two completely different datasets. For the future work it would be nice to see if the model is able to also predict the distance between the objects that overlap in an image, without adding any further significant overhead. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it would be nice to see how well the model is able to predict collision detection between the objects given that it is currently at 5 frames-per-second (which is still really impressive, it just would be interesting to see how much would be possible)<br />
<br />
== Interesting Directions ==<br />
<br />
There is recent work on ResNeSt: Split-Attention Networks (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08955), which uses an explicit soft attention mechanism over channels within a ResNeXt style architecture which shows improvements to classification. It would be interesting to use this backbone with Mask R-CNN and see if the attention helps capture longer range dependencies and thus produce better segmentations.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.<br />
<br />
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks, arXiv:1506.01497, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312, 2015</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Mask_RCNN&diff=49561Mask RCNN2020-12-06T22:02:02Z<p>Y52wen: /* Visual Perception Tasks */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Qing Guo, Xueguang Ma, James Ni, Yuanxin Wang<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Mask RCNN [1] is a deep neural network architecture that aims to solve instance segmentation problems in computer vision which is important when attempting to identify different objects within the same image.It combines elements from classical computer vision of object detection and semantic segmentation. RCNN base architectures first extract a regional proposal (a region of the image where the object of interest is proposed to lie) and then attempts to classify the object within it. <br />
Mask R-CNN extends Faster R-CNN [2] by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. This is done by using a Fully Convolutional Network as each mask branch in a pixel-by-pixel way. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps. Moreover, Mask R-CNN is easy to generalize to other tasks, e.g., allowing us to estimate human poses in the same framework. Mask R-CNN achieved top results in all three tracks of the COCO suite of challenges [3], including instance segmentation, bounding-box object detection, and person keypoint detection.<br />
<br />
== Visual Perception Tasks == <br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows a visual representation of different types of visual perception tasks:<br />
<br />
- Image Classification: Predict a set of labels to characterize the contents of an input image<br />
<br />
- Object Detection: Build on image classification but localize each object in an image by placing bounding boxes around the objects. The current baseline system for object detection is Fast/Faster R-CNN.<br />
<br />
- Semantic Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image with a class label. The common baseline system for semantic segmentation is FCN (Fully Convolutional Network).<br />
<br />
- Instance Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image to a specific object. Instance segmentation combines image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation making it a complex task.<br />
<br />
[[File:instance segmentation.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Visual Perception tasks</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network architecture combining multiple state-of-art techniques for Instance Segmentation.<br />
<br />
== Related Architecture to Mask RCNN == <br />
Region Proposal Network: A Region Proposal Network (RPN) proposes candidate object bounding boxes, which is the first step for effective object detection. It takes an image (of any size) as input and outputs a set of rectangular object boxes, each with an objectness score.<br />
<br />
ROI Pooling: The main use of ROI (Region of Interest) Pooling is to adjust the proposal to a uniform size. It’s better for the subsequent network to process. It maps the proposal to the corresponding position of the feature map, divide the mapped area into sections of the same size, and performs max pooling or average pooling operations on each section.<br />
<br />
Faster R-CNN: Faster R-CNN consists of two stages: Region Proposal Network and Fast R-CNN using ROI Pooling. Region Proposal Network proposes candidate object bounding boxes. ROI Pooling, which is in essence Fast R-CNN, extracts features using RoIPool from each candidate box and performs classification and bounding-box regression. The features used by both stages can be shared for faster inference.<br />
<br />
[[File:FasterRCNN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 2: Faster RCNN architecture</div><br />
<br />
<br />
ResNet-FPN: FPN uses a top-down architecture with lateral connections to build an in-network feature pyramid from a single-scale input. FPN is a general architecture that can be used in conjunction with various networks, such as VGG, ResNet, etc. Faster R-CNN with an FPN backbone extracts RoI features from different levels of the feature pyramid according to their scale. Other than FPN, the rest of the approach is similar to vanilla ResNet. Using a ResNet-FPN backbone for feature extraction with Mask RCNN gives excellent gains in both accuracy and speed.<br />
<br />
[[File:ResNetFPN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3: ResNetFPN architecture</div><br />
<br />
== Model Architecture == <br />
The structure of mask R-CNN is quite similar to the structure of faster R-CNN. <br />
Faster R-CNN has two stages, the RPN(Region Proposal Network) first proposes candidate object bounding boxes. Then RoIPool extracts the features from these boxes. After the features are extracted, these features data can be analyzed using classification and bounding-box regression. Mask R-CNN shares the identical first stage. But the second stage is adjusted to tackle the issue of simplifying the stages pipeline. Instead of only performing classification and bounding-box regression, it also outputs a binary mask for each RoI as <math>L=L_{cls}+L_{box}+L_{mask}</math>, where <math>L_{cls}</math>, <math>L_{box}</math>, <math>L_{mask}</math> represent the classification loss, bounding box loss and the average binary cross-entropy loss respectively.<br />
<br />
The important concept here is that, for most recent network systems, there's a certain order to follow when performing classification and regression, because classification depends on mask predictions. Mask R-CNN, on the other hand, applies bounding-box classification and regression in parallel, which effectively simplifies the multi-stage pipeline of the original R-CNN. And just for comparison, complete R-CNN pipeline stages involve 1. Make region proposals; 2. Feature extraction from region proposals; 3. SVM for object classification; 4. Bounding box regression. In conclusion, stages 3 and 4 are adjusted to simplify the network procedures.<br />
<br />
The system follows the multi-task loss, which by formula equals classification loss plus bounding-box loss plus the average binary cross-entropy loss.<br />
One thing worth noticing is that for other network systems, those masks across classes compete with each other. However, in this particular case with a <br />
per-pixel sigmoid and a binary loss the masks across classes no longer compete, it makes this formula the key for good instance segmentation results.<br />
<br />
'' RoIAlign''<br />
<br />
This concept is useful in stage 2 where the RoIPool extracts features from bounding-boxes. For each RoI as input, there will be a mask and a feature map as output. The mask is obtained using the FCN(Fully Convolutional Network) and the feature map is obtained using the RoIPool. The mask helps with spatial layout, which is crucial to the pixel-to-pixel correspondence. <br />
<br />
The two things we desire along the procedure are: pixel-to-pixel correspondence; no quantization is performed on any coordinates involved in the RoI, its bins, or the sampling points. Pixel-to-pixel correspondence makes sure that the input and output match in size. If there is a size difference, there will be information loss, and coordinates cannot be matched. <br />
<br />
RoIPool is standard for extracting a small feature map from each RoI. However, it performs quantization before subdividing into spatial bins which are further quantized. Quantization produces misalignments when it comes to predicting pixel accurate masks. Therefore, instead of quantization, the coordinates are computed using bilinear interpolation They use bilinear interpolation to get the exact values of the inputs features at the 4 RoI bins and aggregate the result (using max or average). These results are robust to the sampling location and number of points and to guarantee spatial correspondence.<br />
<br />
The network architectures utilized are called ResNet and ResNeXt. The depth can be either 50 or 101. ResNet-FPN(Feature Pyramid Network) is used for feature extraction. <br />
<br />
Some implementation details should be mentioned: first, an RoI is considered positive if it has IoU with a ground-truth box of at least 0.5 and negative otherwise. It is important because the mask loss Lmask is defined only on positive RoIs. Second, image-centric training is used to rescale images so that pixel correspondence is achieved. An example complete structure is, the proposal number is 1000 for FPN, and then run the box prediction branch on these proposals. The mask branch is then applied to the highest scoring 100 detection boxes. The mask branch can predict K masks per RoI, but only the kth mask will be used, where k is the predicted class by the classification branch. The m-by-m floating-number mask output is then resized to the RoI size and binarized at a threshold of 0.5.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
[[File:ExpInstanceSeg.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 4: Instance Segmentation Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Instance Segmentation: Based on COCO dataset, Mask R-CNN outperforms all categories comparing to MNC and FCIS which are state of the art model <br />
<br />
[[File:BoundingBoxExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 5: Bounding Box Detection Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Bounding Box Detection: Mask R-CNN outperforms the base variants of all previous state-of-the-art models, including the winner of the COCO 2016 Detection Challenge.<br />
<br />
== Ablation Experiments ==<br />
[[File:BackboneExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 6: Backbone Architecture Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(a) Backbone Architecture: Better backbones bring expected gains: deeper networks do better, FPN outperforms C4 features, and ResNeXt improves on ResNet. <br />
<br />
[[File:MultiVSInde.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 7: Multinomial vs. Independent Masks Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(b) Multinomial vs. Independent Masks (ResNet-50-C4): Decoupling via perclass binary masks (sigmoid) gives large gains over multinomial masks (softmax).<br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlign.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 8: RoIAlign Experiments 1</div><br />
<br />
(c) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C4): Mask results with various RoI layers. Our RoIAlign layer improves AP by ∼3 points and AP75 by ∼5 points. Using proper alignment is the only factor that contributes to the large gap between RoI layers. <br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlignExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 9: RoIAlign Experiments w Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(d) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C5, stride 32): Mask-level and box-level AP using large-stride features. Misalignments are more severe than with stride-16 features, resulting in big accuracy gaps.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskBranchExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 10: Mask Branch Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(e) Mask Branch (ResNet-50-FPN): Fully convolutional networks (FCN) vs. multi-layer perceptrons (MLP, fully-connected) for mask prediction. FCNs improve results as they take advantage of explicitly encoding spatial layout.<br />
<br />
== Human Pose Estimation ==<br />
Mask RCNN can be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
<br />
The simple approach the paper presents is to model a keypoint’s location as a one-hot mask, and adopt Mask R-CNN to predict K masks, one for each of K keypoint types such as left shoulder, right elbow. The model has minimal knowledge of human pose and this example illustrates the generality of the model.<br />
<br />
[[File:HumanPose.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 11: Keypoint Detection Results</div><br />
<br />
== Experiments on Cityscapes ==<br />
The model was also tested on Cityscapes dataset. From this dataset the authors used 2975 annotated images for training, 500 for validation, and 1525 for testing. The instance segmentation task involved eight categories: person, rider, car, truck, bus, train, motorcycle and bicycle. When the Mask R-CNN model was applied to the data it achieved 26.2 AP on the testing data which was an over 30% improvement on the previous best entry. <br />
<br />
<center><br />
[[ File:cityscapeDataset.png ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 12. Cityscapes Results<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network aimed to solve the instance segmentation problems in machine learning or computer vision. Mask R-CNN is a conceptually simple, flexible, and general framework for object instance segmentation. It can efficiently detect objects in an image while simultaneously generating a high-quality segmentation mask for each instance. It does object detection and instance segmentation, and can also be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
It extends Faster R-CNN by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
In Faster RCNN, the ROI boundary is quantized. However, mask RCNN avoids quantization and used the bilinear interpolation to compute exact values of features. By solving the misalignments due to quantization, the number and location of sampling points have no impact on the result.<br />
<br />
It may be better to compare the proposed model with other NN models or even non-NN methods like spectral clustering. Also, the applications can be further discussed like geometric mesh processing and motion analysis.<br />
<br />
The paper lacks the comparisons of different methods and Mask RNN on unlabeled data, as the paper only briefly mentioned that the authors found out that Mask R_CNN can benefit from extra data, even if the data is unlabelled.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN has many practical applications as well. A particular example, where Mask RCNNs are applied would be in autonomous vehicles. Namely, it would be able to help with isolating pedestrians, other vehicles, lights, etc.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN could be a candidate model to do short-term predictions on the physical behaviors of a person, which could be very useful at crime scenes.<br />
<br />
For the most part, instance segmentation is now quite achievable, and it’s time to start thinking about innovative ways of using this idea of doing computer vision algorithms at a pixel by pixel level such as the DensePose algorithm. <br />
<br />
An interesting application of Mask RCNN would be on face recognition from CCTVs. Flurry pictures of crowded people could be obtained from CCTV, so that mask RCNN can be applied to distinguish each person.<br />
<br />
The main problem for CNN architectures like Mask RCNN is the running time. Due to slow running times, Single Shot Detector algorithms are preferred for applications like video or live stream detections, where a faster running time would mean a better response to changes in frames. It would be beneficial to have a graphical representation of the Mask RCNN running times against single shot detector algorithms such as YOLOv3.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate a solution of embedding instance segmentation with semantic segmentation to improve time performance. Because in many situations, knowing the exact boundary of an object is not necessary.<br />
<br />
<br />
It will be better if we can have more comparisons with other models. It will also be nice if we can have more details about why Mask RCNN can perform better, and how about the efficiency of it?<br />
The authors mentioned that Mask R-CNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation. It's better to include more background information about this task. For example, challenges of this task (e.g. the model will need to take into account the overlapping of objects) and limitations of existing methods.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see how a postprocessing step with conditional random fields (CRF) might improve (or not?) segmentation. It would also have been interesting to see the performance of the method with lighter backbones since the backbones used to have a very large inference time which makes them unsuitable for many applications.<br />
<br />
An extension of the application of Mask RCNN in medical AI is to highlight areas of an MRI scan that correlate to certain behavioral/psychological patterns.<br />
<br />
The use of these in medical imaging systems seems rather useful, but it can also be extended to more general CCTV camera systems which can also detect physiological patterns.<br />
<br />
In the Human Pose Estimation section, we assume that Mask RCNN does not have any knowledge of human poses, and all the predictions are based on keypoints on human bodies, for example, left shoulder and right elbow. While in fact we may be able to achieve better performances here because currently this approach is strongly dependent on correct classifications of human body parts. That is, if the model messed up the position of left shoulder, the position estimation will be awful. It is important to remove the dependency on preceding predictions, so that even when previous steps fail, we may still expect a fair performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if applying dropout can boost this Mask RCNN architecture's performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting if mask RCNN is applied to human faces and how it classify each individual also would be nice to see how the technical calculations such as classification and predictions are done.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to know how the RCNN model will perform on unbalanced data and how the performance compares with other models in this circumstances.<br />
<br />
The authors omitted the details of the training and the computational cost of training the model. Since RCNN combines stages 3 and 4 (SVM to categorize and bounding box regression), how does this affect the computational cost of the model? Similar architectures to the RCNN have long training times so it is of interest to know the computational runtime of this model in comparison to other models.<br />
<br />
It's amazing what these researchers were able to achieve with adding minimal overhead, and how well it generalizes using two completely different datasets. For the future work it would be nice to see if the model is able to also predict the distance between the objects that overlap in an image, without adding any further significant overhead. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it would be nice to see how well the model is able to predict collision detection between the objects given that it is currently at 5 frames-per-second (which is still really impressive, it just would be interesting to see how much would be possible)<br />
<br />
== Interesting Directions ==<br />
<br />
There is recent work on ResNeSt: Split-Attention Networks (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08955), which uses an explicit soft attention mechanism over channels within a ResNeXt style architecture which shows improvements to classification. It would be interesting to use this backbone with Mask R-CNN and see if the attention helps capture longer range dependencies and thus produce better segmentations.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.<br />
<br />
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks, arXiv:1506.01497, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312, 2015</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Mask_RCNN&diff=49560Mask RCNN2020-12-06T21:58:53Z<p>Y52wen: /* Related Architecture to Mask RCNN */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Qing Guo, Xueguang Ma, James Ni, Yuanxin Wang<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Mask RCNN [1] is a deep neural network architecture that aims to solve instance segmentation problems in computer vision which is important when attempting to identify different objects within the same image.It combines elements from classical computer vision of object detection and semantic segmentation. RCNN base architectures first extract a regional proposal (a region of the image where the object of interest is proposed to lie) and then attempts to classify the object within it. <br />
Mask R-CNN extends Faster R-CNN [2] by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. This is done by using a Fully Convolutional Network as each mask branch in a pixel-by-pixel way. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps. Moreover, Mask R-CNN is easy to generalize to other tasks, e.g., allowing us to estimate human poses in the same framework. Mask R-CNN achieved top results in all three tracks of the COCO suite of challenges [3], including instance segmentation, bounding-box object detection, and person keypoint detection.<br />
<br />
== Visual Perception Tasks == <br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows a visual representation of different types of visual perception tasks:<br />
<br />
- Image Classification: Predict a set of labels to characterize the contents of an input image<br />
<br />
- Object Detection: Build on image classification but localize each object in an image by placing bounding boxes around the objects<br />
<br />
- Semantic Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image with a class label<br />
<br />
- Instance Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image to a specific object. Instance segmentation combines image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation making it a complex task [1].<br />
<br />
[[File:instance segmentation.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Visual Perception tasks</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation.<br />
<br />
== Related Architecture to Mask RCNN == <br />
Region Proposal Network: A Region Proposal Network (RPN) proposes candidate object bounding boxes, which is the first step for effective object detection. It takes an image (of any size) as input and outputs a set of rectangular object boxes, each with an objectness score.<br />
<br />
ROI Pooling: The main use of ROI (Region of Interest) Pooling is to adjust the proposal to a uniform size. It’s better for the subsequent network to process. It maps the proposal to the corresponding position of the feature map, divide the mapped area into sections of the same size, and performs max pooling or average pooling operations on each section.<br />
<br />
Faster R-CNN: Faster R-CNN consists of two stages: Region Proposal Network and Fast R-CNN using ROI Pooling. Region Proposal Network proposes candidate object bounding boxes. ROI Pooling, which is in essence Fast R-CNN, extracts features using RoIPool from each candidate box and performs classification and bounding-box regression. The features used by both stages can be shared for faster inference.<br />
<br />
[[File:FasterRCNN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 2: Faster RCNN architecture</div><br />
<br />
<br />
ResNet-FPN: FPN uses a top-down architecture with lateral connections to build an in-network feature pyramid from a single-scale input. FPN is a general architecture that can be used in conjunction with various networks, such as VGG, ResNet, etc. Faster R-CNN with an FPN backbone extracts RoI features from different levels of the feature pyramid according to their scale. Other than FPN, the rest of the approach is similar to vanilla ResNet. Using a ResNet-FPN backbone for feature extraction with Mask RCNN gives excellent gains in both accuracy and speed.<br />
<br />
[[File:ResNetFPN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3: ResNetFPN architecture</div><br />
<br />
== Model Architecture == <br />
The structure of mask R-CNN is quite similar to the structure of faster R-CNN. <br />
Faster R-CNN has two stages, the RPN(Region Proposal Network) first proposes candidate object bounding boxes. Then RoIPool extracts the features from these boxes. After the features are extracted, these features data can be analyzed using classification and bounding-box regression. Mask R-CNN shares the identical first stage. But the second stage is adjusted to tackle the issue of simplifying the stages pipeline. Instead of only performing classification and bounding-box regression, it also outputs a binary mask for each RoI as <math>L=L_{cls}+L_{box}+L_{mask}</math>, where <math>L_{cls}</math>, <math>L_{box}</math>, <math>L_{mask}</math> represent the classification loss, bounding box loss and the average binary cross-entropy loss respectively.<br />
<br />
The important concept here is that, for most recent network systems, there's a certain order to follow when performing classification and regression, because classification depends on mask predictions. Mask R-CNN, on the other hand, applies bounding-box classification and regression in parallel, which effectively simplifies the multi-stage pipeline of the original R-CNN. And just for comparison, complete R-CNN pipeline stages involve 1. Make region proposals; 2. Feature extraction from region proposals; 3. SVM for object classification; 4. Bounding box regression. In conclusion, stages 3 and 4 are adjusted to simplify the network procedures.<br />
<br />
The system follows the multi-task loss, which by formula equals classification loss plus bounding-box loss plus the average binary cross-entropy loss.<br />
One thing worth noticing is that for other network systems, those masks across classes compete with each other. However, in this particular case with a <br />
per-pixel sigmoid and a binary loss the masks across classes no longer compete, it makes this formula the key for good instance segmentation results.<br />
<br />
'' RoIAlign''<br />
<br />
This concept is useful in stage 2 where the RoIPool extracts features from bounding-boxes. For each RoI as input, there will be a mask and a feature map as output. The mask is obtained using the FCN(Fully Convolutional Network) and the feature map is obtained using the RoIPool. The mask helps with spatial layout, which is crucial to the pixel-to-pixel correspondence. <br />
<br />
The two things we desire along the procedure are: pixel-to-pixel correspondence; no quantization is performed on any coordinates involved in the RoI, its bins, or the sampling points. Pixel-to-pixel correspondence makes sure that the input and output match in size. If there is a size difference, there will be information loss, and coordinates cannot be matched. <br />
<br />
RoIPool is standard for extracting a small feature map from each RoI. However, it performs quantization before subdividing into spatial bins which are further quantized. Quantization produces misalignments when it comes to predicting pixel accurate masks. Therefore, instead of quantization, the coordinates are computed using bilinear interpolation They use bilinear interpolation to get the exact values of the inputs features at the 4 RoI bins and aggregate the result (using max or average). These results are robust to the sampling location and number of points and to guarantee spatial correspondence.<br />
<br />
The network architectures utilized are called ResNet and ResNeXt. The depth can be either 50 or 101. ResNet-FPN(Feature Pyramid Network) is used for feature extraction. <br />
<br />
Some implementation details should be mentioned: first, an RoI is considered positive if it has IoU with a ground-truth box of at least 0.5 and negative otherwise. It is important because the mask loss Lmask is defined only on positive RoIs. Second, image-centric training is used to rescale images so that pixel correspondence is achieved. An example complete structure is, the proposal number is 1000 for FPN, and then run the box prediction branch on these proposals. The mask branch is then applied to the highest scoring 100 detection boxes. The mask branch can predict K masks per RoI, but only the kth mask will be used, where k is the predicted class by the classification branch. The m-by-m floating-number mask output is then resized to the RoI size and binarized at a threshold of 0.5.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
[[File:ExpInstanceSeg.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 4: Instance Segmentation Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Instance Segmentation: Based on COCO dataset, Mask R-CNN outperforms all categories comparing to MNC and FCIS which are state of the art model <br />
<br />
[[File:BoundingBoxExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 5: Bounding Box Detection Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Bounding Box Detection: Mask R-CNN outperforms the base variants of all previous state-of-the-art models, including the winner of the COCO 2016 Detection Challenge.<br />
<br />
== Ablation Experiments ==<br />
[[File:BackboneExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 6: Backbone Architecture Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(a) Backbone Architecture: Better backbones bring expected gains: deeper networks do better, FPN outperforms C4 features, and ResNeXt improves on ResNet. <br />
<br />
[[File:MultiVSInde.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 7: Multinomial vs. Independent Masks Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(b) Multinomial vs. Independent Masks (ResNet-50-C4): Decoupling via perclass binary masks (sigmoid) gives large gains over multinomial masks (softmax).<br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlign.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 8: RoIAlign Experiments 1</div><br />
<br />
(c) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C4): Mask results with various RoI layers. Our RoIAlign layer improves AP by ∼3 points and AP75 by ∼5 points. Using proper alignment is the only factor that contributes to the large gap between RoI layers. <br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlignExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 9: RoIAlign Experiments w Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(d) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C5, stride 32): Mask-level and box-level AP using large-stride features. Misalignments are more severe than with stride-16 features, resulting in big accuracy gaps.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskBranchExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 10: Mask Branch Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(e) Mask Branch (ResNet-50-FPN): Fully convolutional networks (FCN) vs. multi-layer perceptrons (MLP, fully-connected) for mask prediction. FCNs improve results as they take advantage of explicitly encoding spatial layout.<br />
<br />
== Human Pose Estimation ==<br />
Mask RCNN can be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
<br />
The simple approach the paper presents is to model a keypoint’s location as a one-hot mask, and adopt Mask R-CNN to predict K masks, one for each of K keypoint types such as left shoulder, right elbow. The model has minimal knowledge of human pose and this example illustrates the generality of the model.<br />
<br />
[[File:HumanPose.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 11: Keypoint Detection Results</div><br />
<br />
== Experiments on Cityscapes ==<br />
The model was also tested on Cityscapes dataset. From this dataset the authors used 2975 annotated images for training, 500 for validation, and 1525 for testing. The instance segmentation task involved eight categories: person, rider, car, truck, bus, train, motorcycle and bicycle. When the Mask R-CNN model was applied to the data it achieved 26.2 AP on the testing data which was an over 30% improvement on the previous best entry. <br />
<br />
<center><br />
[[ File:cityscapeDataset.png ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 12. Cityscapes Results<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network aimed to solve the instance segmentation problems in machine learning or computer vision. Mask R-CNN is a conceptually simple, flexible, and general framework for object instance segmentation. It can efficiently detect objects in an image while simultaneously generating a high-quality segmentation mask for each instance. It does object detection and instance segmentation, and can also be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
It extends Faster R-CNN by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
In Faster RCNN, the ROI boundary is quantized. However, mask RCNN avoids quantization and used the bilinear interpolation to compute exact values of features. By solving the misalignments due to quantization, the number and location of sampling points have no impact on the result.<br />
<br />
It may be better to compare the proposed model with other NN models or even non-NN methods like spectral clustering. Also, the applications can be further discussed like geometric mesh processing and motion analysis.<br />
<br />
The paper lacks the comparisons of different methods and Mask RNN on unlabeled data, as the paper only briefly mentioned that the authors found out that Mask R_CNN can benefit from extra data, even if the data is unlabelled.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN has many practical applications as well. A particular example, where Mask RCNNs are applied would be in autonomous vehicles. Namely, it would be able to help with isolating pedestrians, other vehicles, lights, etc.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN could be a candidate model to do short-term predictions on the physical behaviors of a person, which could be very useful at crime scenes.<br />
<br />
For the most part, instance segmentation is now quite achievable, and it’s time to start thinking about innovative ways of using this idea of doing computer vision algorithms at a pixel by pixel level such as the DensePose algorithm. <br />
<br />
An interesting application of Mask RCNN would be on face recognition from CCTVs. Flurry pictures of crowded people could be obtained from CCTV, so that mask RCNN can be applied to distinguish each person.<br />
<br />
The main problem for CNN architectures like Mask RCNN is the running time. Due to slow running times, Single Shot Detector algorithms are preferred for applications like video or live stream detections, where a faster running time would mean a better response to changes in frames. It would be beneficial to have a graphical representation of the Mask RCNN running times against single shot detector algorithms such as YOLOv3.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate a solution of embedding instance segmentation with semantic segmentation to improve time performance. Because in many situations, knowing the exact boundary of an object is not necessary.<br />
<br />
<br />
It will be better if we can have more comparisons with other models. It will also be nice if we can have more details about why Mask RCNN can perform better, and how about the efficiency of it?<br />
The authors mentioned that Mask R-CNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation. It's better to include more background information about this task. For example, challenges of this task (e.g. the model will need to take into account the overlapping of objects) and limitations of existing methods.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see how a postprocessing step with conditional random fields (CRF) might improve (or not?) segmentation. It would also have been interesting to see the performance of the method with lighter backbones since the backbones used to have a very large inference time which makes them unsuitable for many applications.<br />
<br />
An extension of the application of Mask RCNN in medical AI is to highlight areas of an MRI scan that correlate to certain behavioral/psychological patterns.<br />
<br />
The use of these in medical imaging systems seems rather useful, but it can also be extended to more general CCTV camera systems which can also detect physiological patterns.<br />
<br />
In the Human Pose Estimation section, we assume that Mask RCNN does not have any knowledge of human poses, and all the predictions are based on keypoints on human bodies, for example, left shoulder and right elbow. While in fact we may be able to achieve better performances here because currently this approach is strongly dependent on correct classifications of human body parts. That is, if the model messed up the position of left shoulder, the position estimation will be awful. It is important to remove the dependency on preceding predictions, so that even when previous steps fail, we may still expect a fair performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if applying dropout can boost this Mask RCNN architecture's performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting if mask RCNN is applied to human faces and how it classify each individual also would be nice to see how the technical calculations such as classification and predictions are done.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to know how the RCNN model will perform on unbalanced data and how the performance compares with other models in this circumstances.<br />
<br />
The authors omitted the details of the training and the computational cost of training the model. Since RCNN combines stages 3 and 4 (SVM to categorize and bounding box regression), how does this affect the computational cost of the model? Similar architectures to the RCNN have long training times so it is of interest to know the computational runtime of this model in comparison to other models.<br />
<br />
It's amazing what these researchers were able to achieve with adding minimal overhead, and how well it generalizes using two completely different datasets. For the future work it would be nice to see if the model is able to also predict the distance between the objects that overlap in an image, without adding any further significant overhead. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it would be nice to see how well the model is able to predict collision detection between the objects given that it is currently at 5 frames-per-second (which is still really impressive, it just would be interesting to see how much would be possible)<br />
<br />
== Interesting Directions ==<br />
<br />
There is recent work on ResNeSt: Split-Attention Networks (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08955), which uses an explicit soft attention mechanism over channels within a ResNeXt style architecture which shows improvements to classification. It would be interesting to use this backbone with Mask R-CNN and see if the attention helps capture longer range dependencies and thus produce better segmentations.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.<br />
<br />
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks, arXiv:1506.01497, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312, 2015</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Mask_RCNN&diff=49558Mask RCNN2020-12-06T21:57:39Z<p>Y52wen: /* Related Architecture to Mask RCNN */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Qing Guo, Xueguang Ma, James Ni, Yuanxin Wang<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Mask RCNN [1] is a deep neural network architecture that aims to solve instance segmentation problems in computer vision which is important when attempting to identify different objects within the same image.It combines elements from classical computer vision of object detection and semantic segmentation. RCNN base architectures first extract a regional proposal (a region of the image where the object of interest is proposed to lie) and then attempts to classify the object within it. <br />
Mask R-CNN extends Faster R-CNN [2] by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. This is done by using a Fully Convolutional Network as each mask branch in a pixel-by-pixel way. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps. Moreover, Mask R-CNN is easy to generalize to other tasks, e.g., allowing us to estimate human poses in the same framework. Mask R-CNN achieved top results in all three tracks of the COCO suite of challenges [3], including instance segmentation, bounding-box object detection, and person keypoint detection.<br />
<br />
== Visual Perception Tasks == <br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows a visual representation of different types of visual perception tasks:<br />
<br />
- Image Classification: Predict a set of labels to characterize the contents of an input image<br />
<br />
- Object Detection: Build on image classification but localize each object in an image by placing bounding boxes around the objects<br />
<br />
- Semantic Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image with a class label<br />
<br />
- Instance Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image to a specific object. Instance segmentation combines image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation making it a complex task [1].<br />
<br />
[[File:instance segmentation.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Visual Perception tasks</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation.<br />
<br />
== Related Architecture to Mask RCNN == <br />
Region Proposal Network: A Region Proposal Network (RPN) proposes candidate object bounding boxes, which is essentially an object detection technique. It takes an image (of any size) as input and outputs a set of rectangular object boxes, each with an objectness score.<br />
<br />
ROI Pooling: The main use of ROI (Region of Interest) Pooling is to adjust the proposal to a uniform size. It’s better for the subsequent network to process. It maps the proposal to the corresponding position of the feature map, divide the mapped area into sections of the same size, and performs max pooling or average pooling operations on each section.<br />
<br />
Faster R-CNN: Faster R-CNN consists of two stages: Region Proposal Network and Fast R-CNN using ROI Pooling. Region Proposal Network proposes candidate object bounding boxes. ROI Pooling, which is in essence Fast R-CNN, extracts features using RoIPool from each candidate box and performs classification and bounding-box regression. The features used by both stages can be shared for faster inference.<br />
<br />
[[File:FasterRCNN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 2: Faster RCNN architecture</div><br />
<br />
<br />
ResNet-FPN: FPN uses a top-down architecture with lateral connections to build an in-network feature pyramid from a single-scale input. FPN is a general architecture that can be used in conjunction with various networks, such as VGG, ResNet, etc. Faster R-CNN with an FPN backbone extracts RoI features from different levels of the feature pyramid according to their scale. Other than FPN, the rest of the approach is similar to vanilla ResNet. Using a ResNet-FPN backbone for feature extraction with Mask RCNN gives excellent gains in both accuracy and speed.<br />
<br />
[[File:ResNetFPN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3: ResNetFPN architecture</div><br />
<br />
== Model Architecture == <br />
The structure of mask R-CNN is quite similar to the structure of faster R-CNN. <br />
Faster R-CNN has two stages, the RPN(Region Proposal Network) first proposes candidate object bounding boxes. Then RoIPool extracts the features from these boxes. After the features are extracted, these features data can be analyzed using classification and bounding-box regression. Mask R-CNN shares the identical first stage. But the second stage is adjusted to tackle the issue of simplifying the stages pipeline. Instead of only performing classification and bounding-box regression, it also outputs a binary mask for each RoI as <math>L=L_{cls}+L_{box}+L_{mask}</math>, where <math>L_{cls}</math>, <math>L_{box}</math>, <math>L_{mask}</math> represent the classification loss, bounding box loss and the average binary cross-entropy loss respectively.<br />
<br />
The important concept here is that, for most recent network systems, there's a certain order to follow when performing classification and regression, because classification depends on mask predictions. Mask R-CNN, on the other hand, applies bounding-box classification and regression in parallel, which effectively simplifies the multi-stage pipeline of the original R-CNN. And just for comparison, complete R-CNN pipeline stages involve 1. Make region proposals; 2. Feature extraction from region proposals; 3. SVM for object classification; 4. Bounding box regression. In conclusion, stages 3 and 4 are adjusted to simplify the network procedures.<br />
<br />
The system follows the multi-task loss, which by formula equals classification loss plus bounding-box loss plus the average binary cross-entropy loss.<br />
One thing worth noticing is that for other network systems, those masks across classes compete with each other. However, in this particular case with a <br />
per-pixel sigmoid and a binary loss the masks across classes no longer compete, it makes this formula the key for good instance segmentation results.<br />
<br />
'' RoIAlign''<br />
<br />
This concept is useful in stage 2 where the RoIPool extracts features from bounding-boxes. For each RoI as input, there will be a mask and a feature map as output. The mask is obtained using the FCN(Fully Convolutional Network) and the feature map is obtained using the RoIPool. The mask helps with spatial layout, which is crucial to the pixel-to-pixel correspondence. <br />
<br />
The two things we desire along the procedure are: pixel-to-pixel correspondence; no quantization is performed on any coordinates involved in the RoI, its bins, or the sampling points. Pixel-to-pixel correspondence makes sure that the input and output match in size. If there is a size difference, there will be information loss, and coordinates cannot be matched. <br />
<br />
RoIPool is standard for extracting a small feature map from each RoI. However, it performs quantization before subdividing into spatial bins which are further quantized. Quantization produces misalignments when it comes to predicting pixel accurate masks. Therefore, instead of quantization, the coordinates are computed using bilinear interpolation They use bilinear interpolation to get the exact values of the inputs features at the 4 RoI bins and aggregate the result (using max or average). These results are robust to the sampling location and number of points and to guarantee spatial correspondence.<br />
<br />
The network architectures utilized are called ResNet and ResNeXt. The depth can be either 50 or 101. ResNet-FPN(Feature Pyramid Network) is used for feature extraction. <br />
<br />
Some implementation details should be mentioned: first, an RoI is considered positive if it has IoU with a ground-truth box of at least 0.5 and negative otherwise. It is important because the mask loss Lmask is defined only on positive RoIs. Second, image-centric training is used to rescale images so that pixel correspondence is achieved. An example complete structure is, the proposal number is 1000 for FPN, and then run the box prediction branch on these proposals. The mask branch is then applied to the highest scoring 100 detection boxes. The mask branch can predict K masks per RoI, but only the kth mask will be used, where k is the predicted class by the classification branch. The m-by-m floating-number mask output is then resized to the RoI size and binarized at a threshold of 0.5.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
[[File:ExpInstanceSeg.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 4: Instance Segmentation Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Instance Segmentation: Based on COCO dataset, Mask R-CNN outperforms all categories comparing to MNC and FCIS which are state of the art model <br />
<br />
[[File:BoundingBoxExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 5: Bounding Box Detection Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Bounding Box Detection: Mask R-CNN outperforms the base variants of all previous state-of-the-art models, including the winner of the COCO 2016 Detection Challenge.<br />
<br />
== Ablation Experiments ==<br />
[[File:BackboneExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 6: Backbone Architecture Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(a) Backbone Architecture: Better backbones bring expected gains: deeper networks do better, FPN outperforms C4 features, and ResNeXt improves on ResNet. <br />
<br />
[[File:MultiVSInde.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 7: Multinomial vs. Independent Masks Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(b) Multinomial vs. Independent Masks (ResNet-50-C4): Decoupling via perclass binary masks (sigmoid) gives large gains over multinomial masks (softmax).<br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlign.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 8: RoIAlign Experiments 1</div><br />
<br />
(c) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C4): Mask results with various RoI layers. Our RoIAlign layer improves AP by ∼3 points and AP75 by ∼5 points. Using proper alignment is the only factor that contributes to the large gap between RoI layers. <br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlignExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 9: RoIAlign Experiments w Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(d) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C5, stride 32): Mask-level and box-level AP using large-stride features. Misalignments are more severe than with stride-16 features, resulting in big accuracy gaps.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskBranchExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 10: Mask Branch Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(e) Mask Branch (ResNet-50-FPN): Fully convolutional networks (FCN) vs. multi-layer perceptrons (MLP, fully-connected) for mask prediction. FCNs improve results as they take advantage of explicitly encoding spatial layout.<br />
<br />
== Human Pose Estimation ==<br />
Mask RCNN can be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
<br />
The simple approach the paper presents is to model a keypoint’s location as a one-hot mask, and adopt Mask R-CNN to predict K masks, one for each of K keypoint types such as left shoulder, right elbow. The model has minimal knowledge of human pose and this example illustrates the generality of the model.<br />
<br />
[[File:HumanPose.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 11: Keypoint Detection Results</div><br />
<br />
== Experiments on Cityscapes ==<br />
The model was also tested on Cityscapes dataset. From this dataset the authors used 2975 annotated images for training, 500 for validation, and 1525 for testing. The instance segmentation task involved eight categories: person, rider, car, truck, bus, train, motorcycle and bicycle. When the Mask R-CNN model was applied to the data it achieved 26.2 AP on the testing data which was an over 30% improvement on the previous best entry. <br />
<br />
<center><br />
[[ File:cityscapeDataset.png ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 12. Cityscapes Results<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network aimed to solve the instance segmentation problems in machine learning or computer vision. Mask R-CNN is a conceptually simple, flexible, and general framework for object instance segmentation. It can efficiently detect objects in an image while simultaneously generating a high-quality segmentation mask for each instance. It does object detection and instance segmentation, and can also be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
It extends Faster R-CNN by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
In Faster RCNN, the ROI boundary is quantized. However, mask RCNN avoids quantization and used the bilinear interpolation to compute exact values of features. By solving the misalignments due to quantization, the number and location of sampling points have no impact on the result.<br />
<br />
It may be better to compare the proposed model with other NN models or even non-NN methods like spectral clustering. Also, the applications can be further discussed like geometric mesh processing and motion analysis.<br />
<br />
The paper lacks the comparisons of different methods and Mask RNN on unlabeled data, as the paper only briefly mentioned that the authors found out that Mask R_CNN can benefit from extra data, even if the data is unlabelled.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN has many practical applications as well. A particular example, where Mask RCNNs are applied would be in autonomous vehicles. Namely, it would be able to help with isolating pedestrians, other vehicles, lights, etc.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN could be a candidate model to do short-term predictions on the physical behaviors of a person, which could be very useful at crime scenes.<br />
<br />
For the most part, instance segmentation is now quite achievable, and it’s time to start thinking about innovative ways of using this idea of doing computer vision algorithms at a pixel by pixel level such as the DensePose algorithm. <br />
<br />
An interesting application of Mask RCNN would be on face recognition from CCTVs. Flurry pictures of crowded people could be obtained from CCTV, so that mask RCNN can be applied to distinguish each person.<br />
<br />
The main problem for CNN architectures like Mask RCNN is the running time. Due to slow running times, Single Shot Detector algorithms are preferred for applications like video or live stream detections, where a faster running time would mean a better response to changes in frames. It would be beneficial to have a graphical representation of the Mask RCNN running times against single shot detector algorithms such as YOLOv3.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate a solution of embedding instance segmentation with semantic segmentation to improve time performance. Because in many situations, knowing the exact boundary of an object is not necessary.<br />
<br />
<br />
It will be better if we can have more comparisons with other models. It will also be nice if we can have more details about why Mask RCNN can perform better, and how about the efficiency of it?<br />
The authors mentioned that Mask R-CNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation. It's better to include more background information about this task. For example, challenges of this task (e.g. the model will need to take into account the overlapping of objects) and limitations of existing methods.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see how a postprocessing step with conditional random fields (CRF) might improve (or not?) segmentation. It would also have been interesting to see the performance of the method with lighter backbones since the backbones used to have a very large inference time which makes them unsuitable for many applications.<br />
<br />
An extension of the application of Mask RCNN in medical AI is to highlight areas of an MRI scan that correlate to certain behavioral/psychological patterns.<br />
<br />
The use of these in medical imaging systems seems rather useful, but it can also be extended to more general CCTV camera systems which can also detect physiological patterns.<br />
<br />
In the Human Pose Estimation section, we assume that Mask RCNN does not have any knowledge of human poses, and all the predictions are based on keypoints on human bodies, for example, left shoulder and right elbow. While in fact we may be able to achieve better performances here because currently this approach is strongly dependent on correct classifications of human body parts. That is, if the model messed up the position of left shoulder, the position estimation will be awful. It is important to remove the dependency on preceding predictions, so that even when previous steps fail, we may still expect a fair performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if applying dropout can boost this Mask RCNN architecture's performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting if mask RCNN is applied to human faces and how it classify each individual also would be nice to see how the technical calculations such as classification and predictions are done.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to know how the RCNN model will perform on unbalanced data and how the performance compares with other models in this circumstances.<br />
<br />
The authors omitted the details of the training and the computational cost of training the model. Since RCNN combines stages 3 and 4 (SVM to categorize and bounding box regression), how does this affect the computational cost of the model? Similar architectures to the RCNN have long training times so it is of interest to know the computational runtime of this model in comparison to other models.<br />
<br />
It's amazing what these researchers were able to achieve with adding minimal overhead, and how well it generalizes using two completely different datasets. For the future work it would be nice to see if the model is able to also predict the distance between the objects that overlap in an image, without adding any further significant overhead. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it would be nice to see how well the model is able to predict collision detection between the objects given that it is currently at 5 frames-per-second (which is still really impressive, it just would be interesting to see how much would be possible)<br />
<br />
== Interesting Directions ==<br />
<br />
There is recent work on ResNeSt: Split-Attention Networks (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08955), which uses an explicit soft attention mechanism over channels within a ResNeXt style architecture which shows improvements to classification. It would be interesting to use this backbone with Mask R-CNN and see if the attention helps capture longer range dependencies and thus produce better segmentations.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.<br />
<br />
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks, arXiv:1506.01497, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312, 2015</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Mask_RCNN&diff=49556Mask RCNN2020-12-06T21:55:52Z<p>Y52wen: /* Related Work */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Qing Guo, Xueguang Ma, James Ni, Yuanxin Wang<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Mask RCNN [1] is a deep neural network architecture that aims to solve instance segmentation problems in computer vision which is important when attempting to identify different objects within the same image.It combines elements from classical computer vision of object detection and semantic segmentation. RCNN base architectures first extract a regional proposal (a region of the image where the object of interest is proposed to lie) and then attempts to classify the object within it. <br />
Mask R-CNN extends Faster R-CNN [2] by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. This is done by using a Fully Convolutional Network as each mask branch in a pixel-by-pixel way. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps. Moreover, Mask R-CNN is easy to generalize to other tasks, e.g., allowing us to estimate human poses in the same framework. Mask R-CNN achieved top results in all three tracks of the COCO suite of challenges [3], including instance segmentation, bounding-box object detection, and person keypoint detection.<br />
<br />
== Visual Perception Tasks == <br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows a visual representation of different types of visual perception tasks:<br />
<br />
- Image Classification: Predict a set of labels to characterize the contents of an input image<br />
<br />
- Object Detection: Build on image classification but localize each object in an image by placing bounding boxes around the objects<br />
<br />
- Semantic Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image with a class label<br />
<br />
- Instance Segmentation: Associate every pixel in an input image to a specific object. Instance segmentation combines image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation making it a complex task [1].<br />
<br />
[[File:instance segmentation.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Visual Perception tasks</div><br />
<br />
<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation.<br />
<br />
== Related Architecture to Mask RCNN == <br />
Region Proposal Network: A Region Proposal Network (RPN) proposes candidate object bounding boxes, which is essentially an object detection technique. It takes an image (of any size) as input and outputs a set of rectangular object boxes, each with an objectness score.<br />
<br />
ROI Pooling: The main use of ROI (Region of Interest) Pooling is to adjust the proposal to a uniform size. It’s better for the subsequent network to process. It maps the proposal to the corresponding position of the feature map, divide the mapped area into sections of the same size, and performs max pooling or average pooling operations on each section.<br />
<br />
Faster R-CNN: Faster R-CNN consists of two stages: Region Proposal Network and ROI Pooling. Region Proposal Network proposes candidate object bounding boxes. ROI Pooling, which is in essence Fast R-CNN, extracts features using RoIPool from each candidate box and performs classification and bounding-box regression. The features used by both stages can be shared for faster inference.<br />
<br />
[[File:FasterRCNN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 2: Faster RCNN architecture</div><br />
<br />
<br />
ResNet-FPN: FPN uses a top-down architecture with lateral connections to build an in-network feature pyramid from a single-scale input. FPN is a general architecture that can be used in conjunction with various networks, such as VGG, ResNet, etc. Faster R-CNN with an FPN backbone extracts RoI features from different levels of the feature pyramid according to their scale. Other than FPN, the rest of the approach is similar to vanilla ResNet. Using a ResNet-FPN backbone for feature extraction with Mask RCNN gives excellent gains in both accuracy and speed.<br />
<br />
[[File:ResNetFPN.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 3: ResNetFPN architecture</div><br />
<br />
== Model Architecture == <br />
The structure of mask R-CNN is quite similar to the structure of faster R-CNN. <br />
Faster R-CNN has two stages, the RPN(Region Proposal Network) first proposes candidate object bounding boxes. Then RoIPool extracts the features from these boxes. After the features are extracted, these features data can be analyzed using classification and bounding-box regression. Mask R-CNN shares the identical first stage. But the second stage is adjusted to tackle the issue of simplifying the stages pipeline. Instead of only performing classification and bounding-box regression, it also outputs a binary mask for each RoI as <math>L=L_{cls}+L_{box}+L_{mask}</math>, where <math>L_{cls}</math>, <math>L_{box}</math>, <math>L_{mask}</math> represent the classification loss, bounding box loss and the average binary cross-entropy loss respectively.<br />
<br />
The important concept here is that, for most recent network systems, there's a certain order to follow when performing classification and regression, because classification depends on mask predictions. Mask R-CNN, on the other hand, applies bounding-box classification and regression in parallel, which effectively simplifies the multi-stage pipeline of the original R-CNN. And just for comparison, complete R-CNN pipeline stages involve 1. Make region proposals; 2. Feature extraction from region proposals; 3. SVM for object classification; 4. Bounding box regression. In conclusion, stages 3 and 4 are adjusted to simplify the network procedures.<br />
<br />
The system follows the multi-task loss, which by formula equals classification loss plus bounding-box loss plus the average binary cross-entropy loss.<br />
One thing worth noticing is that for other network systems, those masks across classes compete with each other. However, in this particular case with a <br />
per-pixel sigmoid and a binary loss the masks across classes no longer compete, it makes this formula the key for good instance segmentation results.<br />
<br />
'' RoIAlign''<br />
<br />
This concept is useful in stage 2 where the RoIPool extracts features from bounding-boxes. For each RoI as input, there will be a mask and a feature map as output. The mask is obtained using the FCN(Fully Convolutional Network) and the feature map is obtained using the RoIPool. The mask helps with spatial layout, which is crucial to the pixel-to-pixel correspondence. <br />
<br />
The two things we desire along the procedure are: pixel-to-pixel correspondence; no quantization is performed on any coordinates involved in the RoI, its bins, or the sampling points. Pixel-to-pixel correspondence makes sure that the input and output match in size. If there is a size difference, there will be information loss, and coordinates cannot be matched. <br />
<br />
RoIPool is standard for extracting a small feature map from each RoI. However, it performs quantization before subdividing into spatial bins which are further quantized. Quantization produces misalignments when it comes to predicting pixel accurate masks. Therefore, instead of quantization, the coordinates are computed using bilinear interpolation They use bilinear interpolation to get the exact values of the inputs features at the 4 RoI bins and aggregate the result (using max or average). These results are robust to the sampling location and number of points and to guarantee spatial correspondence.<br />
<br />
The network architectures utilized are called ResNet and ResNeXt. The depth can be either 50 or 101. ResNet-FPN(Feature Pyramid Network) is used for feature extraction. <br />
<br />
Some implementation details should be mentioned: first, an RoI is considered positive if it has IoU with a ground-truth box of at least 0.5 and negative otherwise. It is important because the mask loss Lmask is defined only on positive RoIs. Second, image-centric training is used to rescale images so that pixel correspondence is achieved. An example complete structure is, the proposal number is 1000 for FPN, and then run the box prediction branch on these proposals. The mask branch is then applied to the highest scoring 100 detection boxes. The mask branch can predict K masks per RoI, but only the kth mask will be used, where k is the predicted class by the classification branch. The m-by-m floating-number mask output is then resized to the RoI size and binarized at a threshold of 0.5.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
[[File:ExpInstanceSeg.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 4: Instance Segmentation Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Instance Segmentation: Based on COCO dataset, Mask R-CNN outperforms all categories comparing to MNC and FCIS which are state of the art model <br />
<br />
[[File:BoundingBoxExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 5: Bounding Box Detection Experiments</div><br />
<br />
Bounding Box Detection: Mask R-CNN outperforms the base variants of all previous state-of-the-art models, including the winner of the COCO 2016 Detection Challenge.<br />
<br />
== Ablation Experiments ==<br />
[[File:BackboneExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 6: Backbone Architecture Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(a) Backbone Architecture: Better backbones bring expected gains: deeper networks do better, FPN outperforms C4 features, and ResNeXt improves on ResNet. <br />
<br />
[[File:MultiVSInde.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 7: Multinomial vs. Independent Masks Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(b) Multinomial vs. Independent Masks (ResNet-50-C4): Decoupling via perclass binary masks (sigmoid) gives large gains over multinomial masks (softmax).<br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlign.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 8: RoIAlign Experiments 1</div><br />
<br />
(c) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C4): Mask results with various RoI layers. Our RoIAlign layer improves AP by ∼3 points and AP75 by ∼5 points. Using proper alignment is the only factor that contributes to the large gap between RoI layers. <br />
<br />
[[File: RoIAlignExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 9: RoIAlign Experiments w Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(d) RoIAlign (ResNet-50-C5, stride 32): Mask-level and box-level AP using large-stride features. Misalignments are more severe than with stride-16 features, resulting in big accuracy gaps.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskBranchExp.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 10: Mask Branch Experiments</div><br />
<br />
(e) Mask Branch (ResNet-50-FPN): Fully convolutional networks (FCN) vs. multi-layer perceptrons (MLP, fully-connected) for mask prediction. FCNs improve results as they take advantage of explicitly encoding spatial layout.<br />
<br />
== Human Pose Estimation ==<br />
Mask RCNN can be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
<br />
The simple approach the paper presents is to model a keypoint’s location as a one-hot mask, and adopt Mask R-CNN to predict K masks, one for each of K keypoint types such as left shoulder, right elbow. The model has minimal knowledge of human pose and this example illustrates the generality of the model.<br />
<br />
[[File:HumanPose.png | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Figure 11: Keypoint Detection Results</div><br />
<br />
== Experiments on Cityscapes ==<br />
The model was also tested on Cityscapes dataset. From this dataset the authors used 2975 annotated images for training, 500 for validation, and 1525 for testing. The instance segmentation task involved eight categories: person, rider, car, truck, bus, train, motorcycle and bicycle. When the Mask R-CNN model was applied to the data it achieved 26.2 AP on the testing data which was an over 30% improvement on the previous best entry. <br />
<br />
<center><br />
[[ File:cityscapeDataset.png ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 12. Cityscapes Results<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
Mask RCNN is a deep neural network aimed to solve the instance segmentation problems in machine learning or computer vision. Mask R-CNN is a conceptually simple, flexible, and general framework for object instance segmentation. It can efficiently detect objects in an image while simultaneously generating a high-quality segmentation mask for each instance. It does object detection and instance segmentation, and can also be extended to human pose estimation.<br />
It extends Faster R-CNN by adding a branch for predicting an object mask in parallel with the existing branch for bounding box recognition. Mask R-CNN is simple to train and adds only a small overhead to Faster R-CNN, running at 5 fps.<br />
<br />
== Critiques ==<br />
In Faster RCNN, the ROI boundary is quantized. However, mask RCNN avoids quantization and used the bilinear interpolation to compute exact values of features. By solving the misalignments due to quantization, the number and location of sampling points have no impact on the result.<br />
<br />
It may be better to compare the proposed model with other NN models or even non-NN methods like spectral clustering. Also, the applications can be further discussed like geometric mesh processing and motion analysis.<br />
<br />
The paper lacks the comparisons of different methods and Mask RNN on unlabeled data, as the paper only briefly mentioned that the authors found out that Mask R_CNN can benefit from extra data, even if the data is unlabelled.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN has many practical applications as well. A particular example, where Mask RCNNs are applied would be in autonomous vehicles. Namely, it would be able to help with isolating pedestrians, other vehicles, lights, etc.<br />
<br />
The Mask RCNN could be a candidate model to do short-term predictions on the physical behaviors of a person, which could be very useful at crime scenes.<br />
<br />
For the most part, instance segmentation is now quite achievable, and it’s time to start thinking about innovative ways of using this idea of doing computer vision algorithms at a pixel by pixel level such as the DensePose algorithm. <br />
<br />
An interesting application of Mask RCNN would be on face recognition from CCTVs. Flurry pictures of crowded people could be obtained from CCTV, so that mask RCNN can be applied to distinguish each person.<br />
<br />
The main problem for CNN architectures like Mask RCNN is the running time. Due to slow running times, Single Shot Detector algorithms are preferred for applications like video or live stream detections, where a faster running time would mean a better response to changes in frames. It would be beneficial to have a graphical representation of the Mask RCNN running times against single shot detector algorithms such as YOLOv3.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate a solution of embedding instance segmentation with semantic segmentation to improve time performance. Because in many situations, knowing the exact boundary of an object is not necessary.<br />
<br />
<br />
It will be better if we can have more comparisons with other models. It will also be nice if we can have more details about why Mask RCNN can perform better, and how about the efficiency of it?<br />
The authors mentioned that Mask R-CNN is a deep neural network architecture for Instance Segmentation. It's better to include more background information about this task. For example, challenges of this task (e.g. the model will need to take into account the overlapping of objects) and limitations of existing methods.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see how a postprocessing step with conditional random fields (CRF) might improve (or not?) segmentation. It would also have been interesting to see the performance of the method with lighter backbones since the backbones used to have a very large inference time which makes them unsuitable for many applications.<br />
<br />
An extension of the application of Mask RCNN in medical AI is to highlight areas of an MRI scan that correlate to certain behavioral/psychological patterns.<br />
<br />
The use of these in medical imaging systems seems rather useful, but it can also be extended to more general CCTV camera systems which can also detect physiological patterns.<br />
<br />
In the Human Pose Estimation section, we assume that Mask RCNN does not have any knowledge of human poses, and all the predictions are based on keypoints on human bodies, for example, left shoulder and right elbow. While in fact we may be able to achieve better performances here because currently this approach is strongly dependent on correct classifications of human body parts. That is, if the model messed up the position of left shoulder, the position estimation will be awful. It is important to remove the dependency on preceding predictions, so that even when previous steps fail, we may still expect a fair performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if applying dropout can boost this Mask RCNN architecture's performance.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting if mask RCNN is applied to human faces and how it classify each individual also would be nice to see how the technical calculations such as classification and predictions are done.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to know how the RCNN model will perform on unbalanced data and how the performance compares with other models in this circumstances.<br />
<br />
The authors omitted the details of the training and the computational cost of training the model. Since RCNN combines stages 3 and 4 (SVM to categorize and bounding box regression), how does this affect the computational cost of the model? Similar architectures to the RCNN have long training times so it is of interest to know the computational runtime of this model in comparison to other models.<br />
<br />
It's amazing what these researchers were able to achieve with adding minimal overhead, and how well it generalizes using two completely different datasets. For the future work it would be nice to see if the model is able to also predict the distance between the objects that overlap in an image, without adding any further significant overhead. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it would be nice to see how well the model is able to predict collision detection between the objects given that it is currently at 5 frames-per-second (which is still really impressive, it just would be interesting to see how much would be possible)<br />
<br />
== Interesting Directions ==<br />
<br />
There is recent work on ResNeSt: Split-Attention Networks (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08955), which uses an explicit soft attention mechanism over channels within a ResNeXt style architecture which shows improvements to classification. It would be interesting to use this backbone with Mask R-CNN and see if the attention helps capture longer range dependencies and thus produce better segmentations.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.<br />
<br />
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks, arXiv:1506.01497, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312, 2015</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49539Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:28:44Z<p>Y52wen: /* Reconstruction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, regularization term can be added to avoid the issue of singularity and increase the robustness of the reconstruction:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
<math>l_2</math> regularization is the most commonly used to reduce overfitting for regression, and it is called ridge regression which has a close-form solution where <math>W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX</math>. However, this objective function with <math>l_2</math> regulairzation does not provide a sparse result. With the goal of increaseing computational efficieny, we follow the literature and adopt the <math>l_1</math> regularization instead:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}||, \textbf{W}\geq 0<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Generally, the larger the value of <math>\rho_1</math>, the more sparse the weight matrix <math>\textbf{W}</math> is.The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49538Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:28:15Z<p>Y52wen: /* Reconstruction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, regularization term can be added to avoid the issue of singularity and increase the robustness of the reconstruction:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
<math>l_2</math> regularization is the most commonly used to reduce overfitting for regression, and it is called ridge regression which has a close-form solution where <math>W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX</math>. However, this objective function with <math>l_2</math> regulairzation does not provide a sparse result. With the goal of increaseing computational efficieny, we Follow the literature and adopt <math>l_1</math> regularization instead:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}||, \textbf{W}\geq 0<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Generally, the larger the value of <math>\rho_1</math>, the more sparse the weight matrix <math>\textbf{W}</math> is.The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49537Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:27:57Z<p>Y52wen: /* Reconstruction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, regularization term can be added to avoid the issue of singularity and increase the robustness of the reconstruction:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
<math>l_2</math> regularization is the most commonly used to reduce overfitting for regression, and it is called ridge regression which has a close solution where <math>W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX</math>. However, this objective function with <math>l_2</math> regulairzation does not provide a sparse result. With the goal of increaseing computational efficieny, we Follow the literature and adopt <math>l_1</math> regularization instead:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}||, \textbf{W}\geq 0<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Generally, the larger the value of <math>\rho_1</math>, the more sparse the weight matrix <math>\textbf{W}</math> is.The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49530Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:23:35Z<p>Y52wen: /* Reconstruction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, regularization term can be added to avoid the issue of singularity and increase the robustness of the reconstruction.<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
<math>l_2</math> regularization is the most commonly used to reduce overfitting for regression, and it is also called ridge regression which has a close solution where <math>W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX</math>. However, this objective function with $l_2$ regulairzation does not provide a sparse result. Following the literature, we adopt $l_1$ regularization instead. <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49529Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:22:58Z<p>Y52wen: /* Reconstruction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, regularization term can be added to avoid the issue of singularity and increase the robustness of the reconstruction.<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
<math>l_2</math> regularization is the most commonly used to reduce overfitting for regression, and it is also called ridge regression which has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$. However, this objective function with $l_2$ regulairzation does not provide a sparse result. Following the literature, we adopt $l_1$ regularization instead. <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49528Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:22:40Z<p>Y52wen: /* Reconstruction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, regularization term can be added to avoid the issue of singularity and increase the robustness of the reconstruction.<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
$l_2$ regularization is the most commonly used to reduce overfitting for regression, and it is also called ridge regression which has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$. However, this objective function with $l_2$ regulairzation does not provide a sparse result. Following the literature, we adopt $l_1$ regularization instead. <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49524Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:15:51Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critiques */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49523Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:14:00Z<p>Y52wen: /* Previous Work and Motivation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning an optimal-k-value for each test sample or scanning all training samples for finding nearest neighbors are time-consuming. It is challenging for simultaneously addressing these issues of kNN method including optimal-k-values learning for different samples, time cost reduction, and performance improvement.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be really helpful if kTrees method can be explained at the very beginning. The transition from KNN to kTrees is not very smooth.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49520Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:11:11Z<p>Y52wen: /* Motivation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning varied k values or scanning all training samples are time-consuming.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be really helpful if kTrees method can be explained at the very beginning. The transition from KNN to kTrees is not very smooth.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49518Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:10:50Z<p>Y52wen: /* Previous Work */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work and Motivation== <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning varied k values or scanning all training samples are time-consuming.<br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Motivation == <br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be really helpful if kTrees method can be explained at the very beginning. The transition from KNN to kTrees is not very smooth.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49517Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:09:35Z<p>Y52wen: /* Previous Work */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work == <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [9] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning varied k values or scanning all training samples are time-consuming.<br />
<br />
== Motivation == <br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be really helpful if kTrees method can be explained at the very beginning. The transition from KNN to kTrees is not very smooth.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49516Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:09:12Z<p>Y52wen: /* Previous Work */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work == <br />
<br />
The problem of finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Lall and Sharma [1] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involves selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning varied k values or scanning all training samples are time-consuming.<br />
<br />
== Motivation == <br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be really helpful if kTrees method can be explained at the very beginning. The transition from KNN to kTrees is not very smooth.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Efficient_kNN_Classification_with_Different_Numbers_of_Nearest_Neighbors&diff=49514Efficient kNN Classification with Different Numbers of Nearest Neighbors2020-12-06T21:05:35Z<p>Y52wen: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented by == <br />
Cooper Brooke, Daniel Fagan, Maya Perelman<br />
<br />
== Introduction == <br />
Traditional model-based approaches for classification problem requires to train a model on training observations before predicting test samples. In contrast, the model-free k-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs) method classifies observations with a majority rule approach, labeling each piece of test data based on its k closest training observations (neighbors). This method has become very popular due to its relatively robust performance given how simple it is to implement. It is robust because the predicted value is only depend on the label of the closest data and that is not significantly affected by outliers.<br />
<br />
There are two main approaches to conduct kNN classification in respect of the choice for k. The first is to use a fixed k value to classify all test samples, while the second is to use a different k value each time, either for different k values for each test sample or different k values for each class. The former, while easy to implement, has shown to be impractical in real-world machine learning applications. It is more reasonable and practical to select a unique value of k for each test sample to allow for a better fit of the data. Therefore, it is of immense interest to develope an efficient way to determine the optimal k value for each test sample. The authors of this paper presented the kTree and k*Tree methods to solve this research question.<br />
<br />
== Previous Work == <br />
<br />
Previous work on finding an optimal fixed k value for all test samples is well-studied. Zhang et al. [1] incorporated a certainty factor measure to solve for an optimal fixed k. This resulted in the conclusion that k should be <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (where n is the number of training samples) when n > 100. The method Song et al.[2] explored involved selecting a subset of the most informative samples from neighbourhoods. Vincent and Bengio [3] took the unique approach of designing a k-local hyperplane distance to solve for k. Premachandran and Kakarala [4] had the solution of selecting a robust k using the consensus of multiple rounds of kNNs. These fixed k methods are valuable however are impractical for data mining and machine learning applications. <br />
<br />
Finding an efficient approach to assigning varied k values has also been previously studied. Tuning approaches such as the ones taken by Zhu et al. as well as Sahugara et al. have been popular. Zhu et al. [5] determined that optimal k values should be chosen using cross validation while Sahugara et al. [6] proposed using Monte Carlo validation to select varied k parameters. Other learning approaches such as those taken by Zheng et al. and Góra and Wojna also show promise. Zheng et al. [7] applied a reconstruction framework to learn suitable k values. Góra and Wojna [8] proposed using rule induction and instance-based learning to learn optimal k-values for each test sample. While all these methods are valid, their processes of either learning varied k values or scanning all training samples are time-consuming.<br />
<br />
== Motivation == <br />
<br />
Due to the previously mentioned drawbacks of fixed-k and current varied-k kNN classification, the paper’s authors sought to design a new approach to solve for different k values. The kTree and k*Tree approach seek to calculate optimal values of k while avoiding computationally costly steps such as cross-validation.<br />
<br />
A secondary motivation of this research was to ensure that the kTree method would perform better than kNN using fixed values of k given that running costs would be similar in this instance.<br />
<br />
== Approach == <br />
<br />
<br />
=== kTree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed kTree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_1.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
==== Reconstruction ====<br />
<br />
The first step is to use the training samples to reconstruct themselves. The goal of this is to find the matrix of correlations between the training samples themselves, <math>\textbf{W}</math>, such that the distance between an individual training sample and the corresponding correlation vector multiplied by the entire training set is minimized. This least square loss function where <math>\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n} = [x_1,...,x_n]</math> represents the training set which can be written as:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
In addition, an <math>l_1</math> regularization term multiplied by a tuning parameter, <math>\rho_1</math>, is added to ensure that sparse results are generated as the objective is to minimize the number of training samples that will eventually be depended on by the test samples. <br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho||\textbf{W}||^2_2<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
This is called ridge regression and it has a close solution where $$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX$$<br />
<br />
However, this objective function does not provide a sparse result, there we further employe a sparse objective function: <br />
<br />
$$W = (X^TX+\rho I)^{-1}X^TX, W >= 0$$<br />
<br />
<br />
The least square loss function is then further modified to account for samples that have similar values for certain features yielding similar results. It is penalized with the function: <br />
<br />
$$\frac{1}{2} \sum^{d}_{i,j} ||x^iW-x^jW||^2_2$$<br />
<br />
with sij denotes the relation between feature vectors. It uses a radial basis function kernel to calculate Sij. After some transformations, this second regularization term that has tuning parameter <math>\rho_2</math> is:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
R(W) = Tr(\textbf{W}^T \textbf{X}^T \textbf{LXW})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathbf{L}</math> is a Laplacian matrix that indicates the relationship between features. The Laplacian matrix, also called the graph Laplacian, is a matrix representation of a graph. <br />
<br />
This gives a final objective function of:<br />
<br />
$$\begin{aligned}<br />
\mathop{min}_{\textbf{W}} \sum_{i=1}^n ||Xw_i - x_i||^2 + \rho_1||\textbf{W}|| + \rho_2R(\textbf{W})<br />
\end{aligned}$$<br />
<br />
Since this is a convex function, an iterative method can be used to find the optimal solution <math>\mathbf{W^*}</math>.<br />
<br />
==== Calculate ''k'' for training set ====<br />
<br />
Each element <math>w_{ij}</math> in <math>\textbf{W*}</math> represents the correlation between the ith and jth training sample so if a value is 0, it can be concluded that the jth training sample has no effect on the ith training sample which means that it should not be used in the prediction of the ith training sample. Consequently, all non-zero values in the <math>w_{.j}</math> vector would be useful in predicting the ith training sample which gives the result that the number of these non-zero elements for each sample is equal to the optimal ''k'' value for each sample.<br />
<br />
For example, if there was a 4x4 training set where <math>\textbf{W*}</math> had the form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_2.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' value for training sample 1 would be 2 since the correlation between training sample 1 and both training samples 2 and 4 are non-zero.<br />
<br />
==== Train a Decision Tree using ''k'' as the label ====<br />
<br />
A decision tree is trained using the traditional ID3 method;<br />
(1) calculate the entropy of every feature in your data set,<br />
(2) split the data-set based on the feature whose entropy is minimized after splitting (in the example below, this was feature a'),<br />
(3) make a decision tree node based on that feature,<br />
(4) repeat steps (1)-(3) recursively on the formed subsets using the remaining features, <br />
replacing the label by the previously learned optimal ''k'' value for each sample. More specifically, whereas in a normal decision tree, the target data are the labels themselves, in the kTree method, the target data is the optimal ''k'' value for each sample that was solved for in the previous step. As a result, the decision tree formed by the kTree method has the following form:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_3.png | center | 300x300px]]<br />
<br />
==== Making Predictions for Test Data ====<br />
<br />
The optimal ''k'' values for each testing sample are easily obtainable using the kTree solved for in the previous step. The only remaining step is to predict the labels of the testing samples by finding the majority class of the optimal ''k'' nearest neighbors across '''all''' of the training data.<br />
<br />
=== k*Tree Classification ===<br />
<br />
The proposed k*Tree method is illustrated by the following flow chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_4.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
Clearly, this is a very similar approach to the kTree as the k*Tree method attempts to sacrifice very little in predictive power in return for a substantial decrease in complexity when actually implementing the traditional kNN on the testing data once the optimal ''k'' values have been found.<br />
<br />
While all steps previous are the exact same, the difference comes from additional data stored in the leaf nodes. k*Tree method not only stores the optimal ''k'' value but also the following information:<br />
<br />
* The training samples that have the same optimal ''k''<br />
* The ''k'' nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples<br />
* The nearest neighbor of each of the previously identified ''k'' nearest neighbours<br />
<br />
The data stored in each node is summarized in the following figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Approach_Figure_5.png | center | 800x800px]]<br />
<br />
When testing, the constructed k*Tree is searched for its optimal k values well as its nearest neighbours in the leaf node. It then selects a number of its nearest neighbours from the subset of training samples and assigns the test sample with the majority label of these nearest neighbours.<br />
<br />
In the kTree method, predictions were made based on all of the training data, whereas in the k*Tree method, predicting the test labels will only be done using the samples stored in the applicable node of the tree.<br />
<br />
== Experiments == <br />
<br />
In order to assess the performance of the proposed method against existing methods, a number of experiments were performed to measure classification accuracy and run time. The experiments were run on twenty public datasets provided by the UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data, and contained a mix of data types varying in size, in dimensionality, in the number of classes, and in imbalanced nature of the data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to measure classification accuracy, and the following methods were compared against:<br />
<br />
# k-Nearest Neighbor: The classical kNN approach with k set to k=1,5,10,20 and square root of the sample size [9]; the best result was reported.<br />
# kNN-Based Applicability Domain Approach (AD-kNN) [11]<br />
# kNN Method Based on Sparse Learning (S-kNN) [10]<br />
# kNN Based on Graph Sparse Reconstruction (GS-kNN) [7]<br />
# Filtered Attribute Subspace-based Bagging with Injected Randomness (FASBIR) [12], [13]<br />
# Landmark-based Spectral Clustering kNN (LC-kNN) [14]<br />
<br />
The experimental results were then assessed based on classification tasks that focused on different sample sizes, and tasks that focused on different numbers of features. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''A. Experimental Results on Different Sample Sizes'''<br />
<br />
The running cost and (cross-validation) classification accuracy based on experiments on ten UCI datasets can be seen in Table I below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table_I_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
The following key results are noted:<br />
* Regarding classification accuracy, the proposed methods (kTree and k*Tree) outperformed kNN, AD-KNN, FASBIR, and LC-kNN on all datasets by 1.5%-4.5%, but had no notable improvements compared to GS-kNN and S-kNN.<br />
* Classification methods which involved learning optimal k-values (for example the proposed kTree and k*Tree methods, or S-kNN, GS-kNN, AD-kNN) outperformed the methods with predefined k-values, such as traditional kNN.<br />
* The proposed k*Tree method had the lowest running cost of all methods. However, the k*Tree method was still outperformed in terms of classification accuracy by GS-kNN and S-kNN, but ran on average 15 000 times faster than either method. In addition, the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''B. Experimental Results on Different Feature Numbers'''<br />
<br />
The goal of this section was to evaluate the robustness of all methods under differing numbers of features; results can be seen in Table II below. The Fisher score, an algorithm that solves maximum likelihood equations numerically [15], was used to rank and select the most information features in the datasets. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table_II_kNN.png | center | 1000x1000px]]<br />
<br />
From Table II, the proposed kTree and k*Tree approaches outperformed kNN, AD-kNN, FASBIR and LC-KNN when tested for varying feature numbers. The S-kNN and GS-kNN approaches remained the best in terms of classification accuracy, but were greatly outperformed in terms of running cost by k*Tree. The cause for this is that k*Tree only scans a subsample of the training samples for kNN classification, while S-kNN and GS-kNN scan all training samples.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
This paper introduced two novel approaches for kNN classification algorithms that can determine optimal k-values for each test sample. The proposed kTree and k*Tree methods can classify the test samples efficiently and effectively, by designing a training step that reduces the run time of the test stage and thus enhances the performance. Based on the experimental results for varying sample sizes and differing feature numbers, it was observed that the proposed methods outperformed existing ones in terms of running cost while still achieving similar or better classification accuracies. Future areas of investigation could focus on the improvement of kTree and k*Tree for high-dimensional data.<br />
<br />
== Critiques == <br />
<br />
*The paper only assessed classification accuracy through cross-validation accuracy. However, it would be interesting to investigate how the proposed methods perform using different metrics, such as AUC, precision-recall curves, or in terms of holdout test data set accuracy. <br />
* The authors addressed that some of the UCI datasets contained imbalanced data (such as the Climate and German data sets) while others did not. However, the nature of the class imbalance was not extreme, and the effect of imbalanced data on algorithm performance was not discussed or assessed. Moreover, it would have been interesting to see how the proposed algorithms performed on highly imbalanced datasets in conjunction with common techniques to address imbalance (e.g. oversampling, undersampling, etc.). <br />
*While the authors contrast their kTree and k*Tree approach with different kNN methods, the paper could contrast their results with more of the approaches discussed in the Related Work section of their paper. For example, it would be interesting to see how the kTree and k*Tree results compared to Góra and Wojna varied optimal k method.<br />
<br />
* The paper conducted an experiment on kNN, AD-kNN, S-kNN, GS-kNN,FASBIR and LC-kNN with different sample sizes and feature numbers. It would be interesting to discuss why the running cost of FASBIR is between that of kTree and k*Tree in figure 21.<br />
<br />
* A different [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012133/pdf paper] also discusses optimizing the K value for the kNN algorithm in clustering. However, this paper suggests using the expectation-maximization algorithm as a means of finding the optimal k value.<br />
<br />
* It would be really helpful if kTrees method can be explained at the very beginning. The transition from KNN to kTrees is not very smooth.<br />
<br />
* It would be nice to have a comparison of the running costs of different methods to see how much faster kTree and k*Tree performed<br />
<br />
* It would be better to show the key result only on a summary rather than stacking up all results without screening.<br />
<br />
* In the results section, it was mentioned that in the experiment on data sets with different numbers of features, the kTree and k*Tree model did not achieve GS-kNN or S-kNN's accuracies, but was faster in terms of running cost. It might be helpful here if the authors add some more supporting arguments about the benefit of this tradeoff, which appears to be a minor decrease in accuracy for a large improvement in speed. This could further showcase the advantages of the kTree and k*Tree models. More quantitative analysis or real-life scenario examples could be some choices here.<br />
<br />
* An interesting thing to notice while solving for the optimal matrix <math>W^*</math> that minimizes the loss function is that <math>W^*</math> is not necessarily a symmetric matrix. That is, the correlation between the <math>i^{th}</math> entry and the <math>j^{th}</math> entry is different from that between the <math>j^{th}</math> entry and the <math>i^{th}</math> entry, which makes the resulting W* not really semantically meaningful. Therefore, it would be interesting if we may set a threshold on the allowing difference between the <math>ij^{th}</math> entry and the <math>ji^{th}</math> entry in <math>W^*</math> and see if this new configuration will give better or worse results compared to current ones, which will provide better insights of the algorithm.<br />
<br />
* It would be interesting to see how the proposed model works with highly non-linear datasets. In the event it does not work well, it would pose the question: would replacing the k*Tree with a SVM or a neural network improve the accuracy? There could be experiments to show if this variant would prove superior over the original models.<br />
<br />
* The key results are a little misleading - for example they claim "the kTree had the highest accuracy and it's running cost was lower than any other methods except the k*Tree method" is false. The kTree method had slightly lower accuracy than both GS-kNN and S-kNN and kTree was also slower than LC-kNN<br />
<br />
* I want to point to the discussion on k*Tree's structure. In order for k*Tree to work effectively, its leaf nodes needs to store additional information. In addition to the optimal k value, it also needs to store things like the training samples that have the optimal k, and the k nearest neighbours of the previously identified training samples. How big of am impact does this structure have on storage cost? Since the number of leaf nodes can be large, the storage cost may be large as well. This can potentially make k*tree ineffective to use in practice, especially for very large datasets.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author can explain more on KTree method and the similarity of KTree method and KNN method.<br />
<br />
* Even though we are given a table with averages on the accuracy and mean running cost, it would have been nice to see a direct visual comparison in the figures followed below. In addition to comparing to other algorithms, it would be helpful to see the average expected cost of these algorithms to show as control or rather a standard to accuracy and compute cost to assess the overall general expected cost of running such classification algorithm to fully assess its efficacy.<br />
<br />
* It doesn't clearly mention what's the definition/similarity/difference between Ktree and KNN methods. If the authors could put some detailed explanations in the beginning, the flow of this paper would have been much better.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to know if the paper indicates the performance difference between small and large dataset. Would the performance increase be negligible in small features datasets?<br />
<br />
* It would be more clear if the experiment connect with the approach part tightly, like even just mention how to apply the approach to get these results.<br />
<br />
* It would be better if the author had provided several paragraphs discussing the complexity of these models. It seems like the highlight of kTree is that it offers similar performance at a significantly lower cost.<br />
<br />
== References == <br />
<br />
[1] C. Zhang, Y. Qin, X. Zhu, and J. Zhang, “Clustering-based missing value imputation for data preprocessing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf., Aug. 2006, pp. 1081–1086.<br />
<br />
[2] Y. Song, J. Huang, D. Zhou, H. Zha, and C. L. Giles, “IKNN: Informative K-nearest neighbor pattern classification,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 248–264.<br />
<br />
[3] P. Vincent and Y. Bengio, “K-local hyperplane and convex distance nearest neighbor algorithms,” in Proc. NIPS, 2001, pp. 985–992.<br />
<br />
[4] V. Premachandran and R. Kakarala, “Consensus of k-NNs for robust neighborhood selection on graph-based manifolds,” in Proc. CVPR, Jun. 2013, pp. 1594–1601.<br />
<br />
[5] X. Zhu, S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Missing value estimation for mixed-attribute data sets,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 110–121, Jan. 2011.<br />
<br />
[6] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013.<br />
<br />
[7] S. Zhang, M. Zong, K. Sun, Y. Liu, and D. Cheng, “Efficient kNN algorithm based on graph sparse reconstruction,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 356–369.<br />
<br />
[8] X. Zhu, L. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “A sparse embedding and least variance encoding approach to hashing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3737–3750, Sep. 2014.<br />
<br />
[9] U. Lall and A. Sharma, “A nearest neighbor bootstrap for resampling hydrologic time series,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 1996.<br />
<br />
[10] D. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Deng, Y. Zhu, and M. Zong, “KNN algorithm with data-driven k value,” in Proc. ADMA, 2014, pp. 499–512.<br />
<br />
[11] F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, “Assessing the validity of QSARS for ready biodegradability of chemicals: An applicability domain perspective,” Current Comput.-Aided Drug Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 2013. <br />
<br />
[12] Z. H. Zhou and Y. Yu, “Ensembling local learners throughmultimodal perturbation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, B, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 725–735, Apr. 2005.<br />
<br />
[13] Z. H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 2012.<br />
<br />
[14] Z. Deng, X. Zhu, D. Cheng, M. Zong, and S. Zhang, “Efficient kNN classification algorithm for big data,” Neurocomputing, vol. 195, pp. 143–148, Jun. 2016.<br />
<br />
[15] K. Tsuda, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Müller, “Clustering with the fisher score,” in Proc. NIPS, 2002, pp. 729–736.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability&diff=49498Being Bayesian about Categorical Probability2020-12-06T20:48:38Z<p>Y52wen: /* Classification With a Neural Network */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented By ==<br />
Evan Li, Jason Pu, Karam Abuaisha, Nicholas Vadivelu<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Since the outputs of neural networks are not probabilities, Softmax (Bridle, 1990) is a staple for neural network’s performing classification--it exponentiates each logit then normalizes by the sum, giving a distribution over the target classes. Logit is a raw output/prediction of the model which is hard for humans to interpret, thus we transform/normalize these raw values into categories or meaningful numbers for interpretability. However, networks with softmax outputs give no information about uncertainty (Blundell et al., 2015; Gal & Ghahramani, 2016), and the resulting distribution over classes is poorly calibrated (Guo et al., 2017), often giving overconfident predictions even when the classification is wrong. In addition, softmax also raises concerns about overfitting NNs due to its confident predictive behaviors (Xie et al., 2016; Pereyra et al., 2017). To achieve performance with better generalization, some more effective regularization techniques might be required. <br />
<br />
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs; MacKay, 1992) can alleviate these issues, but the resulting posteriors over the parameters are often intractable. Approximations such as variational inference (Graves, 2011; Blundell et al., 2015) and Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) can still be expensive or give poor estimates for the posteriors. This work proposes a Bayesian treatment of the output logits of the neural network, treating the targets as a categorical random variable instead of a fixed label. This technique gives a computationally cheap way of being Bayesian to get well-calibrated uncertainty estimates on neural network classifications.<br />
<br />
== Related Work ==<br />
<br />
Using Bayesian Neural Networks is the dominant way of applying Bayesian techniques to neural networks. Many techniques have been developed to make posterior approximation more accurate and scalable, despite these, BNNs do not scale to the state of the art techniques or large data sets. There are techniques to explicitly avoid modeling the full weight posterior that are more scalable, such as with Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) or tracking mean/covariance of the posterior during training (Mandt et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Maddox et al., 2019; Osawa et al., 2019). Non-Bayesian uncertainty estimation techniques such as deep ensembles (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017) and temperature scaling (Guo et al., 2017; Neumann et al., 2018).<br />
<br />
== Preliminaries ==<br />
=== Definitions ===<br />
Let's formalize our classification problem and define some notations for the rest of this summary:<br />
<br />
::Dataset:<br />
$$ \mathcal D = \{(x_i,y_i)\} \in (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)^N $$<br />
::General classification model<br />
$$ f^W: \mathcal X \to \mathbb R^K $$<br />
::Softmax function: <br />
$$ \phi(x): \mathbb R^K \to [0,1]^K \;\;|\;\; \phi_k(X) = \frac{\exp(f_k^W(x))}{\sum_{k \in K} \exp(f_k^W(x))} $$<br />
::Softmax activated NN:<br />
$$ \phi \;\circ\; f^W: \chi \to \Delta^{K-1} $$<br />
::NN as a true classifier:<br />
$$ arg\max_i \;\circ\; \phi_i \;\circ\; f^W \;:\; \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y $$<br />
<br />
We'll also define the '''count function''' - a <math>K</math>-vector valued function that outputs the occurences of each class coincident with <math>x</math>:<br />
$$ c^{\mathcal D}(x) = \sum_{(x',y') \in \mathcal D} \mathbb y' I(x' = x) $$<br />
<br />
=== Classification With a Neural Network ===<br />
A typical loss function used in classification is cross-entropy, which is defined by<br />
<br />
$$ l_{\rm CE}(\tilde{y},\phi(f^{W}(x)))=-\sum_k \tilde{y_k} \log \phi_k(f^{W}(x))) $$<br />
<br />
,here <math>y_k</math> and <math>\phi_k</math> refers to the actual and predicted categorical distribution for each class. It's well known that optimizing <math>f^W</math> for <math>l_{CE}</math> is equivalent to optimizing for <math>l_{KL}</math>, the <math>KL</math> divergence between the true distribution and the distribution modeled by NN, that is:<br />
$$ l_{KL}(W) = KL(\text{true distribution} \;|\; \text{distribution encoded by }NN(W)) $$<br />
Let's introduce notations for the underlying (true) distributions of our problem. Let <math>(x_0,y_0) \sim (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)</math>:<br />
$$ \text{Full Distribution} = F(x,y) = P(x_0 = x,y_0 = y) $$<br />
$$ \text{Marginal Distribution} = P(x) = F(x_0 = x) $$<br />
$$ \text{Point Class Distribution} = P(y_0 = y \;|\; x_0 = x) = F_x(y) $$<br />
Then we have the following factorization:<br />
$$ F(x,y) = P(x,y) = P(y|x)P(x) = F_x(y)F(x) $$<br />
Substitute this into the definition of KL divergence:<br />
$$ = \sum_{(x,y) \in \mathcal X \times \mathcal Y} F(x,y) \log\left(\frac{F(x,y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))}\right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F(y|x) \log\left( \frac{F(y|x)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F_x(y) \log\left( \frac{F_x(y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) KL(F_x \;||\; \phi\left( f^W(x) \right)) $$<br />
As usual, we don't have an analytic form for <math>l</math> (if we did, this would imply we know <math>F_X</math> meaning we knew the distribution in the first place). Instead, estimate from <math>\mathcal D</math>:<br />
$$ F(x) \approx \hat F(x) = \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} $$<br />
$$ F_x(y) \approx \hat F_x(y) = \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{|| c^{\mathcal D}(x) ||_1}$$<br />
$$ \to l_{KL}(W) = \sum_{x \in \mathcal D} \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} KL \left( \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \;||\; \phi(f^W(x)) \right) $$<br />
The approximations <math>\hat F, \hat F_X</math> are often not very good though: consider a typical classification such as MNIST, we would never expect two handwritten digits to produce the exact same image. Hence <math>c^{\mathcal D}(x)</math> is (almost) always going to have a single index 1 and the rest 0. This has implications for our approximations:<br />
$$ \hat F(x) \text{ is uniform for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
$$ \hat F_x(y) \text{ is degenerate for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
This clearly has implications for overfitting: to minimize the KL term in <math>l_{KL}(W)</math> we want <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> to be very close to <math>\hat F_x(y)</math> at each point - this means that the loss function is in fact encouraging the neural network to output near degenerate distributions! <br />
<br />
'''Label Smoothing'''<br />
<br />
One form of regularization to help this problem is called label smoothing. Instead of using the degenerate $$F_x(y)$$ as a target function, let's "smooth" it (by adding a scaled uniform distribution to it) so it's no longer degenerate:<br />
$$ F'_x(y) = (1-\lambda)\hat F_x(y) + \frac \lambda K \vec 1 $$<br />
<br />
'''BNNs'''<br />
<br />
BBNs balances the complexity of the model and the distance to target distribution without choosing a single beset configuration (one-hot encoding). Specifically, BNNs with the Gaussian Weight prior $$F_x(y) = N (0,T^{-1} I)$$ has score of configuration <math>W</math> measured by the posterior density $$p_W(W|D) = p(D|W)p_W(W), \log(p_W(W)) = T||W||^2_2$$<br />
Here <math>||W||^2_2</math> could be a poor proxy to penalized for the model complexity due to its linear nature.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The main technical proposal of the paper is a Bayesian framework to estimate the (former) target distribution <math>F_x(y)</math>. That is, we construct a posterior distribution of <math> F_x(y) </math> and use that as our new target distribution. We call it the ''belief matching'' (BM) framework.<br />
<br />
=== Constructing Target Distribution ===<br />
Recall that <math>F_x(y)</math> is a k-categorical probability distribution - its PMF can be fully characterized by k numbers that sum to 1. Hence we can encode any such <math>F_x</math> as a point in <math>\Delta^{k-1}</math>. We'll do exactly that - let's call this vector <math>z</math>:<br />
$$ z \in \Delta^{k-1} $$<br />
$$ \text{prior} = p_{z|x}(z) $$<br />
$$ \text{conditional} = p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
$$ \text{posterior} = p_{z|x,y}(z) $$<br />
Then if we perform inference:<br />
$$ p_{z|x,y}(z) \propto p_{z|x}(z)p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
The distribution chosen to model prior was <math>dir_K(\beta)</math>:<br />
$$ p_{z|x}(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\beta||_1)}{\prod_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\beta_k)} \prod_{k=1}^K z_k^{\beta_k - 1} $$<br />
Note that by definition of <math>z</math>: <math> p_{y|x,z} = z_y </math>. Since the Dirichlet is a conjugate prior to categorical distributions we have a convenient form for the mean of the posterior:<br />
$$ \bar{p_{z|x,y}}(z) = \frac{\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \propto \beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x) $$<br />
This is in fact a generalization of (uniform) label smoothing (label smoothing is a special case where <math>\beta = \frac 1 K \vec{1} </math>).<br />
<br />
=== Representing Approximate Distribution ===<br />
Our new target distribution is <math>p_{z|x,y}(z)</math> (as opposed to <math>F_x(y)</math>). That is, we want to construct an interpretation of our neural network weights to construct a distribution with support in <math> \Delta^{K-1} </math> - the NN can then be trained so this encoded distribution closely approximates <math>p_{z|x,y}</math>. Let's denote the PMF of this encoded distribution <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>. This is how the BM framework defines it:<br />
$$ \alpha^W(x) := \exp(f^W(x)) $$<br />
$$ q_{z|x}^W(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\alpha^W(x)||_1)}{\sum_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\alpha_k^W(x))} \prod_{k=1}^K z_{k}^{\alpha_k^W(x) - 1} $$<br />
$$ \to Z^W_x \sim dir(\alpha^W(x)) $$<br />
Apply <math>\log</math> then <math>\exp</math> to <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>:<br />
$$ q^W_{z|x}(z) \propto \exp \left( \sum_k (\alpha_k^W(x) \log(z_k)) - \sum_k \log(z_k) \right) $$<br />
$$ \propto -l_{CE}(\phi(f^W(x)),z) + \frac{K}{||\alpha^W(x)||}KL(\mathcal U_k \;||\; z) $$<br />
It can actually be shown that the mean of <math>Z_x^W</math> is identical to <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> - in other words, if we output the mean of the encoded distribution of our neural network under the BM framework, it is theoretically identical to a traditional neural network.<br />
<br />
=== Distribution Matching ===<br />
<br />
We now need a way to fit our approximate distribution from our neural network <math>q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}</math> to our target distribution <math>p_{\mathbf{z|x},y}</math>. The authors achieve this by maximizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO):<br />
<br />
$$l_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) $$<br />
<br />
Each term can be computed analytically:<br />
<br />
$$\mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W }} \left[\log z_y \right] = \psi(\alpha_y^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) $$<br />
<br />
Where <math>\psi(\cdot)</math> represents the digamma function (logarithmic derivative of gamma function). Intuitively, we maximize the probability of the correct label. For the KL term:<br />
<br />
$$KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) = \log \frac{\Gamma(a_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) \prod_k \Gamma(\beta_k)}{\prod_k \Gamma(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)) \Gamma (\beta_0)} + \sum_k (\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)-\beta_k)(\psi(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) $$<br />
<br />
In the first term, for intuition, we can ignore <math>\alpha_0</math> and <math>\beta_0</math> since those just calibrate the distributions. Otherwise, we want the ratio of the products to be as close to 1 as possible to minimize the KL. In the second term, we want to minimize the difference between each individual <math>\alpha_k</math> and <math>\beta_k</math>, scaled by the normalized output of the neural network. <br />
<br />
This loss function can be used as a drop-in replacement for the standard softmax cross-entropy, as it has an analytic form and the same time complexity as typical softmax-cross entropy with respect to the number of classes (<math>O(K)</math>).<br />
<br />
=== On Prior Distributions ===<br />
<br />
We must choose our concentration parameter, <math>\beta</math>, for our dirichlet prior. We see our prior essentially disappears as <math>\beta_0 \to 0</math> and becomes stronger as <math>\beta_0 \to \infty</math>. Thus, we want a small <math>\beta_0</math> so the posterior isn't dominated by the prior. But, the authors claim that a small <math>\beta_0</math> makes <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small, which causes <math>\psi (\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x))</math> to be large, which is problematic for gradient based optimization. In practice, many neural network techniques aim to make <math>\mathbb E [f^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 0</math> and thus <math>\mathbb E [\alpha^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 1</math>, which means making <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small can be counterproductive.<br />
<br />
So, the authors set <math>\beta = \mathbf 1</math> and introduce a new hyperparameter <math>\lambda</math> which is multiplied with the KL term in the ELBO:<br />
<br />
$$l^\lambda_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - \lambda KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; \mathcal P^D (\mathbf 1)) $$<br />
<br />
This stabilizes the optimization, as we can tell from the gradients:<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf {x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\beta_{k}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)<br />
-\left(1-\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\beta_{0}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)$$<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}^{\lambda}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf{W}}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{W}(\mathbf{x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda\right)\right) \frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}<br />
-\left(1-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda K\right)\right)$$<br />
<br />
As we can see, the first expression is affected by the magnitude of <math>\alpha^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})</math>, whereas the second expression is not due to the <math>\frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}</math> ratio.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
<br />
Throughout the experiments in this paper, the authors employ various models based on residual connections (He et al., 2016 [1]) which are the models used for benchmarking in practice. We will first demonstrate improvements provided by BM, then we will show versatility in other applications. For fairness of comparisons, all configurations in the reference implementation will be fixed. The only additions in the experiments are initial learning rate warm-up and gradient clipping which are extremely helpful for stable training of BM. <br />
<br />
=== Generalization performance === <br />
The paper compares the generalization performance of BM with softmax and MC dropout on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 benchmarks.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T1.png]]<br />
<br />
The next comparison was performed between BM and softmax on the ImageNet benchmark. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T2.png]]<br />
<br />
For both datasets and In all configurations, BM achieves the best generalization and outperforms softmax and MC dropout.<br />
<br />
===== Regularization effect of prior =====<br />
<br />
In theory, BM has 2 regularization effects:<br />
The prior distribution, which smooths the target posterior<br />
Averaging all of the possible categorical probabilities to compute the distribution matching loss<br />
The authors perform an ablation study to examine the 2 effects separately - removing the KL term in the ELBO removes the effect of the prior distribution.<br />
For ResNet-50 on CIFAR-100 and CIFAR-10 the resulting test error rates were 24.69% and 5.68% respectively. <br />
<br />
This demonstrates that both regularization effects are significant since just having one of them improves the generalization performance compared to the softmax baseline, and having both improves the performance even more.<br />
<br />
===== Impact of <math>\beta</math> =====<br />
<br />
The effect of β on generalization performance is studied by training ResNet-18 on CIFAR-10 by tuning the value of β on its own, as well as jointly with λ. It was found that robust generalization performance is obtained for β ∈ [<math>e^{−1}, e^4</math>] when tuning β on its own; and β ∈ [<math>e^{−4}, e^{8}</math>] when tuning β jointly with λ. The figure below shows a plot of the error rate with varying β.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F3.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Uncertainty Representation ===<br />
<br />
One of the big advantages of BM is the ability to represent uncertainty about the prediction. The authors evaluate the uncertainty representation on in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. <br />
<br />
===== ID uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
For ID (in-distribution) samples, calibration performance is measured, which is a measure of how well the model’s confidence matches its actual accuracy. This measure can be visualized using reliability plots and quantified using a metric called expected calibration error (ECE). ECE is calculated by grouping predictions into M groups based on their confidence score and then finding the absolute difference between the average accuracy and average confidence for each group. We can define the ECE of <math>f^W </math> on <math>D </math> with <math>M</math> groups as <br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math>ECE_M(f^W, D) = \sum^M_{i=1} \frac{|G_i|}{|D|}|acc(G_i) - conf(G_i)|</math><br />
</center><br />
Where <math>G_i</math> is a set of samples int the i-th group defined as <math>G_i = \{j:i/M < max_k\phi_k(f^Wx^{(j)}) \leq (1+i)/M\}</math>, <math>acc(G_i)</math> is an average accuracy in the i-th group and <math>conf(G_i)</math> is an average confidence in the i-th group.<br />
<br />
The figure below is a reliability plot of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with 15 groups. It shows that BM has a significantly better calibration performance than softmax since the confidence matches the accuracy more closely (this is also reflected in the lower ECE).<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F4.png]]<br />
<br />
===== OOD uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
Here, the authors quantify uncertainty using predictive entropy - the larger the predictive entropy, the larger the uncertainty about a prediction. <br />
<br />
The figure below is a density plot of the predictive entropy of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10. It shows that BM provides significantly better uncertainty estimation compared to other methods since BM is the only method that has a clear peak of high predictive entropy for OOD samples which should have high uncertainty. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F5.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Transfer learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching applies the Bayesian principle outside the neural network, which means it can easily be applied to already trained models. Thus, belief matching can be employed in transfer learning scenarios. The authors downloaded the ImageNet pre-trained ResNet-50 weights and fine-tuned the weights of the last linear layer for 100 epochs using an Adam optimizer.<br />
<br />
This table shows the test error rates from transfer learning on CIFAR-10, Food-101, and Cars datasets. Belief matching consistently performs better than softmax. <br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning.png]]<br />
<br />
Belief matching was also tested for the predictive uncertainty for out of dataset samples based on CIFAR-10 as the in distribution sample. Looking at the figure below, it is observed that belief matching significantly improves the uncertainty representation of pre-trained models by only fine-tuning the last layer’s weights. Note that belief matching confidently predicts examples in Cars since CIFAR-10 contains the object category automobiles. In comparison, softmax produces confident predictions on all datasets. Thus, belief matching could also be used to enhance the uncertainty representation ability of pre-trained models without sacrificing their generalization performance.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning_uncertainty.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Semi-Supervised Learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching’s ability to allow neural networks to represent rich information in their predictions can be exploited to aid consistency based loss function for semi-supervised learning. Consistency-based loss functions use unlabelled samples to determine where to promote the robustness of predictions based on stochastic perturbations. This can be done by perturbing the inputs (which is the VAT model) or the networks (which is the pi-model). Both methods minimize the divergence between two categorical probabilities under some perturbations, thus belief matching can be used by the following replacements in the loss functions. The hope is that belief matching can provide better prediction consistencies using its Dirichlet distributions.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_equation.png]]<br />
<br />
The results of training on ResNet28-2 with consistency based loss functions on CIFAR-10 are shown in this table. Belief matching does have lower classification error rates compared to using a softmax.<br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_table.png]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Critiques ==<br />
<br />
* Bayesian principles can be used to construct the target distribution by using the categorical probability as a random variable rather than a training label. This can be applied to neural network models by replacing only the softmax and cross-entropy loss, while improving the generalization performance, uncertainty estimation and well-calibrated behavior. <br />
<br />
* In the future, the authors would like to allow for more expressive distributions in the belief matching framework, such as logistic normal distributions to capture strong semantic similarities among class labels. Furthermore, using input dependent priors would allow for interesting properties that would aid imbalanced datasets and multi-domain learning.<br />
<br />
* Overall I think this summary is very good. The Method(Algorithm) section is described clearly, and the Results section is detailed, with many diagrams illustrating the main points. I just have one technical suggestion: the difference in performance for SOFTMAX and BM differs by model. For example, for RESNEXT-50 model, the difference in top1 is 0.2, whereas for the RESNEXT-100 model, the difference in top one is 0.5, which is significantly higher. It's true that BM method generally outperforms SOFTMAX. But seeing the relation between the choice of model and the magnitude of performance increase could definitely strengthen the paper even further.<br />
<br />
* The summary is good and topic is interesting. Bayesian is a well know probabilistic model but did not know that it can be used as a neural network. Comparison between softmax and bayesian was interesting and more details would be great.<br />
<br />
* It would be better it there is a future work section to discuss the current shortage and potential improvement. One thing would be that the theoretical part is complex in the process. In addition, optimizing a function is relatively hard if the structure is complex. Is it possible to have a good approximation without having too complex calculation?<br />
<br />
* Both experiments dealt with image data, however softmax is used within classification neural networks that range from image to textual data. It would be interesting to see the performance of BM on textual data for text classification problems in addition to image classification.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to briefly explain Bayesian treatment in the introduction part(i.e., considering the categorical probability as random variable, construct the target distribution by means of the Bayesian inference), and to analyze the importance of considering the categorical probability as random variable (for example explain it can be adopted to existing deep learning building blocks without huge modifications).<br />
<br />
* Interesting topic that goes close to our lectures. Since this is an summary of the paper, it would be better if trim the explanation on Neural Network al little like getting rid of the substitution lines.<br />
<br />
* I really liked the presentation and actually really appreciate the detailed derivations steps that were presented in this summary. In the introduction the researchers mentioned that it BM is computationally cheap method, however I was wondering how much faster it is computationally as opposed to the other models to train. Additionally, the training data that was used to benchmark the classification performance seemed to all be image classifications (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ResNet-50, ResNet-101), thus it would have been nice to see classification be applied in other multi-class contexts as well to see how well this new method performs there.<br />
<br />
== Citations ==<br />
<br />
[1] Bridle, J. S. Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. In Neurocomputing, pp. 227–236. Springer, 1990.<br />
<br />
[2] Blundell, C., Cornebise, J., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Wierstra, D. Weight uncertainty in neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Gal, Y. and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2016.<br />
<br />
[4] Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., and Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017. <br />
<br />
[5] MacKay, D. J. A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Computation, 4(3):448– 472, 1992.<br />
<br />
[6] Graves, A. Practical variational inference for neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2011. <br />
<br />
[7] Mandt, S., Hoffman, M. D., and Blei, D. M. Stochastic gradient descent as approximate Bayesian inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):4873–4907, 2017.<br />
<br />
[8] Zhang, G., Sun, S., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R. Noisy natural gradient as variational inference. In International Conference of Machine Learning, 2018.<br />
<br />
[9] Maddox, W. J., Izmailov, P., Garipov, T., Vetrov, D. P., and Wilson, A. G. A simple baseline for Bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[10] Osawa, K., Swaroop, S., Jain, A., Eschenhagen, R., Turner, R. E., Yokota, R., and Khan, M. E. Practical deep learning with Bayesian principles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[11] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.<br />
<br />
[12] Neumann, L., Zisserman, A., and Vedaldi, A. Relaxed softmax: Efficient confidence auto-calibration for safe pedestrian detection. In NIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2018.<br />
<br />
[13] Xie, L., Wang, J., Wei, Z., Wang, M., and Tian, Q. Disturblabel: Regularizing cnn on the loss layer. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.<br />
<br />
[14] Pereyra, G., Tucker, G., Chorowski, J., Kaiser, Ł., and Hinton, G. Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06548, 2017.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability&diff=49496Being Bayesian about Categorical Probability2020-12-06T20:47:57Z<p>Y52wen: /* Classification With a Neural Network */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented By ==<br />
Evan Li, Jason Pu, Karam Abuaisha, Nicholas Vadivelu<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Since the outputs of neural networks are not probabilities, Softmax (Bridle, 1990) is a staple for neural network’s performing classification--it exponentiates each logit then normalizes by the sum, giving a distribution over the target classes. Logit is a raw output/prediction of the model which is hard for humans to interpret, thus we transform/normalize these raw values into categories or meaningful numbers for interpretability. However, networks with softmax outputs give no information about uncertainty (Blundell et al., 2015; Gal & Ghahramani, 2016), and the resulting distribution over classes is poorly calibrated (Guo et al., 2017), often giving overconfident predictions even when the classification is wrong. In addition, softmax also raises concerns about overfitting NNs due to its confident predictive behaviors (Xie et al., 2016; Pereyra et al., 2017). To achieve performance with better generalization, some more effective regularization techniques might be required. <br />
<br />
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs; MacKay, 1992) can alleviate these issues, but the resulting posteriors over the parameters are often intractable. Approximations such as variational inference (Graves, 2011; Blundell et al., 2015) and Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) can still be expensive or give poor estimates for the posteriors. This work proposes a Bayesian treatment of the output logits of the neural network, treating the targets as a categorical random variable instead of a fixed label. This technique gives a computationally cheap way of being Bayesian to get well-calibrated uncertainty estimates on neural network classifications.<br />
<br />
== Related Work ==<br />
<br />
Using Bayesian Neural Networks is the dominant way of applying Bayesian techniques to neural networks. Many techniques have been developed to make posterior approximation more accurate and scalable, despite these, BNNs do not scale to the state of the art techniques or large data sets. There are techniques to explicitly avoid modeling the full weight posterior that are more scalable, such as with Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) or tracking mean/covariance of the posterior during training (Mandt et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Maddox et al., 2019; Osawa et al., 2019). Non-Bayesian uncertainty estimation techniques such as deep ensembles (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017) and temperature scaling (Guo et al., 2017; Neumann et al., 2018).<br />
<br />
== Preliminaries ==<br />
=== Definitions ===<br />
Let's formalize our classification problem and define some notations for the rest of this summary:<br />
<br />
::Dataset:<br />
$$ \mathcal D = \{(x_i,y_i)\} \in (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)^N $$<br />
::General classification model<br />
$$ f^W: \mathcal X \to \mathbb R^K $$<br />
::Softmax function: <br />
$$ \phi(x): \mathbb R^K \to [0,1]^K \;\;|\;\; \phi_k(X) = \frac{\exp(f_k^W(x))}{\sum_{k \in K} \exp(f_k^W(x))} $$<br />
::Softmax activated NN:<br />
$$ \phi \;\circ\; f^W: \chi \to \Delta^{K-1} $$<br />
::NN as a true classifier:<br />
$$ arg\max_i \;\circ\; \phi_i \;\circ\; f^W \;:\; \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y $$<br />
<br />
We'll also define the '''count function''' - a <math>K</math>-vector valued function that outputs the occurences of each class coincident with <math>x</math>:<br />
$$ c^{\mathcal D}(x) = \sum_{(x',y') \in \mathcal D} \mathbb y' I(x' = x) $$<br />
<br />
=== Classification With a Neural Network ===<br />
A typical loss function used in classification is cross-entropy, which is defined by<br />
<br />
$$ l_{\rm CE}(\tilde{y},\phi(f^{W}(x)))=-\sum_k \tilde{y_k} \log \phi_k(f^{W}(x))) $$<br />
<br />
,here $y_k$ and $\phi_k$ refers to the actual and predicted categorical distribution for each class. It's well known that optimizing <math>f^W</math> for <math>l_{CE}</math> is equivalent to optimizing for <math>l_{KL}</math>, the <math>KL</math> divergence between the true distribution and the distribution modeled by NN, that is:<br />
$$ l_{KL}(W) = KL(\text{true distribution} \;|\; \text{distribution encoded by }NN(W)) $$<br />
Let's introduce notations for the underlying (true) distributions of our problem. Let <math>(x_0,y_0) \sim (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)</math>:<br />
$$ \text{Full Distribution} = F(x,y) = P(x_0 = x,y_0 = y) $$<br />
$$ \text{Marginal Distribution} = P(x) = F(x_0 = x) $$<br />
$$ \text{Point Class Distribution} = P(y_0 = y \;|\; x_0 = x) = F_x(y) $$<br />
Then we have the following factorization:<br />
$$ F(x,y) = P(x,y) = P(y|x)P(x) = F_x(y)F(x) $$<br />
Substitute this into the definition of KL divergence:<br />
$$ = \sum_{(x,y) \in \mathcal X \times \mathcal Y} F(x,y) \log\left(\frac{F(x,y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))}\right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F(y|x) \log\left( \frac{F(y|x)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F_x(y) \log\left( \frac{F_x(y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) KL(F_x \;||\; \phi\left( f^W(x) \right)) $$<br />
As usual, we don't have an analytic form for <math>l</math> (if we did, this would imply we know <math>F_X</math> meaning we knew the distribution in the first place). Instead, estimate from <math>\mathcal D</math>:<br />
$$ F(x) \approx \hat F(x) = \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} $$<br />
$$ F_x(y) \approx \hat F_x(y) = \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{|| c^{\mathcal D}(x) ||_1}$$<br />
$$ \to l_{KL}(W) = \sum_{x \in \mathcal D} \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} KL \left( \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \;||\; \phi(f^W(x)) \right) $$<br />
The approximations <math>\hat F, \hat F_X</math> are often not very good though: consider a typical classification such as MNIST, we would never expect two handwritten digits to produce the exact same image. Hence <math>c^{\mathcal D}(x)</math> is (almost) always going to have a single index 1 and the rest 0. This has implications for our approximations:<br />
$$ \hat F(x) \text{ is uniform for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
$$ \hat F_x(y) \text{ is degenerate for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
This clearly has implications for overfitting: to minimize the KL term in <math>l_{KL}(W)</math> we want <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> to be very close to <math>\hat F_x(y)</math> at each point - this means that the loss function is in fact encouraging the neural network to output near degenerate distributions! <br />
<br />
'''Label Smoothing'''<br />
<br />
One form of regularization to help this problem is called label smoothing. Instead of using the degenerate $$F_x(y)$$ as a target function, let's "smooth" it (by adding a scaled uniform distribution to it) so it's no longer degenerate:<br />
$$ F'_x(y) = (1-\lambda)\hat F_x(y) + \frac \lambda K \vec 1 $$<br />
<br />
'''BNNs'''<br />
<br />
BBNs balances the complexity of the model and the distance to target distribution without choosing a single beset configuration (one-hot encoding). Specifically, BNNs with the Gaussian Weight prior $$F_x(y) = N (0,T^{-1} I)$$ has score of configuration <math>W</math> measured by the posterior density $$p_W(W|D) = p(D|W)p_W(W), \log(p_W(W)) = T||W||^2_2$$<br />
Here <math>||W||^2_2</math> could be a poor proxy to penalized for the model complexity due to its linear nature.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The main technical proposal of the paper is a Bayesian framework to estimate the (former) target distribution <math>F_x(y)</math>. That is, we construct a posterior distribution of <math> F_x(y) </math> and use that as our new target distribution. We call it the ''belief matching'' (BM) framework.<br />
<br />
=== Constructing Target Distribution ===<br />
Recall that <math>F_x(y)</math> is a k-categorical probability distribution - its PMF can be fully characterized by k numbers that sum to 1. Hence we can encode any such <math>F_x</math> as a point in <math>\Delta^{k-1}</math>. We'll do exactly that - let's call this vector <math>z</math>:<br />
$$ z \in \Delta^{k-1} $$<br />
$$ \text{prior} = p_{z|x}(z) $$<br />
$$ \text{conditional} = p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
$$ \text{posterior} = p_{z|x,y}(z) $$<br />
Then if we perform inference:<br />
$$ p_{z|x,y}(z) \propto p_{z|x}(z)p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
The distribution chosen to model prior was <math>dir_K(\beta)</math>:<br />
$$ p_{z|x}(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\beta||_1)}{\prod_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\beta_k)} \prod_{k=1}^K z_k^{\beta_k - 1} $$<br />
Note that by definition of <math>z</math>: <math> p_{y|x,z} = z_y </math>. Since the Dirichlet is a conjugate prior to categorical distributions we have a convenient form for the mean of the posterior:<br />
$$ \bar{p_{z|x,y}}(z) = \frac{\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \propto \beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x) $$<br />
This is in fact a generalization of (uniform) label smoothing (label smoothing is a special case where <math>\beta = \frac 1 K \vec{1} </math>).<br />
<br />
=== Representing Approximate Distribution ===<br />
Our new target distribution is <math>p_{z|x,y}(z)</math> (as opposed to <math>F_x(y)</math>). That is, we want to construct an interpretation of our neural network weights to construct a distribution with support in <math> \Delta^{K-1} </math> - the NN can then be trained so this encoded distribution closely approximates <math>p_{z|x,y}</math>. Let's denote the PMF of this encoded distribution <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>. This is how the BM framework defines it:<br />
$$ \alpha^W(x) := \exp(f^W(x)) $$<br />
$$ q_{z|x}^W(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\alpha^W(x)||_1)}{\sum_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\alpha_k^W(x))} \prod_{k=1}^K z_{k}^{\alpha_k^W(x) - 1} $$<br />
$$ \to Z^W_x \sim dir(\alpha^W(x)) $$<br />
Apply <math>\log</math> then <math>\exp</math> to <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>:<br />
$$ q^W_{z|x}(z) \propto \exp \left( \sum_k (\alpha_k^W(x) \log(z_k)) - \sum_k \log(z_k) \right) $$<br />
$$ \propto -l_{CE}(\phi(f^W(x)),z) + \frac{K}{||\alpha^W(x)||}KL(\mathcal U_k \;||\; z) $$<br />
It can actually be shown that the mean of <math>Z_x^W</math> is identical to <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> - in other words, if we output the mean of the encoded distribution of our neural network under the BM framework, it is theoretically identical to a traditional neural network.<br />
<br />
=== Distribution Matching ===<br />
<br />
We now need a way to fit our approximate distribution from our neural network <math>q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}</math> to our target distribution <math>p_{\mathbf{z|x},y}</math>. The authors achieve this by maximizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO):<br />
<br />
$$l_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) $$<br />
<br />
Each term can be computed analytically:<br />
<br />
$$\mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W }} \left[\log z_y \right] = \psi(\alpha_y^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) $$<br />
<br />
Where <math>\psi(\cdot)</math> represents the digamma function (logarithmic derivative of gamma function). Intuitively, we maximize the probability of the correct label. For the KL term:<br />
<br />
$$KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) = \log \frac{\Gamma(a_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) \prod_k \Gamma(\beta_k)}{\prod_k \Gamma(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)) \Gamma (\beta_0)} + \sum_k (\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)-\beta_k)(\psi(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) $$<br />
<br />
In the first term, for intuition, we can ignore <math>\alpha_0</math> and <math>\beta_0</math> since those just calibrate the distributions. Otherwise, we want the ratio of the products to be as close to 1 as possible to minimize the KL. In the second term, we want to minimize the difference between each individual <math>\alpha_k</math> and <math>\beta_k</math>, scaled by the normalized output of the neural network. <br />
<br />
This loss function can be used as a drop-in replacement for the standard softmax cross-entropy, as it has an analytic form and the same time complexity as typical softmax-cross entropy with respect to the number of classes (<math>O(K)</math>).<br />
<br />
=== On Prior Distributions ===<br />
<br />
We must choose our concentration parameter, <math>\beta</math>, for our dirichlet prior. We see our prior essentially disappears as <math>\beta_0 \to 0</math> and becomes stronger as <math>\beta_0 \to \infty</math>. Thus, we want a small <math>\beta_0</math> so the posterior isn't dominated by the prior. But, the authors claim that a small <math>\beta_0</math> makes <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small, which causes <math>\psi (\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x))</math> to be large, which is problematic for gradient based optimization. In practice, many neural network techniques aim to make <math>\mathbb E [f^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 0</math> and thus <math>\mathbb E [\alpha^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 1</math>, which means making <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small can be counterproductive.<br />
<br />
So, the authors set <math>\beta = \mathbf 1</math> and introduce a new hyperparameter <math>\lambda</math> which is multiplied with the KL term in the ELBO:<br />
<br />
$$l^\lambda_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - \lambda KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; \mathcal P^D (\mathbf 1)) $$<br />
<br />
This stabilizes the optimization, as we can tell from the gradients:<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf {x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\beta_{k}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)<br />
-\left(1-\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\beta_{0}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)$$<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}^{\lambda}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf{W}}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{W}(\mathbf{x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda\right)\right) \frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}<br />
-\left(1-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda K\right)\right)$$<br />
<br />
As we can see, the first expression is affected by the magnitude of <math>\alpha^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})</math>, whereas the second expression is not due to the <math>\frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}</math> ratio.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
<br />
Throughout the experiments in this paper, the authors employ various models based on residual connections (He et al., 2016 [1]) which are the models used for benchmarking in practice. We will first demonstrate improvements provided by BM, then we will show versatility in other applications. For fairness of comparisons, all configurations in the reference implementation will be fixed. The only additions in the experiments are initial learning rate warm-up and gradient clipping which are extremely helpful for stable training of BM. <br />
<br />
=== Generalization performance === <br />
The paper compares the generalization performance of BM with softmax and MC dropout on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 benchmarks.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T1.png]]<br />
<br />
The next comparison was performed between BM and softmax on the ImageNet benchmark. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T2.png]]<br />
<br />
For both datasets and In all configurations, BM achieves the best generalization and outperforms softmax and MC dropout.<br />
<br />
===== Regularization effect of prior =====<br />
<br />
In theory, BM has 2 regularization effects:<br />
The prior distribution, which smooths the target posterior<br />
Averaging all of the possible categorical probabilities to compute the distribution matching loss<br />
The authors perform an ablation study to examine the 2 effects separately - removing the KL term in the ELBO removes the effect of the prior distribution.<br />
For ResNet-50 on CIFAR-100 and CIFAR-10 the resulting test error rates were 24.69% and 5.68% respectively. <br />
<br />
This demonstrates that both regularization effects are significant since just having one of them improves the generalization performance compared to the softmax baseline, and having both improves the performance even more.<br />
<br />
===== Impact of <math>\beta</math> =====<br />
<br />
The effect of β on generalization performance is studied by training ResNet-18 on CIFAR-10 by tuning the value of β on its own, as well as jointly with λ. It was found that robust generalization performance is obtained for β ∈ [<math>e^{−1}, e^4</math>] when tuning β on its own; and β ∈ [<math>e^{−4}, e^{8}</math>] when tuning β jointly with λ. The figure below shows a plot of the error rate with varying β.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F3.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Uncertainty Representation ===<br />
<br />
One of the big advantages of BM is the ability to represent uncertainty about the prediction. The authors evaluate the uncertainty representation on in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. <br />
<br />
===== ID uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
For ID (in-distribution) samples, calibration performance is measured, which is a measure of how well the model’s confidence matches its actual accuracy. This measure can be visualized using reliability plots and quantified using a metric called expected calibration error (ECE). ECE is calculated by grouping predictions into M groups based on their confidence score and then finding the absolute difference between the average accuracy and average confidence for each group. We can define the ECE of <math>f^W </math> on <math>D </math> with <math>M</math> groups as <br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math>ECE_M(f^W, D) = \sum^M_{i=1} \frac{|G_i|}{|D|}|acc(G_i) - conf(G_i)|</math><br />
</center><br />
Where <math>G_i</math> is a set of samples int the i-th group defined as <math>G_i = \{j:i/M < max_k\phi_k(f^Wx^{(j)}) \leq (1+i)/M\}</math>, <math>acc(G_i)</math> is an average accuracy in the i-th group and <math>conf(G_i)</math> is an average confidence in the i-th group.<br />
<br />
The figure below is a reliability plot of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with 15 groups. It shows that BM has a significantly better calibration performance than softmax since the confidence matches the accuracy more closely (this is also reflected in the lower ECE).<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F4.png]]<br />
<br />
===== OOD uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
Here, the authors quantify uncertainty using predictive entropy - the larger the predictive entropy, the larger the uncertainty about a prediction. <br />
<br />
The figure below is a density plot of the predictive entropy of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10. It shows that BM provides significantly better uncertainty estimation compared to other methods since BM is the only method that has a clear peak of high predictive entropy for OOD samples which should have high uncertainty. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F5.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Transfer learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching applies the Bayesian principle outside the neural network, which means it can easily be applied to already trained models. Thus, belief matching can be employed in transfer learning scenarios. The authors downloaded the ImageNet pre-trained ResNet-50 weights and fine-tuned the weights of the last linear layer for 100 epochs using an Adam optimizer.<br />
<br />
This table shows the test error rates from transfer learning on CIFAR-10, Food-101, and Cars datasets. Belief matching consistently performs better than softmax. <br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning.png]]<br />
<br />
Belief matching was also tested for the predictive uncertainty for out of dataset samples based on CIFAR-10 as the in distribution sample. Looking at the figure below, it is observed that belief matching significantly improves the uncertainty representation of pre-trained models by only fine-tuning the last layer’s weights. Note that belief matching confidently predicts examples in Cars since CIFAR-10 contains the object category automobiles. In comparison, softmax produces confident predictions on all datasets. Thus, belief matching could also be used to enhance the uncertainty representation ability of pre-trained models without sacrificing their generalization performance.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning_uncertainty.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Semi-Supervised Learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching’s ability to allow neural networks to represent rich information in their predictions can be exploited to aid consistency based loss function for semi-supervised learning. Consistency-based loss functions use unlabelled samples to determine where to promote the robustness of predictions based on stochastic perturbations. This can be done by perturbing the inputs (which is the VAT model) or the networks (which is the pi-model). Both methods minimize the divergence between two categorical probabilities under some perturbations, thus belief matching can be used by the following replacements in the loss functions. The hope is that belief matching can provide better prediction consistencies using its Dirichlet distributions.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_equation.png]]<br />
<br />
The results of training on ResNet28-2 with consistency based loss functions on CIFAR-10 are shown in this table. Belief matching does have lower classification error rates compared to using a softmax.<br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_table.png]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Critiques ==<br />
<br />
* Bayesian principles can be used to construct the target distribution by using the categorical probability as a random variable rather than a training label. This can be applied to neural network models by replacing only the softmax and cross-entropy loss, while improving the generalization performance, uncertainty estimation and well-calibrated behavior. <br />
<br />
* In the future, the authors would like to allow for more expressive distributions in the belief matching framework, such as logistic normal distributions to capture strong semantic similarities among class labels. Furthermore, using input dependent priors would allow for interesting properties that would aid imbalanced datasets and multi-domain learning.<br />
<br />
* Overall I think this summary is very good. The Method(Algorithm) section is described clearly, and the Results section is detailed, with many diagrams illustrating the main points. I just have one technical suggestion: the difference in performance for SOFTMAX and BM differs by model. For example, for RESNEXT-50 model, the difference in top1 is 0.2, whereas for the RESNEXT-100 model, the difference in top one is 0.5, which is significantly higher. It's true that BM method generally outperforms SOFTMAX. But seeing the relation between the choice of model and the magnitude of performance increase could definitely strengthen the paper even further.<br />
<br />
* The summary is good and topic is interesting. Bayesian is a well know probabilistic model but did not know that it can be used as a neural network. Comparison between softmax and bayesian was interesting and more details would be great.<br />
<br />
* It would be better it there is a future work section to discuss the current shortage and potential improvement. One thing would be that the theoretical part is complex in the process. In addition, optimizing a function is relatively hard if the structure is complex. Is it possible to have a good approximation without having too complex calculation?<br />
<br />
* Both experiments dealt with image data, however softmax is used within classification neural networks that range from image to textual data. It would be interesting to see the performance of BM on textual data for text classification problems in addition to image classification.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to briefly explain Bayesian treatment in the introduction part(i.e., considering the categorical probability as random variable, construct the target distribution by means of the Bayesian inference), and to analyze the importance of considering the categorical probability as random variable (for example explain it can be adopted to existing deep learning building blocks without huge modifications).<br />
<br />
* Interesting topic that goes close to our lectures. Since this is an summary of the paper, it would be better if trim the explanation on Neural Network al little like getting rid of the substitution lines.<br />
<br />
* I really liked the presentation and actually really appreciate the detailed derivations steps that were presented in this summary. In the introduction the researchers mentioned that it BM is computationally cheap method, however I was wondering how much faster it is computationally as opposed to the other models to train. Additionally, the training data that was used to benchmark the classification performance seemed to all be image classifications (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ResNet-50, ResNet-101), thus it would have been nice to see classification be applied in other multi-class contexts as well to see how well this new method performs there.<br />
<br />
== Citations ==<br />
<br />
[1] Bridle, J. S. Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. In Neurocomputing, pp. 227–236. Springer, 1990.<br />
<br />
[2] Blundell, C., Cornebise, J., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Wierstra, D. Weight uncertainty in neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Gal, Y. and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2016.<br />
<br />
[4] Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., and Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017. <br />
<br />
[5] MacKay, D. J. A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Computation, 4(3):448– 472, 1992.<br />
<br />
[6] Graves, A. Practical variational inference for neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2011. <br />
<br />
[7] Mandt, S., Hoffman, M. D., and Blei, D. M. Stochastic gradient descent as approximate Bayesian inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):4873–4907, 2017.<br />
<br />
[8] Zhang, G., Sun, S., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R. Noisy natural gradient as variational inference. In International Conference of Machine Learning, 2018.<br />
<br />
[9] Maddox, W. J., Izmailov, P., Garipov, T., Vetrov, D. P., and Wilson, A. G. A simple baseline for Bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[10] Osawa, K., Swaroop, S., Jain, A., Eschenhagen, R., Turner, R. E., Yokota, R., and Khan, M. E. Practical deep learning with Bayesian principles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[11] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.<br />
<br />
[12] Neumann, L., Zisserman, A., and Vedaldi, A. Relaxed softmax: Efficient confidence auto-calibration for safe pedestrian detection. In NIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2018.<br />
<br />
[13] Xie, L., Wang, J., Wei, Z., Wang, M., and Tian, Q. Disturblabel: Regularizing cnn on the loss layer. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.<br />
<br />
[14] Pereyra, G., Tucker, G., Chorowski, J., Kaiser, Ł., and Hinton, G. Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06548, 2017.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability&diff=49494Being Bayesian about Categorical Probability2020-12-06T20:46:31Z<p>Y52wen: /* Classification With a Neural Network */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented By ==<br />
Evan Li, Jason Pu, Karam Abuaisha, Nicholas Vadivelu<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Since the outputs of neural networks are not probabilities, Softmax (Bridle, 1990) is a staple for neural network’s performing classification--it exponentiates each logit then normalizes by the sum, giving a distribution over the target classes. Logit is a raw output/prediction of the model which is hard for humans to interpret, thus we transform/normalize these raw values into categories or meaningful numbers for interpretability. However, networks with softmax outputs give no information about uncertainty (Blundell et al., 2015; Gal & Ghahramani, 2016), and the resulting distribution over classes is poorly calibrated (Guo et al., 2017), often giving overconfident predictions even when the classification is wrong. In addition, softmax also raises concerns about overfitting NNs due to its confident predictive behaviors (Xie et al., 2016; Pereyra et al., 2017). To achieve performance with better generalization, some more effective regularization techniques might be required. <br />
<br />
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs; MacKay, 1992) can alleviate these issues, but the resulting posteriors over the parameters are often intractable. Approximations such as variational inference (Graves, 2011; Blundell et al., 2015) and Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) can still be expensive or give poor estimates for the posteriors. This work proposes a Bayesian treatment of the output logits of the neural network, treating the targets as a categorical random variable instead of a fixed label. This technique gives a computationally cheap way of being Bayesian to get well-calibrated uncertainty estimates on neural network classifications.<br />
<br />
== Related Work ==<br />
<br />
Using Bayesian Neural Networks is the dominant way of applying Bayesian techniques to neural networks. Many techniques have been developed to make posterior approximation more accurate and scalable, despite these, BNNs do not scale to the state of the art techniques or large data sets. There are techniques to explicitly avoid modeling the full weight posterior that are more scalable, such as with Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) or tracking mean/covariance of the posterior during training (Mandt et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Maddox et al., 2019; Osawa et al., 2019). Non-Bayesian uncertainty estimation techniques such as deep ensembles (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017) and temperature scaling (Guo et al., 2017; Neumann et al., 2018).<br />
<br />
== Preliminaries ==<br />
=== Definitions ===<br />
Let's formalize our classification problem and define some notations for the rest of this summary:<br />
<br />
::Dataset:<br />
$$ \mathcal D = \{(x_i,y_i)\} \in (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)^N $$<br />
::General classification model<br />
$$ f^W: \mathcal X \to \mathbb R^K $$<br />
::Softmax function: <br />
$$ \phi(x): \mathbb R^K \to [0,1]^K \;\;|\;\; \phi_k(X) = \frac{\exp(f_k^W(x))}{\sum_{k \in K} \exp(f_k^W(x))} $$<br />
::Softmax activated NN:<br />
$$ \phi \;\circ\; f^W: \chi \to \Delta^{K-1} $$<br />
::NN as a true classifier:<br />
$$ arg\max_i \;\circ\; \phi_i \;\circ\; f^W \;:\; \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y $$<br />
<br />
We'll also define the '''count function''' - a <math>K</math>-vector valued function that outputs the occurences of each class coincident with <math>x</math>:<br />
$$ c^{\mathcal D}(x) = \sum_{(x',y') \in \mathcal D} \mathbb y' I(x' = x) $$<br />
<br />
=== Classification With a Neural Network ===<br />
A typical loss function used in classification is cross-entropy, which is defined by<br />
<br />
$$ l_{\rm CE}(\tilde{y},\phi(f^{W}(x)))=-\sum_k \tilde{y_k} \log \phi_k(f^{W}(x))) $$<br />
<br />
It's well known that optimizing <math>f^W</math> for <math>l_{CE}</math> is equivalent to optimizing for <math>l_{KL}</math>, the <math>KL</math> divergence between the true distribution and the distribution modeled by NN, that is:<br />
$$ l_{KL}(W) = KL(\text{true distribution} \;|\; \text{distribution encoded by }NN(W)) $$<br />
Let's introduce notations for the underlying (true) distributions of our problem. Let <math>(x_0,y_0) \sim (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)</math>:<br />
$$ \text{Full Distribution} = F(x,y) = P(x_0 = x,y_0 = y) $$<br />
$$ \text{Marginal Distribution} = P(x) = F(x_0 = x) $$<br />
$$ \text{Point Class Distribution} = P(y_0 = y \;|\; x_0 = x) = F_x(y) $$<br />
Then we have the following factorization:<br />
$$ F(x,y) = P(x,y) = P(y|x)P(x) = F_x(y)F(x) $$<br />
Substitute this into the definition of KL divergence:<br />
$$ = \sum_{(x,y) \in \mathcal X \times \mathcal Y} F(x,y) \log\left(\frac{F(x,y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))}\right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F(y|x) \log\left( \frac{F(y|x)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F_x(y) \log\left( \frac{F_x(y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) KL(F_x \;||\; \phi\left( f^W(x) \right)) $$<br />
As usual, we don't have an analytic form for <math>l</math> (if we did, this would imply we know <math>F_X</math> meaning we knew the distribution in the first place). Instead, estimate from <math>\mathcal D</math>:<br />
$$ F(x) \approx \hat F(x) = \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} $$<br />
$$ F_x(y) \approx \hat F_x(y) = \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{|| c^{\mathcal D}(x) ||_1}$$<br />
$$ \to l_{KL}(W) = \sum_{x \in \mathcal D} \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} KL \left( \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \;||\; \phi(f^W(x)) \right) $$<br />
The approximations <math>\hat F, \hat F_X</math> are often not very good though: consider a typical classification such as MNIST, we would never expect two handwritten digits to produce the exact same image. Hence <math>c^{\mathcal D}(x)</math> is (almost) always going to have a single index 1 and the rest 0. This has implications for our approximations:<br />
$$ \hat F(x) \text{ is uniform for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
$$ \hat F_x(y) \text{ is degenerate for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
This clearly has implications for overfitting: to minimize the KL term in <math>l_{KL}(W)</math> we want <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> to be very close to <math>\hat F_x(y)</math> at each point - this means that the loss function is in fact encouraging the neural network to output near degenerate distributions! <br />
<br />
'''Label Smoothing'''<br />
<br />
One form of regularization to help this problem is called label smoothing. Instead of using the degenerate $$F_x(y)$$ as a target function, let's "smooth" it (by adding a scaled uniform distribution to it) so it's no longer degenerate:<br />
$$ F'_x(y) = (1-\lambda)\hat F_x(y) + \frac \lambda K \vec 1 $$<br />
<br />
'''BNNs'''<br />
<br />
BBNs balances the complexity of the model and the distance to target distribution without choosing a single beset configuration (one-hot encoding). Specifically, BNNs with the Gaussian Weight prior $$F_x(y) = N (0,T^{-1} I)$$ has score of configuration <math>W</math> measured by the posterior density $$p_W(W|D) = p(D|W)p_W(W), \log(p_W(W)) = T||W||^2_2$$<br />
Here <math>||W||^2_2</math> could be a poor proxy to penalized for the model complexity due to its linear nature.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The main technical proposal of the paper is a Bayesian framework to estimate the (former) target distribution <math>F_x(y)</math>. That is, we construct a posterior distribution of <math> F_x(y) </math> and use that as our new target distribution. We call it the ''belief matching'' (BM) framework.<br />
<br />
=== Constructing Target Distribution ===<br />
Recall that <math>F_x(y)</math> is a k-categorical probability distribution - its PMF can be fully characterized by k numbers that sum to 1. Hence we can encode any such <math>F_x</math> as a point in <math>\Delta^{k-1}</math>. We'll do exactly that - let's call this vector <math>z</math>:<br />
$$ z \in \Delta^{k-1} $$<br />
$$ \text{prior} = p_{z|x}(z) $$<br />
$$ \text{conditional} = p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
$$ \text{posterior} = p_{z|x,y}(z) $$<br />
Then if we perform inference:<br />
$$ p_{z|x,y}(z) \propto p_{z|x}(z)p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
The distribution chosen to model prior was <math>dir_K(\beta)</math>:<br />
$$ p_{z|x}(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\beta||_1)}{\prod_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\beta_k)} \prod_{k=1}^K z_k^{\beta_k - 1} $$<br />
Note that by definition of <math>z</math>: <math> p_{y|x,z} = z_y </math>. Since the Dirichlet is a conjugate prior to categorical distributions we have a convenient form for the mean of the posterior:<br />
$$ \bar{p_{z|x,y}}(z) = \frac{\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \propto \beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x) $$<br />
This is in fact a generalization of (uniform) label smoothing (label smoothing is a special case where <math>\beta = \frac 1 K \vec{1} </math>).<br />
<br />
=== Representing Approximate Distribution ===<br />
Our new target distribution is <math>p_{z|x,y}(z)</math> (as opposed to <math>F_x(y)</math>). That is, we want to construct an interpretation of our neural network weights to construct a distribution with support in <math> \Delta^{K-1} </math> - the NN can then be trained so this encoded distribution closely approximates <math>p_{z|x,y}</math>. Let's denote the PMF of this encoded distribution <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>. This is how the BM framework defines it:<br />
$$ \alpha^W(x) := \exp(f^W(x)) $$<br />
$$ q_{z|x}^W(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\alpha^W(x)||_1)}{\sum_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\alpha_k^W(x))} \prod_{k=1}^K z_{k}^{\alpha_k^W(x) - 1} $$<br />
$$ \to Z^W_x \sim dir(\alpha^W(x)) $$<br />
Apply <math>\log</math> then <math>\exp</math> to <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>:<br />
$$ q^W_{z|x}(z) \propto \exp \left( \sum_k (\alpha_k^W(x) \log(z_k)) - \sum_k \log(z_k) \right) $$<br />
$$ \propto -l_{CE}(\phi(f^W(x)),z) + \frac{K}{||\alpha^W(x)||}KL(\mathcal U_k \;||\; z) $$<br />
It can actually be shown that the mean of <math>Z_x^W</math> is identical to <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> - in other words, if we output the mean of the encoded distribution of our neural network under the BM framework, it is theoretically identical to a traditional neural network.<br />
<br />
=== Distribution Matching ===<br />
<br />
We now need a way to fit our approximate distribution from our neural network <math>q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}</math> to our target distribution <math>p_{\mathbf{z|x},y}</math>. The authors achieve this by maximizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO):<br />
<br />
$$l_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) $$<br />
<br />
Each term can be computed analytically:<br />
<br />
$$\mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W }} \left[\log z_y \right] = \psi(\alpha_y^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) $$<br />
<br />
Where <math>\psi(\cdot)</math> represents the digamma function (logarithmic derivative of gamma function). Intuitively, we maximize the probability of the correct label. For the KL term:<br />
<br />
$$KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) = \log \frac{\Gamma(a_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) \prod_k \Gamma(\beta_k)}{\prod_k \Gamma(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)) \Gamma (\beta_0)} + \sum_k (\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)-\beta_k)(\psi(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) $$<br />
<br />
In the first term, for intuition, we can ignore <math>\alpha_0</math> and <math>\beta_0</math> since those just calibrate the distributions. Otherwise, we want the ratio of the products to be as close to 1 as possible to minimize the KL. In the second term, we want to minimize the difference between each individual <math>\alpha_k</math> and <math>\beta_k</math>, scaled by the normalized output of the neural network. <br />
<br />
This loss function can be used as a drop-in replacement for the standard softmax cross-entropy, as it has an analytic form and the same time complexity as typical softmax-cross entropy with respect to the number of classes (<math>O(K)</math>).<br />
<br />
=== On Prior Distributions ===<br />
<br />
We must choose our concentration parameter, <math>\beta</math>, for our dirichlet prior. We see our prior essentially disappears as <math>\beta_0 \to 0</math> and becomes stronger as <math>\beta_0 \to \infty</math>. Thus, we want a small <math>\beta_0</math> so the posterior isn't dominated by the prior. But, the authors claim that a small <math>\beta_0</math> makes <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small, which causes <math>\psi (\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x))</math> to be large, which is problematic for gradient based optimization. In practice, many neural network techniques aim to make <math>\mathbb E [f^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 0</math> and thus <math>\mathbb E [\alpha^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 1</math>, which means making <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small can be counterproductive.<br />
<br />
So, the authors set <math>\beta = \mathbf 1</math> and introduce a new hyperparameter <math>\lambda</math> which is multiplied with the KL term in the ELBO:<br />
<br />
$$l^\lambda_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - \lambda KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; \mathcal P^D (\mathbf 1)) $$<br />
<br />
This stabilizes the optimization, as we can tell from the gradients:<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf {x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\beta_{k}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)<br />
-\left(1-\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\beta_{0}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)$$<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}^{\lambda}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf{W}}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{W}(\mathbf{x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda\right)\right) \frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}<br />
-\left(1-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda K\right)\right)$$<br />
<br />
As we can see, the first expression is affected by the magnitude of <math>\alpha^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})</math>, whereas the second expression is not due to the <math>\frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}</math> ratio.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
<br />
Throughout the experiments in this paper, the authors employ various models based on residual connections (He et al., 2016 [1]) which are the models used for benchmarking in practice. We will first demonstrate improvements provided by BM, then we will show versatility in other applications. For fairness of comparisons, all configurations in the reference implementation will be fixed. The only additions in the experiments are initial learning rate warm-up and gradient clipping which are extremely helpful for stable training of BM. <br />
<br />
=== Generalization performance === <br />
The paper compares the generalization performance of BM with softmax and MC dropout on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 benchmarks.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T1.png]]<br />
<br />
The next comparison was performed between BM and softmax on the ImageNet benchmark. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T2.png]]<br />
<br />
For both datasets and In all configurations, BM achieves the best generalization and outperforms softmax and MC dropout.<br />
<br />
===== Regularization effect of prior =====<br />
<br />
In theory, BM has 2 regularization effects:<br />
The prior distribution, which smooths the target posterior<br />
Averaging all of the possible categorical probabilities to compute the distribution matching loss<br />
The authors perform an ablation study to examine the 2 effects separately - removing the KL term in the ELBO removes the effect of the prior distribution.<br />
For ResNet-50 on CIFAR-100 and CIFAR-10 the resulting test error rates were 24.69% and 5.68% respectively. <br />
<br />
This demonstrates that both regularization effects are significant since just having one of them improves the generalization performance compared to the softmax baseline, and having both improves the performance even more.<br />
<br />
===== Impact of <math>\beta</math> =====<br />
<br />
The effect of β on generalization performance is studied by training ResNet-18 on CIFAR-10 by tuning the value of β on its own, as well as jointly with λ. It was found that robust generalization performance is obtained for β ∈ [<math>e^{−1}, e^4</math>] when tuning β on its own; and β ∈ [<math>e^{−4}, e^{8}</math>] when tuning β jointly with λ. The figure below shows a plot of the error rate with varying β.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F3.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Uncertainty Representation ===<br />
<br />
One of the big advantages of BM is the ability to represent uncertainty about the prediction. The authors evaluate the uncertainty representation on in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. <br />
<br />
===== ID uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
For ID (in-distribution) samples, calibration performance is measured, which is a measure of how well the model’s confidence matches its actual accuracy. This measure can be visualized using reliability plots and quantified using a metric called expected calibration error (ECE). ECE is calculated by grouping predictions into M groups based on their confidence score and then finding the absolute difference between the average accuracy and average confidence for each group. We can define the ECE of <math>f^W </math> on <math>D </math> with <math>M</math> groups as <br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math>ECE_M(f^W, D) = \sum^M_{i=1} \frac{|G_i|}{|D|}|acc(G_i) - conf(G_i)|</math><br />
</center><br />
Where <math>G_i</math> is a set of samples int the i-th group defined as <math>G_i = \{j:i/M < max_k\phi_k(f^Wx^{(j)}) \leq (1+i)/M\}</math>, <math>acc(G_i)</math> is an average accuracy in the i-th group and <math>conf(G_i)</math> is an average confidence in the i-th group.<br />
<br />
The figure below is a reliability plot of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with 15 groups. It shows that BM has a significantly better calibration performance than softmax since the confidence matches the accuracy more closely (this is also reflected in the lower ECE).<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F4.png]]<br />
<br />
===== OOD uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
Here, the authors quantify uncertainty using predictive entropy - the larger the predictive entropy, the larger the uncertainty about a prediction. <br />
<br />
The figure below is a density plot of the predictive entropy of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10. It shows that BM provides significantly better uncertainty estimation compared to other methods since BM is the only method that has a clear peak of high predictive entropy for OOD samples which should have high uncertainty. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F5.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Transfer learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching applies the Bayesian principle outside the neural network, which means it can easily be applied to already trained models. Thus, belief matching can be employed in transfer learning scenarios. The authors downloaded the ImageNet pre-trained ResNet-50 weights and fine-tuned the weights of the last linear layer for 100 epochs using an Adam optimizer.<br />
<br />
This table shows the test error rates from transfer learning on CIFAR-10, Food-101, and Cars datasets. Belief matching consistently performs better than softmax. <br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning.png]]<br />
<br />
Belief matching was also tested for the predictive uncertainty for out of dataset samples based on CIFAR-10 as the in distribution sample. Looking at the figure below, it is observed that belief matching significantly improves the uncertainty representation of pre-trained models by only fine-tuning the last layer’s weights. Note that belief matching confidently predicts examples in Cars since CIFAR-10 contains the object category automobiles. In comparison, softmax produces confident predictions on all datasets. Thus, belief matching could also be used to enhance the uncertainty representation ability of pre-trained models without sacrificing their generalization performance.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning_uncertainty.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Semi-Supervised Learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching’s ability to allow neural networks to represent rich information in their predictions can be exploited to aid consistency based loss function for semi-supervised learning. Consistency-based loss functions use unlabelled samples to determine where to promote the robustness of predictions based on stochastic perturbations. This can be done by perturbing the inputs (which is the VAT model) or the networks (which is the pi-model). Both methods minimize the divergence between two categorical probabilities under some perturbations, thus belief matching can be used by the following replacements in the loss functions. The hope is that belief matching can provide better prediction consistencies using its Dirichlet distributions.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_equation.png]]<br />
<br />
The results of training on ResNet28-2 with consistency based loss functions on CIFAR-10 are shown in this table. Belief matching does have lower classification error rates compared to using a softmax.<br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_table.png]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Critiques ==<br />
<br />
* Bayesian principles can be used to construct the target distribution by using the categorical probability as a random variable rather than a training label. This can be applied to neural network models by replacing only the softmax and cross-entropy loss, while improving the generalization performance, uncertainty estimation and well-calibrated behavior. <br />
<br />
* In the future, the authors would like to allow for more expressive distributions in the belief matching framework, such as logistic normal distributions to capture strong semantic similarities among class labels. Furthermore, using input dependent priors would allow for interesting properties that would aid imbalanced datasets and multi-domain learning.<br />
<br />
* Overall I think this summary is very good. The Method(Algorithm) section is described clearly, and the Results section is detailed, with many diagrams illustrating the main points. I just have one technical suggestion: the difference in performance for SOFTMAX and BM differs by model. For example, for RESNEXT-50 model, the difference in top1 is 0.2, whereas for the RESNEXT-100 model, the difference in top one is 0.5, which is significantly higher. It's true that BM method generally outperforms SOFTMAX. But seeing the relation between the choice of model and the magnitude of performance increase could definitely strengthen the paper even further.<br />
<br />
* The summary is good and topic is interesting. Bayesian is a well know probabilistic model but did not know that it can be used as a neural network. Comparison between softmax and bayesian was interesting and more details would be great.<br />
<br />
* It would be better it there is a future work section to discuss the current shortage and potential improvement. One thing would be that the theoretical part is complex in the process. In addition, optimizing a function is relatively hard if the structure is complex. Is it possible to have a good approximation without having too complex calculation?<br />
<br />
* Both experiments dealt with image data, however softmax is used within classification neural networks that range from image to textual data. It would be interesting to see the performance of BM on textual data for text classification problems in addition to image classification.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to briefly explain Bayesian treatment in the introduction part(i.e., considering the categorical probability as random variable, construct the target distribution by means of the Bayesian inference), and to analyze the importance of considering the categorical probability as random variable (for example explain it can be adopted to existing deep learning building blocks without huge modifications).<br />
<br />
* Interesting topic that goes close to our lectures. Since this is an summary of the paper, it would be better if trim the explanation on Neural Network al little like getting rid of the substitution lines.<br />
<br />
* I really liked the presentation and actually really appreciate the detailed derivations steps that were presented in this summary. In the introduction the researchers mentioned that it BM is computationally cheap method, however I was wondering how much faster it is computationally as opposed to the other models to train. Additionally, the training data that was used to benchmark the classification performance seemed to all be image classifications (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ResNet-50, ResNet-101), thus it would have been nice to see classification be applied in other multi-class contexts as well to see how well this new method performs there.<br />
<br />
== Citations ==<br />
<br />
[1] Bridle, J. S. Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. In Neurocomputing, pp. 227–236. Springer, 1990.<br />
<br />
[2] Blundell, C., Cornebise, J., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Wierstra, D. Weight uncertainty in neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Gal, Y. and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2016.<br />
<br />
[4] Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., and Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017. <br />
<br />
[5] MacKay, D. J. A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Computation, 4(3):448– 472, 1992.<br />
<br />
[6] Graves, A. Practical variational inference for neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2011. <br />
<br />
[7] Mandt, S., Hoffman, M. D., and Blei, D. M. Stochastic gradient descent as approximate Bayesian inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):4873–4907, 2017.<br />
<br />
[8] Zhang, G., Sun, S., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R. Noisy natural gradient as variational inference. In International Conference of Machine Learning, 2018.<br />
<br />
[9] Maddox, W. J., Izmailov, P., Garipov, T., Vetrov, D. P., and Wilson, A. G. A simple baseline for Bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[10] Osawa, K., Swaroop, S., Jain, A., Eschenhagen, R., Turner, R. E., Yokota, R., and Khan, M. E. Practical deep learning with Bayesian principles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[11] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.<br />
<br />
[12] Neumann, L., Zisserman, A., and Vedaldi, A. Relaxed softmax: Efficient confidence auto-calibration for safe pedestrian detection. In NIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2018.<br />
<br />
[13] Xie, L., Wang, J., Wei, Z., Wang, M., and Tian, Q. Disturblabel: Regularizing cnn on the loss layer. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.<br />
<br />
[14] Pereyra, G., Tucker, G., Chorowski, J., Kaiser, Ł., and Hinton, G. Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06548, 2017.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability&diff=49489Being Bayesian about Categorical Probability2020-12-06T20:32:25Z<p>Y52wen: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Presented By ==<br />
Evan Li, Jason Pu, Karam Abuaisha, Nicholas Vadivelu<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Since the outputs of neural networks are not probabilities, Softmax (Bridle, 1990) is a staple for neural network’s performing classification--it exponentiates each logit then normalizes by the sum, giving a distribution over the target classes. Logit is a raw output/prediction of the model which is hard for humans to interpret, thus we transform/normalize these raw values into categories or meaningful numbers for interpretability. However, networks with softmax outputs give no information about uncertainty (Blundell et al., 2015; Gal & Ghahramani, 2016), and the resulting distribution over classes is poorly calibrated (Guo et al., 2017), often giving overconfident predictions even when the classification is wrong. In addition, softmax also raises concerns about overfitting NNs due to its confident predictive behaviors (Xie et al., 2016; Pereyra et al., 2017). To achieve performance with better generalization, some more effective regularization techniques might be required. <br />
<br />
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs; MacKay, 1992) can alleviate these issues, but the resulting posteriors over the parameters are often intractable. Approximations such as variational inference (Graves, 2011; Blundell et al., 2015) and Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) can still be expensive or give poor estimates for the posteriors. This work proposes a Bayesian treatment of the output logits of the neural network, treating the targets as a categorical random variable instead of a fixed label. This technique gives a computationally cheap way of being Bayesian to get well-calibrated uncertainty estimates on neural network classifications.<br />
<br />
== Related Work ==<br />
<br />
Using Bayesian Neural Networks is the dominant way of applying Bayesian techniques to neural networks. Many techniques have been developed to make posterior approximation more accurate and scalable, despite these, BNNs do not scale to the state of the art techniques or large data sets. There are techniques to explicitly avoid modeling the full weight posterior that are more scalable, such as with Monte Carlo Dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016) or tracking mean/covariance of the posterior during training (Mandt et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Maddox et al., 2019; Osawa et al., 2019). Non-Bayesian uncertainty estimation techniques such as deep ensembles (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017) and temperature scaling (Guo et al., 2017; Neumann et al., 2018).<br />
<br />
== Preliminaries ==<br />
=== Definitions ===<br />
Let's formalize our classification problem and define some notations for the rest of this summary:<br />
<br />
::Dataset:<br />
$$ \mathcal D = \{(x_i,y_i)\} \in (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)^N $$<br />
::General classification model<br />
$$ f^W: \mathcal X \to \mathbb R^K $$<br />
::Softmax function: <br />
$$ \phi(x): \mathbb R^K \to [0,1]^K \;\;|\;\; \phi_k(X) = \frac{\exp(f_k^W(x))}{\sum_{k \in K} \exp(f_k^W(x))} $$<br />
::Softmax activated NN:<br />
$$ \phi \;\circ\; f^W: \chi \to \Delta^{K-1} $$<br />
::NN as a true classifier:<br />
$$ arg\max_i \;\circ\; \phi_i \;\circ\; f^W \;:\; \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y $$<br />
<br />
We'll also define the '''count function''' - a <math>K</math>-vector valued function that outputs the occurences of each class coincident with <math>x</math>:<br />
$$ c^{\mathcal D}(x) = \sum_{(x',y') \in \mathcal D} \mathbb y' I(x' = x) $$<br />
<br />
=== Classification With a Neural Network ===<br />
A typical loss function used in classification is cross-entropy. It's well known that optimizing <math>f^W</math> for <math>l_{CE}</math> is equivalent to optimizing for <math>l_{KL}</math>, the <math>KL</math> divergence between the true distribution and the distribution modeled by NN, that is:<br />
$$ l_{KL}(W) = KL(\text{true distribution} \;|\; \text{distribution encoded by }NN(W)) $$<br />
Let's introduce notations for the underlying (true) distributions of our problem. Let <math>(x_0,y_0) \sim (\mathcal X \times \mathcal Y)</math>:<br />
$$ \text{Full Distribution} = F(x,y) = P(x_0 = x,y_0 = y) $$<br />
$$ \text{Marginal Distribution} = P(x) = F(x_0 = x) $$<br />
$$ \text{Point Class Distribution} = P(y_0 = y \;|\; x_0 = x) = F_x(y) $$<br />
Then we have the following factorization:<br />
$$ F(x,y) = P(x,y) = P(y|x)P(x) = F_x(y)F(x) $$<br />
Substitute this into the definition of KL divergence:<br />
$$ = \sum_{(x,y) \in \mathcal X \times \mathcal Y} F(x,y) \log\left(\frac{F(x,y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))}\right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F(y|x) \log\left( \frac{F(y|x)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) \sum_{y \in \mathcal Y} F_x(y) \log\left( \frac{F_x(y)}{\phi_y(f^W(x))} \right) $$<br />
$$ = \sum_{x \in \mathcal X} F(x) KL(F_x \;||\; \phi\left( f^W(x) \right)) $$<br />
As usual, we don't have an analytic form for <math>l</math> (if we did, this would imply we know <math>F_X</math> meaning we knew the distribution in the first place). Instead, estimate from <math>\mathcal D</math>:<br />
$$ F(x) \approx \hat F(x) = \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} $$<br />
$$ F_x(y) \approx \hat F_x(y) = \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{|| c^{\mathcal D}(x) ||_1}$$<br />
$$ \to l_{KL}(W) = \sum_{x \in \mathcal D} \frac{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1}{N} KL \left( \frac{c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \;||\; \phi(f^W(x)) \right) $$<br />
The approximations <math>\hat F, \hat F_X</math> are often not very good though: consider a typical classification such as MNIST, we would never expect two handwritten digits to produce the exact same image. Hence <math>c^{\mathcal D}(x)</math> is (almost) always going to have a single index 1 and the rest 0. This has implications for our approximations:<br />
$$ \hat F(x) \text{ is uniform for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
$$ \hat F_x(y) \text{ is degenerate for all } x \in \mathcal D $$<br />
This clearly has implications for overfitting: to minimize the KL term in <math>l_{KL}(W)</math> we want <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> to be very close to <math>\hat F_x(y)</math> at each point - this means that the loss function is in fact encouraging the neural network to output near degenerate distributions! <br />
<br />
'''Label Smoothing'''<br />
<br />
One form of regularization to help this problem is called label smoothing. Instead of using the degenerate $$F_x(y)$$ as a target function, let's "smooth" it (by adding a scaled uniform distribution to it) so it's no longer degenerate:<br />
$$ F'_x(y) = (1-\lambda)\hat F_x(y) + \frac \lambda K \vec 1 $$<br />
<br />
'''BNNs'''<br />
<br />
BBNs balances the complexity of the model and the distance to target distribution without choosing a single beset configuration (one-hot encoding). Specifically, BNNs with the Gaussian Weight prior $$F_x(y) = N (0,T^{-1} I)$$ has score of configuration <math>W</math> measured by the posterior density $$p_W(W|D) = p(D|W)p_W(W), \log(p_W(W)) = T||W||^2_2$$<br />
Here <math>||W||^2_2</math> could be a poor proxy to penalized for the model complexity due to its linear nature.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The main technical proposal of the paper is a Bayesian framework to estimate the (former) target distribution <math>F_x(y)</math>. That is, we construct a posterior distribution of <math> F_x(y) </math> and use that as our new target distribution. We call it the ''belief matching'' (BM) framework.<br />
<br />
=== Constructing Target Distribution ===<br />
Recall that <math>F_x(y)</math> is a k-categorical probability distribution - its PMF can be fully characterized by k numbers that sum to 1. Hence we can encode any such <math>F_x</math> as a point in <math>\Delta^{k-1}</math>. We'll do exactly that - let's call this vector <math>z</math>:<br />
$$ z \in \Delta^{k-1} $$<br />
$$ \text{prior} = p_{z|x}(z) $$<br />
$$ \text{conditional} = p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
$$ \text{posterior} = p_{z|x,y}(z) $$<br />
Then if we perform inference:<br />
$$ p_{z|x,y}(z) \propto p_{z|x}(z)p_{y|z,x}(y) $$<br />
The distribution chosen to model prior was <math>dir_K(\beta)</math>:<br />
$$ p_{z|x}(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\beta||_1)}{\prod_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\beta_k)} \prod_{k=1}^K z_k^{\beta_k - 1} $$<br />
Note that by definition of <math>z</math>: <math> p_{y|x,z} = z_y </math>. Since the Dirichlet is a conjugate prior to categorical distributions we have a convenient form for the mean of the posterior:<br />
$$ \bar{p_{z|x,y}}(z) = \frac{\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)}{||\beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x)||_1} \propto \beta + c^{\mathcal D}(x) $$<br />
This is in fact a generalization of (uniform) label smoothing (label smoothing is a special case where <math>\beta = \frac 1 K \vec{1} </math>).<br />
<br />
=== Representing Approximate Distribution ===<br />
Our new target distribution is <math>p_{z|x,y}(z)</math> (as opposed to <math>F_x(y)</math>). That is, we want to construct an interpretation of our neural network weights to construct a distribution with support in <math> \Delta^{K-1} </math> - the NN can then be trained so this encoded distribution closely approximates <math>p_{z|x,y}</math>. Let's denote the PMF of this encoded distribution <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>. This is how the BM framework defines it:<br />
$$ \alpha^W(x) := \exp(f^W(x)) $$<br />
$$ q_{z|x}^W(z) = \frac{\Gamma(||\alpha^W(x)||_1)}{\sum_{k=1}^K \Gamma(\alpha_k^W(x))} \prod_{k=1}^K z_{k}^{\alpha_k^W(x) - 1} $$<br />
$$ \to Z^W_x \sim dir(\alpha^W(x)) $$<br />
Apply <math>\log</math> then <math>\exp</math> to <math>q_{z|x}^W</math>:<br />
$$ q^W_{z|x}(z) \propto \exp \left( \sum_k (\alpha_k^W(x) \log(z_k)) - \sum_k \log(z_k) \right) $$<br />
$$ \propto -l_{CE}(\phi(f^W(x)),z) + \frac{K}{||\alpha^W(x)||}KL(\mathcal U_k \;||\; z) $$<br />
It can actually be shown that the mean of <math>Z_x^W</math> is identical to <math>\phi(f^W(x))</math> - in other words, if we output the mean of the encoded distribution of our neural network under the BM framework, it is theoretically identical to a traditional neural network.<br />
<br />
=== Distribution Matching ===<br />
<br />
We now need a way to fit our approximate distribution from our neural network <math>q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}</math> to our target distribution <math>p_{\mathbf{z|x},y}</math>. The authors achieve this by maximizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO):<br />
<br />
$$l_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) $$<br />
<br />
Each term can be computed analytically:<br />
<br />
$$\mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W }} \left[\log z_y \right] = \psi(\alpha_y^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W} ( \mathbf x )) $$<br />
<br />
Where <math>\psi(\cdot)</math> represents the digamma function (logarithmic derivative of gamma function). Intuitively, we maximize the probability of the correct label. For the KL term:<br />
<br />
$$KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; p_{\mathbf{z|x}}) = \log \frac{\Gamma(a_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) \prod_k \Gamma(\beta_k)}{\prod_k \Gamma(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)) \Gamma (\beta_0)} + \sum_k (\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(x)-\beta_k)(\psi(\alpha_k^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) - \psi(\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) $$<br />
<br />
In the first term, for intuition, we can ignore <math>\alpha_0</math> and <math>\beta_0</math> since those just calibrate the distributions. Otherwise, we want the ratio of the products to be as close to 1 as possible to minimize the KL. In the second term, we want to minimize the difference between each individual <math>\alpha_k</math> and <math>\beta_k</math>, scaled by the normalized output of the neural network. <br />
<br />
This loss function can be used as a drop-in replacement for the standard softmax cross-entropy, as it has an analytic form and the same time complexity as typical softmax-cross entropy with respect to the number of classes (<math>O(K)</math>).<br />
<br />
=== On Prior Distributions ===<br />
<br />
We must choose our concentration parameter, <math>\beta</math>, for our dirichlet prior. We see our prior essentially disappears as <math>\beta_0 \to 0</math> and becomes stronger as <math>\beta_0 \to \infty</math>. Thus, we want a small <math>\beta_0</math> so the posterior isn't dominated by the prior. But, the authors claim that a small <math>\beta_0</math> makes <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small, which causes <math>\psi (\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x))</math> to be large, which is problematic for gradient based optimization. In practice, many neural network techniques aim to make <math>\mathbb E [f^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 0</math> and thus <math>\mathbb E [\alpha^{\mathbf W} (\mathbf x)] \approx \mathbf 1</math>, which means making <math>\alpha_0^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)</math> small can be counterproductive.<br />
<br />
So, the authors set <math>\beta = \mathbf 1</math> and introduce a new hyperparameter <math>\lambda</math> which is multiplied with the KL term in the ELBO:<br />
<br />
$$l^\lambda_{EB}(\mathbf y, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf x)) = \mathbb E_{q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf{W}}} \left[\log p(\mathbf {y | x, z})\right] - \lambda KL (q_{\mathbf{z | x}}^{\mathbf W} \; || \; \mathcal P^D (\mathbf 1)) $$<br />
<br />
This stabilizes the optimization, as we can tell from the gradients:<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf {x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\beta_{k}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{k}^{\mathbf{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)<br />
-\left(1-\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\beta_{0}\right)\right) \psi^{\prime}\left(\alpha_{0}^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})\right)$$<br />
<br />
$$\frac{\partial l_{E B}^{\lambda}\left(\mathbf{y}, \alpha^{\mathbf{W}}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\partial \alpha_{k}^{W}(\mathbf{x})}=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{y}}_{k}-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda\right)\right) \frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}<br />
-\left(1-\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{W}(\mathbf{x})-\lambda K\right)\right)$$<br />
<br />
As we can see, the first expression is affected by the magnitude of <math>\alpha^{\boldsymbol{W}}(\boldsymbol{x})</math>, whereas the second expression is not due to the <math>\frac{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{k}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}{\psi^{\prime}\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{\mathbf W}(\mathbf{x})\right)}</math> ratio.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
<br />
Throughout the experiments in this paper, the authors employ various models based on residual connections (He et al., 2016 [1]) which are the models used for benchmarking in practice. We will first demonstrate improvements provided by BM, then we will show versatility in other applications. For fairness of comparisons, all configurations in the reference implementation will be fixed. The only additions in the experiments are initial learning rate warm-up and gradient clipping which are extremely helpful for stable training of BM. <br />
<br />
=== Generalization performance === <br />
The paper compares the generalization performance of BM with softmax and MC dropout on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 benchmarks.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T1.png]]<br />
<br />
The next comparison was performed between BM and softmax on the ImageNet benchmark. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_T2.png]]<br />
<br />
For both datasets and In all configurations, BM achieves the best generalization and outperforms softmax and MC dropout.<br />
<br />
===== Regularization effect of prior =====<br />
<br />
In theory, BM has 2 regularization effects:<br />
The prior distribution, which smooths the target posterior<br />
Averaging all of the possible categorical probabilities to compute the distribution matching loss<br />
The authors perform an ablation study to examine the 2 effects separately - removing the KL term in the ELBO removes the effect of the prior distribution.<br />
For ResNet-50 on CIFAR-100 and CIFAR-10 the resulting test error rates were 24.69% and 5.68% respectively. <br />
<br />
This demonstrates that both regularization effects are significant since just having one of them improves the generalization performance compared to the softmax baseline, and having both improves the performance even more.<br />
<br />
===== Impact of <math>\beta</math> =====<br />
<br />
The effect of β on generalization performance is studied by training ResNet-18 on CIFAR-10 by tuning the value of β on its own, as well as jointly with λ. It was found that robust generalization performance is obtained for β ∈ [<math>e^{−1}, e^4</math>] when tuning β on its own; and β ∈ [<math>e^{−4}, e^{8}</math>] when tuning β jointly with λ. The figure below shows a plot of the error rate with varying β.<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F3.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Uncertainty Representation ===<br />
<br />
One of the big advantages of BM is the ability to represent uncertainty about the prediction. The authors evaluate the uncertainty representation on in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. <br />
<br />
===== ID uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
For ID (in-distribution) samples, calibration performance is measured, which is a measure of how well the model’s confidence matches its actual accuracy. This measure can be visualized using reliability plots and quantified using a metric called expected calibration error (ECE). ECE is calculated by grouping predictions into M groups based on their confidence score and then finding the absolute difference between the average accuracy and average confidence for each group. We can define the ECE of <math>f^W </math> on <math>D </math> with <math>M</math> groups as <br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math>ECE_M(f^W, D) = \sum^M_{i=1} \frac{|G_i|}{|D|}|acc(G_i) - conf(G_i)|</math><br />
</center><br />
Where <math>G_i</math> is a set of samples int the i-th group defined as <math>G_i = \{j:i/M < max_k\phi_k(f^Wx^{(j)}) \leq (1+i)/M\}</math>, <math>acc(G_i)</math> is an average accuracy in the i-th group and <math>conf(G_i)</math> is an average confidence in the i-th group.<br />
<br />
The figure below is a reliability plot of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with 15 groups. It shows that BM has a significantly better calibration performance than softmax since the confidence matches the accuracy more closely (this is also reflected in the lower ECE).<br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F4.png]]<br />
<br />
===== OOD uncertainty =====<br />
<br />
Here, the authors quantify uncertainty using predictive entropy - the larger the predictive entropy, the larger the uncertainty about a prediction. <br />
<br />
The figure below is a density plot of the predictive entropy of ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10. It shows that BM provides significantly better uncertainty estimation compared to other methods since BM is the only method that has a clear peak of high predictive entropy for OOD samples which should have high uncertainty. <br />
<br />
[[File:Being_Bayesian_about_Categorical_Probability_F5.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Transfer learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching applies the Bayesian principle outside the neural network, which means it can easily be applied to already trained models. Thus, belief matching can be employed in transfer learning scenarios. The authors downloaded the ImageNet pre-trained ResNet-50 weights and fine-tuned the weights of the last linear layer for 100 epochs using an Adam optimizer.<br />
<br />
This table shows the test error rates from transfer learning on CIFAR-10, Food-101, and Cars datasets. Belief matching consistently performs better than softmax. <br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning.png]]<br />
<br />
Belief matching was also tested for the predictive uncertainty for out of dataset samples based on CIFAR-10 as the in distribution sample. Looking at the figure below, it is observed that belief matching significantly improves the uncertainty representation of pre-trained models by only fine-tuning the last layer’s weights. Note that belief matching confidently predicts examples in Cars since CIFAR-10 contains the object category automobiles. In comparison, softmax produces confident predictions on all datasets. Thus, belief matching could also be used to enhance the uncertainty representation ability of pre-trained models without sacrificing their generalization performance.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_transfer_learning_uncertainty.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Semi-Supervised Learning ===<br />
<br />
Belief matching’s ability to allow neural networks to represent rich information in their predictions can be exploited to aid consistency based loss function for semi-supervised learning. Consistency-based loss functions use unlabelled samples to determine where to promote the robustness of predictions based on stochastic perturbations. This can be done by perturbing the inputs (which is the VAT model) or the networks (which is the pi-model). Both methods minimize the divergence between two categorical probabilities under some perturbations, thus belief matching can be used by the following replacements in the loss functions. The hope is that belief matching can provide better prediction consistencies using its Dirichlet distributions.<br />
<br />
[[File: being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_equation.png]]<br />
<br />
The results of training on ResNet28-2 with consistency based loss functions on CIFAR-10 are shown in this table. Belief matching does have lower classification error rates compared to using a softmax.<br />
<br />
[[File:being_bayesian_about_categorical_probability_semi_supervised_table.png]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Critiques ==<br />
<br />
* Bayesian principles can be used to construct the target distribution by using the categorical probability as a random variable rather than a training label. This can be applied to neural network models by replacing only the softmax and cross-entropy loss, while improving the generalization performance, uncertainty estimation and well-calibrated behavior. <br />
<br />
* In the future, the authors would like to allow for more expressive distributions in the belief matching framework, such as logistic normal distributions to capture strong semantic similarities among class labels. Furthermore, using input dependent priors would allow for interesting properties that would aid imbalanced datasets and multi-domain learning.<br />
<br />
* Overall I think this summary is very good. The Method(Algorithm) section is described clearly, and the Results section is detailed, with many diagrams illustrating the main points. I just have one technical suggestion: the difference in performance for SOFTMAX and BM differs by model. For example, for RESNEXT-50 model, the difference in top1 is 0.2, whereas for the RESNEXT-100 model, the difference in top one is 0.5, which is significantly higher. It's true that BM method generally outperforms SOFTMAX. But seeing the relation between the choice of model and the magnitude of performance increase could definitely strengthen the paper even further.<br />
<br />
* The summary is good and topic is interesting. Bayesian is a well know probabilistic model but did not know that it can be used as a neural network. Comparison between softmax and bayesian was interesting and more details would be great.<br />
<br />
* It would be better it there is a future work section to discuss the current shortage and potential improvement. One thing would be that the theoretical part is complex in the process. In addition, optimizing a function is relatively hard if the structure is complex. Is it possible to have a good approximation without having too complex calculation?<br />
<br />
* Both experiments dealt with image data, however softmax is used within classification neural networks that range from image to textual data. It would be interesting to see the performance of BM on textual data for text classification problems in addition to image classification.<br />
<br />
* It would be better to briefly explain Bayesian treatment in the introduction part(i.e., considering the categorical probability as random variable, construct the target distribution by means of the Bayesian inference), and to analyze the importance of considering the categorical probability as random variable (for example explain it can be adopted to existing deep learning building blocks without huge modifications).<br />
<br />
* Interesting topic that goes close to our lectures. Since this is an summary of the paper, it would be better if trim the explanation on Neural Network al little like getting rid of the substitution lines.<br />
<br />
* I really liked the presentation and actually really appreciate the detailed derivations steps that were presented in this summary. In the introduction the researchers mentioned that it BM is computationally cheap method, however I was wondering how much faster it is computationally as opposed to the other models to train. Additionally, the training data that was used to benchmark the classification performance seemed to all be image classifications (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ResNet-50, ResNet-101), thus it would have been nice to see classification be applied in other multi-class contexts as well to see how well this new method performs there.<br />
<br />
== Citations ==<br />
<br />
[1] Bridle, J. S. Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. In Neurocomputing, pp. 227–236. Springer, 1990.<br />
<br />
[2] Blundell, C., Cornebise, J., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Wierstra, D. Weight uncertainty in neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.<br />
<br />
[3] Gal, Y. and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2016.<br />
<br />
[4] Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., and Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017. <br />
<br />
[5] MacKay, D. J. A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Computation, 4(3):448– 472, 1992.<br />
<br />
[6] Graves, A. Practical variational inference for neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2011. <br />
<br />
[7] Mandt, S., Hoffman, M. D., and Blei, D. M. Stochastic gradient descent as approximate Bayesian inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):4873–4907, 2017.<br />
<br />
[8] Zhang, G., Sun, S., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R. Noisy natural gradient as variational inference. In International Conference of Machine Learning, 2018.<br />
<br />
[9] Maddox, W. J., Izmailov, P., Garipov, T., Vetrov, D. P., and Wilson, A. G. A simple baseline for Bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[10] Osawa, K., Swaroop, S., Jain, A., Eschenhagen, R., Turner, R. E., Yokota, R., and Khan, M. E. Practical deep learning with Bayesian principles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.<br />
<br />
[11] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.<br />
<br />
[12] Neumann, L., Zisserman, A., and Vedaldi, A. Relaxed softmax: Efficient confidence auto-calibration for safe pedestrian detection. In NIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2018.<br />
<br />
[13] Xie, L., Wang, J., Wei, Z., Wang, M., and Tian, Q. Disturblabel: Regularizing cnn on the loss layer. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.<br />
<br />
[14] Pereyra, G., Tucker, G., Chorowski, J., Kaiser, Ł., and Hinton, G. Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06548, 2017.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=User:Yktan&diff=48281User:Yktan2020-11-30T04:26:04Z<p>Y52wen: /* Model Architecture and Algorithm */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Much of the success in training deep neural networks (DNNs) is due to the collection of large datasets with human-annotated labels. However, human annotation is both a time-consuming and expensive task, especially for data that requires expertise such as medical data. Furthermore, certain datasets will be noisy due to the biases introduced by different annotators. Data obtained in large quantities through searching for images in search engines and data downloaded from social media sites (in a manner abiding by privacy and copyright laws) are especially noisy, since the labels are generally inferred from tags to save on human-annotation cost. <br />
<br />
There are a few existing approaches to use datasets with noisy labels. In learning with noisy labels (LNL), most methods take a loss correction approach. Other LNL methods estimate a noise transition matrix and employ it to correct the loss function. An example of a popular loss correction approach is the bootstrapping loss approach. Another approach to reduce annotation cost is semi-supervised learning (SSL), where the training data consists of labeled and unlabeled samples.<br />
<br />
This paper introduces DivideMix, which combines approaches from LNL and SSL. One unique thing about DivideMix is that it discards sample labels that are highly likely to be noisy and leverages these noisy samples as unlabeled data instead. This prevents the model from overfitting and improves generalization performance. Key contributions of this work are:<br />
1) Co-divide, which trains two networks simultaneously, aims to improve generalization and avoid confirmation bias.<br />
2) During the SSL phase, an improvement is made on an existing method (MixMatch) by combining it with another method (MixUp).<br />
3) Significant improvements to state-of-the-art results on multiple conditions are experimentally shown while using DivideMix. Extensive ablation study and qualitative results are also shown to examine the effect of different components.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
<br />
While much has been achieved in training DNNs with noisy labels and SSL methods individually, not much progress has been made in exploring their underlying connections and building on top of the two approaches simultaneously. <br />
<br />
Existing LNL methods aim to correct the loss function by:<br />
<ol><br />
<li> Treating all samples equally and correcting loss explicitly or implicitly through relabelling of the noisy samples<br />
<li> Reweighting training samples or separating clean and noisy samples, which results in correction of the loss function<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
A few examples of LNL methods include:<br />
<ol><br />
<li> Estimating the noise transition matrix, which denotes the probability of clean labels flipping to noisy labels, to correct the loss function<br />
<li> Leveraging the predictions from DNNs to correct labels and using them to modify the loss<br />
<li> Reweighting samples so that noisy labels contribute less to the loss<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
However, these methods all have downsides: it is very challenging to correctly estimate the noise transition matrix in the first method; for the second method, DNNs tend to overfit to datasets with high noise ratio; and for the third method, we need to be able to identify clean samples, which has also proven to be challenging.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, SSL methods mostly leverage unlabeled data using regularization to improve model performance. A recently proposed method, MixMatch, incorporates the two classes of regularization. These classes are consistency regularization which enforces the model to produce consistent predictions on augmented input data, and entropy minimization which encourages the model to give high-confidence predictions on unlabeled data, as well as MixUp regularization. <br />
<br />
DivideMix partially adopts LNL in that it removes the labels that are highly likely to be noisy by using co-divide to avoid the confirmation bias problem. It then utilizes the noisy samples as unlabeled data and adopts an improved version of MixMatch (an SSL technique) which accounts for the label noise during the label co-refinement and co-guessing phase. By incorporating SSL techniques into LNL and taking the best of both worlds, DivideMix aims to produce highly promising results in training DNNs by better addressing the confirmation bias problem, more accurately distinguishing and utilizing noisy samples, and performing well under high levels of noise.<br />
<br />
== Model Architecture and Algorithm ==<br />
<br />
DivideMix leverages semi-supervised learning to achieve effective modeling. The sample is first split into a labeled set and an unlabeled set. This is achieved by fitting a Gaussian Mixture Model as a per-sample loss distribution. The unlabeled set is made up of data points with discarded labels deemed noisy. Then, to avoid confirmation bias, which is typical when a model is self-training, two models are being trained simultaneously to filter error for each other. This is done by dividing the data using one model and then training the other model. This algorithm, known as Co-divide, keeps the two networks from converging when training, which avoids the bias from occurring. Being diverged also offers the two networks distinct abilities to filter different types of error, making the model more robust to noise. Figure 1 describes the algorithm in graphical form.<br />
<br />
[[File:ModelArchitecture.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Model Architecture of DivideMix</div><br />
<br />
For each epoch, the network divides the dataset into a labeled set consisting of clean data, and an unlabeled set consisting of noisy data, which is then used as training data for the other network, where training is done in mini-batches. For each batch of the labelled samples, co-refinement is performed by using the ground truth label <math> y_b </math>, the predicted label <math> p_b </math>, and the posterior is used as the weight, <math> w_b </math>. <br />
<br />
<center><math> \bar{y}_b = w_b y_b + (1-w_b) p_b </math></center> <br />
<br />
Then, a sharpening function is implemented on this weighted sum to produce the estimate with reduced temperature, <math> \hat{y}_b </math>. <br />
<br />
<center><math> \hat{y}_b=Sharpen(\bar{y}_b,T)={\bar{y}^{c{\frac{1}{T}}}_b}/{\sum_{c=1}^C\bar{y}^{c{\frac{1}{T}}}_b} </math>, for <math>c = 1, 2,..,C</math></center><br />
<br />
Using all these predicted labels, the unlabeled samples will then be assigned a "co-guessed" label, which should produce a more accurate prediction. Having calculated all these labels, MixMatch is applied to the combined mini-batch of labeled, <math> \hat{X} </math> and unlabeled data, <math> \hat{U} </math>, where, for a pair of samples and their labels, one new sample and new label is produced. More specifically, for a pair of samples <math> (x_1,x_2) </math> and their labels <math> (p_1,p_2) </math>, the mixed sample <math> (x',p') </math> is:<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
\begin{alignat}{2}<br />
<br />
\lambda &\sim Beta(\alpha, \alpha) \\<br />
\lambda ' &= max(\lambda, 1 - \lambda) \\<br />
x' &= \lambda ' x_1 + (1 - \lambda ' ) x_2 \\<br />
p' &= \lambda ' p_1 + (1 - \lambda ' ) p_2 \\<br />
<br />
\end{alignat}<br />
</math><br />
</center> <br />
<br />
MixMatch transforms <math> \hat{X} </math> and <math> \hat{U} </math> into <math> X' </math> and <math> U' </math>. Then, the loss on <math> X' </math>, <math> L_X </math> (Cross-entropy loss) and the loss on <math> U' </math>, <math> L_U </math> (Mean Squared Error) are calculated. A regularization term, <math> L_{reg} </math>, is introduced to regularize the model's average output across all samples in the mini-batch. Then, the total loss is calculated as:<br />
<br />
<center><math> L = L_X + \lambda_u L_U + \lambda_r L_{reg} </math></center> <br />
<br />
where <math> \lambda_r </math> is set to 1, and <math> \lambda_u </math> is used to control the unsupervised loss.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the stochastic gradient descent formula is updated with the calculated loss, <math> L </math>, and the estimated parameters, <math> \boldsymbol{ \theta } </math>.<br />
<br />
The full algorithm is shown below. [[File:dividemix.jpg|600px| | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Algorithm1: DivideMix. Line 4-8: co-divide; Line 17-18: label co-refinement; Line 20: co-guessing.</div><br />
<br />
The when the model is warmed up, it is trained on all data using standard cross-entropy to initially converge the model, but with a regulatory negative entropy term <math>\mathcal{H} = -\sum_{c}\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}(x;\theta)\log(\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}(x;\theta))</math>, where <math>\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}</math> is the softmax output probability for class c. This term penalizes confident predictions during the warm up to prevent overfitting to noise during the warm up, which can happen when there is asymmetric noise.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
'''Applications'''<br />
<br />
The method was validated using four benchmark datasets: CIFAR-10, CIFAR100 (Krizhevsky & Hinton, 2009) which contain 50K training images and 10K test images of size 32 × 32), Clothing1M (Xiao et al., 2015), and WebVision (Li et al., 2017a).<br />
Two types of label noise are used in the experiments: symmetric and asymmetric.<br />
An 18-layer PreAct Resnet (He et al., 2016) is trained using SGD with a momentum of 0.9, a weight decay of 0.0005, and a batch size of 128. The network is trained for 300 epochs. The initial learning rate was set to 0.02 and reduced by a factor of 10 after 150 epochs. Before applying the Co-divide and MixMatch strategies, the models were first independently trained over the entire dataset using cross-entropy loss during a "warm-up" period. Initially, training the models in this way prepares a more regular distribution of losses to improve upon in subsequent epochs. The warm-up period is 10 epochs for CIFAR-10 and 30 epochs for CIFAR-100. For all CIFAR experiments, we use the same hyperparameters M = 2, T = 0.5, and α = 4. τ is set as 0.5 except for 90% noise ratio when it is set as 0.6.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Comparison of State-of-the-Art Methods'''<br />
<br />
The effectiveness of DivideMix was shown by comparing the test accuracy with the most recent state-of-the-art methods: <br />
Meta-Learning (Li et al., 2019) proposes a gradient-based method to find model parameters that are more noise-tolerant; <br />
Joint-Optim (Tanaka et al., 2018) and P-correction (Yi & Wu, 2019) jointly optimize the sample labels and the network parameters;<br />
M-correction (Arazo et al., 2019) models sample loss with BMM and apply MixUp.<br />
The following are the results on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with different levels of symmetric label noise ranging from 20% to 90%. Both the best test accuracy across all epochs and the averaged test accuracy over the last 10 epochs were recorded in the following table:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:divideMixtable1.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
From table 1, the author noticed that none of these methods can consistently outperform others across different datasets. M-correction excels at symmetric noise, whereas Meta-Learning performs better for asymmetric noise. DivideMix outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin across all noise ratios. The improvement is substantial (∼10% of accuracy) for the more challenging CIFAR-100 with high noise ratios.<br />
<br />
DivideMix was compared with the state-of-the-art methods with the other two datasets: Clothing1M and WebVision. It also shows that DivideMix consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across all datasets with different types of label noise. For WebVision, DivideMix achieves more than 12% improvement in top-1 accuracy. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ablation Study'''<br />
<br />
The effect of removing different components to provide insights into what makes DivideMix successful. We analyze the results in Table 5 as follows.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:DivideMixtable5.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
The authors combined self-divide with the original MixMatch as a naive baseline for using SLL in LNL.<br />
They also find that both label refinement and input augmentation are beneficial for DivideMix. ''Label refinement'' is important for high noise ratio due because samples that are noisier would be incorrectly divided into the labeled set. ''Augmentation'' upgrades model performance by creating more reliable predictions and by achieving consistent regularization. In addition, the performance drop was seen in the ''DivideMix w/o co-training'' highlights the disadvantage of self-training; the model still has dataset division, label refinement and label guessing, but they are all performed by the same model.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
This paper provides a new and effective algorithm for learning with noisy labels by using highly noisy data unlabelled data in a Semi-Supervised Learning framework. The DivideMix method trains two networks simultaneously and utilizes co-guessing and co-labeling effectively, therefore it is a robust approach to deal with noise in datasets. Also, the DivideMix method has been tested using various datasets with the results consistently being one of the best when compared to the state-of-the-art methods through extensive experiments.<br />
<br />
Future work of DivideMix is to create an adaptation for other applications such as Natural Language Processing, and incorporating the ideas of SSL and LNL into DivideMix architecture.<br />
<br />
== Critiques/ Insights ==<br />
<br />
1. While combining both models makes the result better, the author did not show the relative time increase using this new combined methodology, which is very crucial considering training a large amount of data, especially for images. In addition, it seems that the author did not perform much on hyperparameters tuning for the combined model.<br />
<br />
2. There is an interesting insight, which is when the noise ratio increases from 80% to 90%, the accuracy of DivideMix drops dramatically in both datasets.<br />
<br />
3. There should be a further explanation of why the learning rate drops by a factor of 10 after 150 epochs.<br />
<br />
4. It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of this method in other domains such as NLP. I am not aware of noisy training datasets available in NLP, but surely this is an important area to focus on, as much of the available data is collected from noisy sources from the web.<br />
<br />
5. The paper implicitly assumes that a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) is sufficiently capable of identifying noise. Given the nature of a GMM, it would work well for noise that is distributed by a Gaussian distribution but for all other noise, it would probably be only asymptotic. The paper should present theoretical results on the noise that are Exponential, Rayleigh, etc. This is particularly important because the experiments were done on massive datasets, but they do not directly address the case when there are not many data points. <br />
<br />
6. Comparing the training result on these benchmark datasets makes the algorithm quite comprehensive. This is a very insightful idea to maintain two networks to avoid bias from occurring.<br />
<br />
7. The current benchmark accuracy for CIFAR-10 is 99.7, CIFAR-100 is 96.08 using EffNet-L2 in 2020. In 2019, CIFAR-10 is 99.37, CIFAR-100 is 93.51 using BiT-L.(based on paperswithcode.com) As there exists better methods, it would be nice to know why the authors chose these state-of-the-art methods to compare the test accuracy.<br />
<br />
8. Another interesting observation is that DivideMix seems to maintain a similar accuracy while some methods give unstable results. That shows the reliability of the proposed algorithm.<br />
<br />
9. It would be interesting to see if the drop in accuracy from increasing the noise ratio to 90% is a result of a low porportion or low number of clean labels. That is, would increasing the size of the training set but keeping the noise ratio at 90% result in increased accuracy?<br />
<br />
10. For Ablation Study part, the paper also introduced a study on the Robustness of Testing Marking Methods Noise, including AUC for classification of clean/noisy samples of CIFAR-10 training data. And it shows that the method can effectively separate clean and noisy samples as training proceeds.<br />
<br />
11. It is interesting how unlike common methods, the method in this paper discards the labels that are highly likely to be<br />
noisy. It also utilizes the noisy samples as unlabeled data to regularize training in a SSL manner. This model can better distinguish and utilize noisy samples.<br />
<br />
12. In the result section, the author gives us a comprehensive understanding of this algorithm by introducing the applications and the comparison of it with respect to similar methods. It would be attractive if in the application part, the author could indicate how the application relative to our daily life.<br />
<br />
13. High quality data is very important for training Machine learning systems. Preparing the data to train ML systems requires data annotations which are prone to errors and are time-consuming. It is interesting to note how paper 14 and this paper aims to approach this problem from different perspectives. Paper 14 introduces CSL algorithm that learns from confused or Noisy data to find the tasks associated with them. And this paper proposes an algorithm that shows good performance when learning from noisy data. Hence both the papers seem to tackle similar problem and implementing the approaches described in both the papers when handling noisy data can be twice helpful.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. Unsupervised<br />
label noise modeling and loss correction. In ICML, pp. 312–321, 2019.<br />
<br />
David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian J. Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, and Colin<br />
Raffel. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. NeurIPS, 2019.<br />
<br />
Yifan Ding, Liqiang Wang, Deliang Fan, and Boqing Gong. A semi-supervised two-stage approach<br />
to learning from noisy labels. In WACV, pp. 1215–1224, 2018.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=User:Yktan&diff=48275User:Yktan2020-11-30T04:21:06Z<p>Y52wen: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Much of the success in training deep neural networks (DNNs) is due to the collection of large datasets with human-annotated labels. However, human annotation is both a time-consuming and expensive task, especially for data that requires expertise such as medical data. Furthermore, certain datasets will be noisy due to the biases introduced by different annotators. Data obtained in large quantities through searching for images in search engines and data downloaded from social media sites (in a manner abiding by privacy and copyright laws) are especially noisy, since the labels are generally inferred from tags to save on human-annotation cost. <br />
<br />
There are a few existing approaches to use datasets with noisy labels. In learning with noisy labels (LNL), most methods take a loss correction approach. Other LNL methods estimate a noise transition matrix and employ it to correct the loss function. An example of a popular loss correction approach is the bootstrapping loss approach. Another approach to reduce annotation cost is semi-supervised learning (SSL), where the training data consists of labeled and unlabeled samples.<br />
<br />
This paper introduces DivideMix, which combines approaches from LNL and SSL. One unique thing about DivideMix is that it discards sample labels that are highly likely to be noisy and leverages these noisy samples as unlabeled data instead. This prevents the model from overfitting and improves generalization performance. Key contributions of this work are:<br />
1) Co-divide, which trains two networks simultaneously, aims to improve generalization and avoid confirmation bias.<br />
2) During the SSL phase, an improvement is made on an existing method (MixMatch) by combining it with another method (MixUp).<br />
3) Significant improvements to state-of-the-art results on multiple conditions are experimentally shown while using DivideMix. Extensive ablation study and qualitative results are also shown to examine the effect of different components.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
<br />
While much has been achieved in training DNNs with noisy labels and SSL methods individually, not much progress has been made in exploring their underlying connections and building on top of the two approaches simultaneously. <br />
<br />
Existing LNL methods aim to correct the loss function by:<br />
<ol><br />
<li> Treating all samples equally and correcting loss explicitly or implicitly through relabelling of the noisy samples<br />
<li> Reweighting training samples or separating clean and noisy samples, which results in correction of the loss function<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
A few examples of LNL methods include:<br />
<ol><br />
<li> Estimating the noise transition matrix, which denotes the probability of clean labels flipping to noisy labels, to correct the loss function<br />
<li> Leveraging the predictions from DNNs to correct labels and using them to modify the loss<br />
<li> Reweighting samples so that noisy labels contribute less to the loss<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
However, these methods all have downsides: it is very challenging to correctly estimate the noise transition matrix in the first method; for the second method, DNNs tend to overfit to datasets with high noise ratio; and for the third method, we need to be able to identify clean samples, which has also proven to be challenging.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, SSL methods mostly leverage unlabeled data using regularization to improve model performance. A recently proposed method, MixMatch, incorporates the two classes of regularization. These classes are consistency regularization which enforces the model to produce consistent predictions on augmented input data, and entropy minimization which encourages the model to give high-confidence predictions on unlabeled data, as well as MixUp regularization. <br />
<br />
DivideMix partially adopts LNL in that it removes the labels that are highly likely to be noisy by using co-divide to avoid the confirmation bias problem. It then utilizes the noisy samples as unlabeled data and adopts an improved version of MixMatch (an SSL technique) which accounts for the label noise during the label co-refinement and co-guessing phase. By incorporating SSL techniques into LNL and taking the best of both worlds, DivideMix aims to produce highly promising results in training DNNs by better addressing the confirmation bias problem, more accurately distinguishing and utilizing noisy samples, and performing well under high levels of noise.<br />
<br />
== Model Architecture and Algorithm ==<br />
<br />
DivideMix leverages semi-supervised learning to achieve effective modeling. The sample is first split into a labeled set and an unlabeled set. This is achieved by fitting a Gaussian Mixture Model as a per-sample loss distribution. The unlabeled set is made up of data points with discarded labels deemed noisy. Then, to avoid confirmation bias, which is typical when a model is self-training, two models are being trained simultaneously to filter error for each other. This is done by dividing the data using one model and then training the other model. This algorithm, known as Co-divide, keeps the two networks from converging when training, which avoids the bias from occurring. Being diverged also offers the two networks distinct abilities to filter different types of error, making the model more robust to noise. Figure 1 describes the algorithm in graphical form.<br />
<br />
[[File:ModelArchitecture.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Model Architecture of DivideMix</div><br />
<br />
For each epoch, the network divides the dataset into a labeled set consisting of clean data, and an unlabeled set consisting of noisy data, which is then used as training data for the other network, where training is done in mini-batches. For each batch of the labelled samples, co-refinement is performed by using the ground truth label <math> y_b </math>, the predicted label <math> p_b </math>, and the posterior is used as the weight, <math> w_b </math>. <br />
<br />
<center><math> \bar{y}_b = w_b y_b + (1-w_b) p_b </math></center> <br />
<br />
Then, a sharpening function is implemented on this weighted sum to produce the estimate, <math> \hat{y}_b </math>. Using all these predicted labels, the unlabeled samples will then be assigned a "co-guessed" label, which should produce a more accurate prediction.<br />
<math> \hat{y}_b=Sharpen(\bar{y}_b,T)={\bar{y}^{c{\frac{1}{T}}}_b}/{\sum_{c=1}^C\bar{y}^{c{\frac{1}{T}}}_b} </math>, for c = 1, 2,....., C.<br />
Having calculated all these labels, MixMatch is applied to the combined mini-batch of labeled, <math> \hat{X} </math> and unlabeled data, <math> \hat{U} </math>, where, for a pair of samples and their labels, one new sample and new label is produced. More specifically, for a pair of samples <math> (x_1,x_2) </math> and their labels <math> (p_1,p_2) </math>, the mixed sample <math> (x',p') </math> is:<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
\begin{alignat}{2}<br />
<br />
\lambda &\sim Beta(\alpha, \alpha) \\<br />
\lambda ' &= max(\lambda, 1 - \lambda) \\<br />
x' &= \lambda ' x_1 + (1 - \lambda ' ) x_2 \\<br />
p' &= \lambda ' p_1 + (1 - \lambda ' ) p_2 \\<br />
<br />
\end{alignat}<br />
</math><br />
</center> <br />
<br />
MixMatch transforms <math> \hat{X} </math> and <math> \hat{U} </math> into <math> X' </math> and <math> U' </math>. Then, the loss on <math> X' </math>, <math> L_X </math> (Cross-entropy loss) and the loss on <math> U' </math>, <math> L_U </math> (Mean Squared Error) are calculated. A regularization term, <math> L_{reg} </math>, is introduced to regularize the model's average output across all samples in the mini-batch. Then, the total loss is calculated as:<br />
<br />
<center><math> L = L_X + \lambda_u L_U + \lambda_r L_{reg} </math></center> <br />
<br />
where <math> \lambda_r </math> is set to 1, and <math> \lambda_u </math> is used to control the unsupervised loss.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the stochastic gradient descent formula is updated with the calculated loss, <math> L </math>, and the estimated parameters, <math> \boldsymbol{ \theta } </math>.<br />
<br />
The full algorithm is shown below. [[File:dividemix.jpg|600px| | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Algorithm1: DivideMix. Line 4-8: co-divide; Line 17-18: label co-refinement; Line 20: co-guessing.</div><br />
<br />
The when the model is warmed up, it is trained on all data using standard cross-entropy to initially converge the model, but with a regulatory negative entropy term <math>\mathcal{H} = -\sum_{c}\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}(x;\theta)\log(\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}(x;\theta))</math>, where <math>\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}</math> is the softmax output probability for class c. This term penalizes confident predictions during the warm up to prevent overfitting to noise during the warm up, which can happen when there is asymmetric noise.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
'''Applications'''<br />
<br />
The method was validated using four benchmark datasets: CIFAR-10, CIFAR100 (Krizhevsky & Hinton, 2009) which contain 50K training images and 10K test images of size 32 × 32), Clothing1M (Xiao et al., 2015), and WebVision (Li et al., 2017a).<br />
Two types of label noise are used in the experiments: symmetric and asymmetric.<br />
An 18-layer PreAct Resnet (He et al., 2016) is trained using SGD with a momentum of 0.9, a weight decay of 0.0005, and a batch size of 128. The network is trained for 300 epochs. The initial learning rate was set to 0.02 and reduced by a factor of 10 after 150 epochs. Before applying the Co-divide and MixMatch strategies, the models were first independently trained over the entire dataset using cross-entropy loss during a "warm-up" period. Initially, training the models in this way prepares a more regular distribution of losses to improve upon in subsequent epochs. The warm-up period is 10 epochs for CIFAR-10 and 30 epochs for CIFAR-100. For all CIFAR experiments, we use the same hyperparameters M = 2, T = 0.5, and α = 4. τ is set as 0.5 except for 90% noise ratio when it is set as 0.6.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Comparison of State-of-the-Art Methods'''<br />
<br />
The effectiveness of DivideMix was shown by comparing the test accuracy with the most recent state-of-the-art methods: <br />
Meta-Learning (Li et al., 2019) proposes a gradient-based method to find model parameters that are more noise-tolerant; <br />
Joint-Optim (Tanaka et al., 2018) and P-correction (Yi & Wu, 2019) jointly optimize the sample labels and the network parameters;<br />
M-correction (Arazo et al., 2019) models sample loss with BMM and apply MixUp.<br />
The following are the results on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with different levels of symmetric label noise ranging from 20% to 90%. Both the best test accuracy across all epochs and the averaged test accuracy over the last 10 epochs were recorded in the following table:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:divideMixtable1.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
From table 1, the author noticed that none of these methods can consistently outperform others across different datasets. M-correction excels at symmetric noise, whereas Meta-Learning performs better for asymmetric noise. DivideMix outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin across all noise ratios. The improvement is substantial (∼10% of accuracy) for the more challenging CIFAR-100 with high noise ratios.<br />
<br />
DivideMix was compared with the state-of-the-art methods with the other two datasets: Clothing1M and WebVision. It also shows that DivideMix consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across all datasets with different types of label noise. For WebVision, DivideMix achieves more than 12% improvement in top-1 accuracy. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ablation Study'''<br />
<br />
The effect of removing different components to provide insights into what makes DivideMix successful. We analyze the results in Table 5 as follows.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:DivideMixtable5.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
The authors combined self-divide with the original MixMatch as a naive baseline for using SLL in LNL.<br />
They also find that both label refinement and input augmentation are beneficial for DivideMix. ''Label refinement'' is important for high noise ratio due because samples that are noisier would be incorrectly divided into the labeled set. ''Augmentation'' upgrades model performance by creating more reliable predictions and by achieving consistent regularization. In addition, the performance drop was seen in the ''DivideMix w/o co-training'' highlights the disadvantage of self-training; the model still has dataset division, label refinement and label guessing, but they are all performed by the same model.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
This paper provides a new and effective algorithm for learning with noisy labels by using highly noisy data unlabelled data in a Semi-Supervised Learning framework. The DivideMix method trains two networks simultaneously and utilizes co-guessing and co-labeling effectively, therefore it is a robust approach to deal with noise in datasets. Also, the DivideMix method has been tested using various datasets with the results consistently being one of the best when compared to the state-of-the-art methods through extensive experiments.<br />
<br />
Future work of DivideMix is to create an adaptation for other applications such as Natural Language Processing, and incorporating the ideas of SSL and LNL into DivideMix architecture.<br />
<br />
== Critiques/ Insights ==<br />
<br />
1. While combining both models makes the result better, the author did not show the relative time increase using this new combined methodology, which is very crucial considering training a large amount of data, especially for images. In addition, it seems that the author did not perform much on hyperparameters tuning for the combined model.<br />
<br />
2. There is an interesting insight, which is when the noise ratio increases from 80% to 90%, the accuracy of DivideMix drops dramatically in both datasets.<br />
<br />
3. There should be a further explanation of why the learning rate drops by a factor of 10 after 150 epochs.<br />
<br />
4. It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of this method in other domains such as NLP. I am not aware of noisy training datasets available in NLP, but surely this is an important area to focus on, as much of the available data is collected from noisy sources from the web.<br />
<br />
5. The paper implicitly assumes that a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) is sufficiently capable of identifying noise. Given the nature of a GMM, it would work well for noise that is distributed by a Gaussian distribution but for all other noise, it would probably be only asymptotic. The paper should present theoretical results on the noise that are Exponential, Rayleigh, etc. This is particularly important because the experiments were done on massive datasets, but they do not directly address the case when there are not many data points. <br />
<br />
6. Comparing the training result on these benchmark datasets makes the algorithm quite comprehensive. This is a very insightful idea to maintain two networks to avoid bias from occurring.<br />
<br />
7. The current benchmark accuracy for CIFAR-10 is 99.7, CIFAR-100 is 96.08 using EffNet-L2 in 2020. In 2019, CIFAR-10 is 99.37, CIFAR-100 is 93.51 using BiT-L.(based on paperswithcode.com) As there exists better methods, it would be nice to know why the authors chose these state-of-the-art methods to compare the test accuracy.<br />
<br />
8. Another interesting observation is that DivideMix seems to maintain a similar accuracy while some methods give unstable results. That shows the reliability of the proposed algorithm.<br />
<br />
9. It would be interesting to see if the drop in accuracy from increasing the noise ratio to 90% is a result of a low porportion or low number of clean labels. That is, would increasing the size of the training set but keeping the noise ratio at 90% result in increased accuracy?<br />
<br />
10. For Ablation Study part, the paper also introduced a study on the Robustness of Testing Marking Methods Noise, including AUC for classification of clean/noisy samples of CIFAR-10 training data. And it shows that the method can effectively separate clean and noisy samples as training proceeds.<br />
<br />
11. It is interesting how unlike common methods, the method in this paper discards the labels that are highly likely to be<br />
noisy. It also utilizes the noisy samples as unlabeled data to regularize training in a SSL manner. This model can better distinguish and utilize noisy samples.<br />
<br />
12. In the result section, the author gives us a comprehensive understanding of this algorithm by introducing the applications and the comparison of it with respect to similar methods. It would be attractive if in the application part, the author could indicate how the application relative to our daily life.<br />
<br />
13. High quality data is very important for training Machine learning systems. Preparing the data to train ML systems requires data annotations which are prone to errors and are time-consuming. It is interesting to note how paper 14 and this paper aims to approach this problem from different perspectives. Paper 14 introduces CSL algorithm that learns from confused or Noisy data to find the tasks associated with them. And this paper proposes an algorithm that shows good performance when learning from noisy data. Hence both the papers seem to tackle similar problem and implementing the approaches described in both the papers when handling noisy data can be twice helpful.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. Unsupervised<br />
label noise modeling and loss correction. In ICML, pp. 312–321, 2019.<br />
<br />
David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian J. Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, and Colin<br />
Raffel. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. NeurIPS, 2019.<br />
<br />
Yifan Ding, Liqiang Wang, Deliang Fan, and Boqing Gong. A semi-supervised two-stage approach<br />
to learning from noisy labels. In WACV, pp. 1215–1224, 2018.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=User:Yktan&diff=48273User:Yktan2020-11-30T04:19:47Z<p>Y52wen: /* Motivation */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Much of the success in training deep neural networks (DNNs) is due to the collection of large datasets with human-annotated labels. However, human annotation is both a time-consuming and expensive task, especially for data that requires expertise such as medical data. Furthermore, certain datasets will be noisy due to the biases introduced by different annotators. Data obtained in large quantities through searching for images in search engines and data downloaded from social media sites (in a manner abiding by privacy and copyright laws) are especially noisy, since the labels are generally inferred from tags to save on human-annotation cost. <br />
<br />
There are a few existing approaches to use datasets with noisy labels. In learning with noisy labels (LNL), most methods take a loss correction approach. Other LNL methods estimate a noise transition matrix and employ it to correct the loss function. An example of a popular loss correction approach is the bootstrapping loss approach. Another approach to reduce annotation cost is semi-supervised learning (SSL), where the training data consists of labeled and unlabeled samples.<br />
<br />
This paper introduces DivideMix, which combines approaches from LNL and SSL. One unique thing about DivideMix is that it discards sample labels that are highly likely to be noisy and leverages these noisy samples as unlabeled data instead. This prevents the model from overfitting and improves generalization performance. Key contributions of this work are:<br />
1) Co-divide, which trains two networks simultaneously, aims to improve generalization and avoiding confirmation bias.<br />
2) During the SSL phase, an improvement is made on an existing method (MixMatch) by combining it with another method (MixUp).<br />
3) Significant improvements to state-of-the-art results on multiple conditions are experimentally shown while using DivideMix. Extensive ablation study and qualitative results are also shown to examine the effect of different components.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
<br />
While much has been achieved in training DNNs with noisy labels and SSL methods individually, not much progress has been made in exploring their underlying connections and building on top of the two approaches simultaneously. <br />
<br />
Existing LNL methods aim to correct the loss function by:<br />
<ol><br />
<li> Treating all samples equally and correcting loss explicitly or implicitly through relabelling of the noisy samples<br />
<li> Reweighting training samples or separating clean and noisy samples, which results in correction of the loss function<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
A few examples of LNL methods include:<br />
<ol><br />
<li> Estimating the noise transition matrix, which denotes the probability of clean labels flipping to noisy labels, to correct the loss function<br />
<li> Leveraging the predictions from DNNs to correct labels and using them to modify the loss<br />
<li> Reweighting samples so that noisy labels contribute less to the loss<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
However, these methods all have downsides: it is very challenging to correctly estimate the noise transition matrix in the first method; for the second method, DNNs tend to overfit to datasets with high noise ratio; and for the third method, we need to be able to identify clean samples, which has also proven to be challenging.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, SSL methods mostly leverage unlabeled data using regularization to improve model performance. A recently proposed method, MixMatch, incorporates the two classes of regularization. These classes are consistency regularization which enforces the model to produce consistent predictions on augmented input data, and entropy minimization which encourages the model to give high-confidence predictions on unlabeled data, as well as MixUp regularization. <br />
<br />
DivideMix partially adopts LNL in that it removes the labels that are highly likely to be noisy by using co-divide to avoid the confirmation bias problem. It then utilizes the noisy samples as unlabeled data and adopts an improved version of MixMatch (an SSL technique) which accounts for the label noise during the label co-refinement and co-guessing phase. By incorporating SSL techniques into LNL and taking the best of both worlds, DivideMix aims to produce highly promising results in training DNNs by better addressing the confirmation bias problem, more accurately distinguishing and utilizing noisy samples, and performing well under high levels of noise.<br />
<br />
== Model Architecture and Algorithm ==<br />
<br />
DivideMix leverages semi-supervised learning to achieve effective modeling. The sample is first split into a labeled set and an unlabeled set. This is achieved by fitting a Gaussian Mixture Model as a per-sample loss distribution. The unlabeled set is made up of data points with discarded labels deemed noisy. Then, to avoid confirmation bias, which is typical when a model is self-training, two models are being trained simultaneously to filter error for each other. This is done by dividing the data using one model and then training the other model. This algorithm, known as Co-divide, keeps the two networks from converging when training, which avoids the bias from occurring. Being diverged also offers the two networks distinct abilities to filter different types of error, making the model more robust to noise. Figure 1 describes the algorithm in graphical form.<br />
<br />
[[File:ModelArchitecture.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Figure 1: Model Architecture of DivideMix</div><br />
<br />
For each epoch, the network divides the dataset into a labeled set consisting of clean data, and an unlabeled set consisting of noisy data, which is then used as training data for the other network, where training is done in mini-batches. For each batch of the labelled samples, co-refinement is performed by using the ground truth label <math> y_b </math>, the predicted label <math> p_b </math>, and the posterior is used as the weight, <math> w_b </math>. <br />
<br />
<center><math> \bar{y}_b = w_b y_b + (1-w_b) p_b </math></center> <br />
<br />
Then, a sharpening function is implemented on this weighted sum to produce the estimate, <math> \hat{y}_b </math>. Using all these predicted labels, the unlabeled samples will then be assigned a "co-guessed" label, which should produce a more accurate prediction.<br />
<math> \hat{y}_b=Sharpen(\bar{y}_b,T)={\bar{y}^{c{\frac{1}{T}}}_b}/{\sum_{c=1}^C\bar{y}^{c{\frac{1}{T}}}_b} </math>, for c = 1, 2,....., C.<br />
Having calculated all these labels, MixMatch is applied to the combined mini-batch of labeled, <math> \hat{X} </math> and unlabeled data, <math> \hat{U} </math>, where, for a pair of samples and their labels, one new sample and new label is produced. More specifically, for a pair of samples <math> (x_1,x_2) </math> and their labels <math> (p_1,p_2) </math>, the mixed sample <math> (x',p') </math> is:<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
\begin{alignat}{2}<br />
<br />
\lambda &\sim Beta(\alpha, \alpha) \\<br />
\lambda ' &= max(\lambda, 1 - \lambda) \\<br />
x' &= \lambda ' x_1 + (1 - \lambda ' ) x_2 \\<br />
p' &= \lambda ' p_1 + (1 - \lambda ' ) p_2 \\<br />
<br />
\end{alignat}<br />
</math><br />
</center> <br />
<br />
MixMatch transforms <math> \hat{X} </math> and <math> \hat{U} </math> into <math> X' </math> and <math> U' </math>. Then, the loss on <math> X' </math>, <math> L_X </math> (Cross-entropy loss) and the loss on <math> U' </math>, <math> L_U </math> (Mean Squared Error) are calculated. A regularization term, <math> L_{reg} </math>, is introduced to regularize the model's average output across all samples in the mini-batch. Then, the total loss is calculated as:<br />
<br />
<center><math> L = L_X + \lambda_u L_U + \lambda_r L_{reg} </math></center> <br />
<br />
where <math> \lambda_r </math> is set to 1, and <math> \lambda_u </math> is used to control the unsupervised loss.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the stochastic gradient descent formula is updated with the calculated loss, <math> L </math>, and the estimated parameters, <math> \boldsymbol{ \theta } </math>.<br />
<br />
The full algorithm is shown below. [[File:dividemix.jpg|600px| | center]]<br />
<div align="center">Algorithm1: DivideMix. Line 4-8: co-divide; Line 17-18: label co-refinement; Line 20: co-guessing.</div><br />
<br />
The when the model is warmed up, it is trained on all data using standard cross-entropy to initially converge the model, but with a regulatory negative entropy term <math>\mathcal{H} = -\sum_{c}\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}(x;\theta)\log(\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}(x;\theta))</math>, where <math>\text{p}^\text{c}_\text{model}</math> is the softmax output probability for class c. This term penalizes confident predictions during the warm up to prevent overfitting to noise during the warm up, which can happen when there is asymmetric noise.<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
'''Applications'''<br />
<br />
The method was validated using four benchmark datasets: CIFAR-10, CIFAR100 (Krizhevsky & Hinton, 2009) which contain 50K training images and 10K test images of size 32 × 32), Clothing1M (Xiao et al., 2015), and WebVision (Li et al., 2017a).<br />
Two types of label noise are used in the experiments: symmetric and asymmetric.<br />
An 18-layer PreAct Resnet (He et al., 2016) is trained using SGD with a momentum of 0.9, a weight decay of 0.0005, and a batch size of 128. The network is trained for 300 epochs. The initial learning rate was set to 0.02 and reduced by a factor of 10 after 150 epochs. Before applying the Co-divide and MixMatch strategies, the models were first independently trained over the entire dataset using cross-entropy loss during a "warm-up" period. Initially, training the models in this way prepares a more regular distribution of losses to improve upon in subsequent epochs. The warm-up period is 10 epochs for CIFAR-10 and 30 epochs for CIFAR-100. For all CIFAR experiments, we use the same hyperparameters M = 2, T = 0.5, and α = 4. τ is set as 0.5 except for 90% noise ratio when it is set as 0.6.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Comparison of State-of-the-Art Methods'''<br />
<br />
The effectiveness of DivideMix was shown by comparing the test accuracy with the most recent state-of-the-art methods: <br />
Meta-Learning (Li et al., 2019) proposes a gradient-based method to find model parameters that are more noise-tolerant; <br />
Joint-Optim (Tanaka et al., 2018) and P-correction (Yi & Wu, 2019) jointly optimize the sample labels and the network parameters;<br />
M-correction (Arazo et al., 2019) models sample loss with BMM and apply MixUp.<br />
The following are the results on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with different levels of symmetric label noise ranging from 20% to 90%. Both the best test accuracy across all epochs and the averaged test accuracy over the last 10 epochs were recorded in the following table:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:divideMixtable1.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
From table 1, the author noticed that none of these methods can consistently outperform others across different datasets. M-correction excels at symmetric noise, whereas Meta-Learning performs better for asymmetric noise. DivideMix outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin across all noise ratios. The improvement is substantial (∼10% of accuracy) for the more challenging CIFAR-100 with high noise ratios.<br />
<br />
DivideMix was compared with the state-of-the-art methods with the other two datasets: Clothing1M and WebVision. It also shows that DivideMix consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across all datasets with different types of label noise. For WebVision, DivideMix achieves more than 12% improvement in top-1 accuracy. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ablation Study'''<br />
<br />
The effect of removing different components to provide insights into what makes DivideMix successful. We analyze the results in Table 5 as follows.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:DivideMixtable5.PNG | center]]<br />
<br />
The authors combined self-divide with the original MixMatch as a naive baseline for using SLL in LNL.<br />
They also find that both label refinement and input augmentation are beneficial for DivideMix. ''Label refinement'' is important for high noise ratio due because samples that are noisier would be incorrectly divided into the labeled set. ''Augmentation'' upgrades model performance by creating more reliable predictions and by achieving consistent regularization. In addition, the performance drop was seen in the ''DivideMix w/o co-training'' highlights the disadvantage of self-training; the model still has dataset division, label refinement and label guessing, but they are all performed by the same model.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
This paper provides a new and effective algorithm for learning with noisy labels by leveraging SSL. The DivideMix method trains two networks simultaneously and utilizes co-guessing and co-labeling effectively, therefore it is a robust approach to deal with noise in datasets. Also, the DivideMix method has been tested using various datasets with the results consistently being one of the best when compared to the state-of-the-art methods through extensive experiments.<br />
<br />
Future work of DivideMix is to create an adaptation for other applications such as Natural Language Processing, and incorporating the ideas of SSL and LNL into DivideMix architecture.<br />
<br />
== Critiques/ Insights ==<br />
<br />
1. While combining both models makes the result better, the author did not show the relative time increase using this new combined methodology, which is very crucial considering training a large amount of data, especially for images. In addition, it seems that the author did not perform much on hyperparameters tuning for the combined model.<br />
<br />
2. There is an interesting insight, which is when the noise ratio increases from 80% to 90%, the accuracy of DivideMix drops dramatically in both datasets.<br />
<br />
3. There should be a further explanation of why the learning rate drops by a factor of 10 after 150 epochs.<br />
<br />
4. It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of this method in other domains such as NLP. I am not aware of noisy training datasets available in NLP, but surely this is an important area to focus on, as much of the available data is collected from noisy sources from the web.<br />
<br />
5. The paper implicitly assumes that a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) is sufficiently capable of identifying noise. Given the nature of a GMM, it would work well for noise that is distributed by a Gaussian distribution but for all other noise, it would probably be only asymptotic. The paper should present theoretical results on the noise that are Exponential, Rayleigh, etc. This is particularly important because the experiments were done on massive datasets, but they do not directly address the case when there are not many data points. <br />
<br />
6. Comparing the training result on these benchmark datasets makes the algorithm quite comprehensive. This is a very insightful idea to maintain two networks to avoid bias from occurring.<br />
<br />
7. The current benchmark accuracy for CIFAR-10 is 99.7, CIFAR-100 is 96.08 using EffNet-L2 in 2020. In 2019, CIFAR-10 is 99.37, CIFAR-100 is 93.51 using BiT-L.(based on paperswithcode.com) As there exists better methods, it would be nice to know why the authors chose these state-of-the-art methods to compare the test accuracy.<br />
<br />
8. Another interesting observation is that DivideMix seems to maintain a similar accuracy while some methods give unstable results. That shows the reliability of the proposed algorithm.<br />
<br />
9. It would be interesting to see if the drop in accuracy from increasing the noise ratio to 90% is a result of a low porportion or low number of clean labels. That is, would increasing the size of the training set but keeping the noise ratio at 90% result in increased accuracy?<br />
<br />
10. For Ablation Study part, the paper also introduced a study on the Robustness of Testing Marking Methods Noise, including AUC for classification of clean/noisy samples of CIFAR-10 training data. And it shows that the method can effectively separate clean and noisy samples as training proceeds.<br />
<br />
11. It is interesting how unlike common methods, the method in this paper discards the labels that are highly likely to be<br />
noisy. It also utilizes the noisy samples as unlabeled data to regularize training in a SSL manner. This model can better distinguish and utilize noisy samples.<br />
<br />
12. In the result section, the author gives us a comprehensive understanding of this algorithm by introducing the applications and the comparison of it with respect to similar methods. It would be attractive if in the application part, the author could indicate how the application relative to our daily life.<br />
<br />
13. High quality data is very important for training Machine learning systems. Preparing the data to train ML systems requires data annotations which are prone to errors and are time-consuming. It is interesting to note how paper 14 and this paper aims to approach this problem from different perspectives. Paper 14 introduces CSL algorithm that learns from confused or Noisy data to find the tasks associated with them. And this paper proposes an algorithm that shows good performance when learning from noisy data. Hence both the papers seem to tackle similar problem and implementing the approaches described in both the papers when handling noisy data can be twice helpful.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. Unsupervised<br />
label noise modeling and loss correction. In ICML, pp. 312–321, 2019.<br />
<br />
David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian J. Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, and Colin<br />
Raffel. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. NeurIPS, 2019.<br />
<br />
Yifan Ding, Liqiang Wang, Deliang Fan, and Boqing Gong. A semi-supervised two-stage approach<br />
to learning from noisy labels. In WACV, pp. 1215–1224, 2018.</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Task_Understanding_from_Confusing_Multi-task_Data&diff=48260Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data2020-11-30T04:07:28Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critique */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Presented By'''<br />
<br />
Qianlin Song, William Loh, Junyue Bai, Phoebe Choi<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
<br />
Narrow AI is an artificial intelligence that outperforms humans in a narrowly defined task. The application of Narrow AI is becoming more and more common. For example, Narrow AI can be used for spam filtering, music recommendation services, assist doctors to make data-driven decisions, and even self-driving cars. One of the most famous integrated forms of Narrow AI is Apple's Siri. Siri has no self-awareness or genuine intelligence, and hence often has challenges performing tasks outside its range of abilities. However, the widespread use of Narrow AI in important infrastructure functions raises some concerns. Some people think that the characteristics of Narrow AI make it fragile, and when neural networks can be used to control important systems (such as power grids, financial transactions), alternatives may be more inclined to avoid risks. While these machines help companies improve efficiency and cut costs, the limitations of Narrow AI encouraged researchers to look into General AI. <br />
<br />
General AI is a machine that can apply its learning to different contexts, which closely resembles human intelligence. This paper attempts to generalize the multi-task learning system that learns from data from multiple classification tasks. One application is image recognition. In figure 1, an image of an apple corresponds to 3 labels: “red”, “apple” and “sweet”. These labels correspond to 3 different classification tasks: color, fruit, and taste. <br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure1.PNG | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Currently, multi-task machines require researchers to construct a task definition. Otherwise, it will end up with different outputs with the same input value. Researchers manually assign tasks to each input in the sample to train the machine. See figure 1(a). This method incurs high annotation costs and restricts the machine’s ability to mirror the human recognition process. This paper is interested in developing an algorithm that understands task concepts and performs multi-task learning without manual task annotations. <br />
<br />
This paper proposed a new learning method called confusing supervised learning (CSL) which includes 2 functions: de-confusing function and mapping function. The first function allocates an input to its respective task and the latter fuction maps the input to its label within the allocated tasks. See figure 1(b). To implement the CSL, we use two neural networks to represent the de-confusing function and mapping function respectively. However, simply combining the two functions or networks to a single architecture is impossible, since the the one-hot constraint of the outputs for the deconfusing network makes the gradient back-propagation unfeasible. This difficulty is solved by alternatively performing training for the de-confusing net and mapping net optimization in the proposed architecture CLS-Net.<br />
<br />
Experiments for function regression and image recognition problems were constructed and compared with multi-task learning with complete information to test CSL-Net’s performance. Experiment results show that CSL-Net can learn multiple mappings for every task simultaneously and achieve the same cognition result as the current multi-task machine assigned with complete information.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure2.PNG | 700px]]<br />
<br />
==Latent variable learning==<br />
Latent variable learning aims to estimate the true function with mixed probability models. See '''figure 2a'''. In the multi-task learning problem without task annotations, we know that samples are generated from multiple distinct distributions instead of one distribution combining a mixture of multiple probability models. Thus, the latent variable learning can not fully distinguish labels into different tasks and different distributions, and it is insufficient to classify the multi-task confusing samples. <br />
<br />
==Multi-task learning==<br />
Multi-task learning aims to learn multiple tasks simultaneously using a shared feature representation. In multi-task learning, the task to which every sample belongs is known. By exploiting similarities and differences between tasks, the learning from one task can improve the learning of another task. (Caruana, 1997) This results in improved the overall learning efficiency, since the labels in different tasks are often correlated: improving the classfication result for one class also help with other classification tasks. In multi-task learning, the input-output mapping of every task can be represented by a unified function. However, these task definitions are manually constructed, and machines need manual task annotations to learn. If such manuual task annotation is abstent, then the algorithm can not be performed. <br />
<br />
==Multi-label learning==<br />
Multi-label learning aims to assign an input to a set of classes/labels. See '''figure 2b'''. It is a generalization of multi-class classification, which classifies an input into one class. In multi-label learning, an input can be classified into more than one class. Unlike multi-task learning, multi-label does not consider the relationship between different label judgments and it is assumed that each judgment is independent. An example where multi-label learning is applicable is the scenario where a website wants to automatically assign applicable tags/categories to an article. Since an article can be related to multiple categories (eg. an article can be tagged under the politics and business categories) multi-label learning is of primary concern here.<br />
<br />
= Confusing Supervised Learning =<br />
<br />
== Description of the Problem ==<br />
<br />
Confusing supervised learning (CSL) offers a solution to the issue at hand. A major area of improvement can be seen in the choice of risk measure. In traditional supervised learning, let <math> (x,y)</math> be the training samples from <math>y=f(x)</math>, which is an identical but unknown mapping relationship. Assuming the risk measure is mean squared error (MSE), the expected risk function is<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x (f(x) - g(x))^2 p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
where <math>p(x)</math> is the data distribution of the input variable <math>x</math>. In practice, the methods select the optimal function by minimizing the empirical risk:<br />
<br />
$$ R_e(g) = \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - g(x_i))^2 $$<br />
<br />
To minimize the risk function, the theoretically optimal solution is <math> f(x) </math>.<br />
<br />
When the problem involves different tasks, the model should optimize for each data point depending on the given task. Let <math>f_j(x)</math> be the true ground-truth function for each task <math> j </math>. Therefore, for some input variable <math> x_i </math>, an ideal model <math>g</math> would predict <math> g(x_i) = f_j(x_i) </math>. With this, the risk function can be modified to fit this new task for traditional supervised learning methods.<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x \sum_{j=1}^n (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
We call <math> (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) </math> the '''confusing multiple mappings'''. Then the optimal solution <math>g^*(x)</math> is <math>\bar{f}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n p(f_j) f_j(x)</math>. However, the optimal solution is not conditional on the specific task at hand but rather on the entire ground-truth functions. The solution represents a mixed probably model instead of knowing the exact tasks and their correpsonding individual probability distribution. Therefore, for every non-trivial set of tasks where <math>f_u(x) \neq f_v(x)</math> for some input <math>x</math> and <math>u \neq v</math>, <math>R(g^*) > 0</math> which implies that there is an unavoidable confusion risk.<br />
<br />
== Learning Functions of CSL ==<br />
<br />
To overcome this issue, the authors introduce two types of learning functions:<br />
* '''Deconfusing function''' &mdash; allocation of which samples come from the same task<br />
* '''Mapping function''' &mdash; mapping relation from input to the output of every learned task<br />
<br />
Suppose there are <math>n</math> ground-truth mappings <math>\{f_j : 1 \leq j \leq n\}</math> that we wish to approximate with a set of mapping functions <math>\{g_k : 1 \leq k \leq l\}</math>. The authors define the deconfusing function as an indicator function <math>h(x, y, g_k) </math> which takes some sample <math>(x,y)</math> and determines whether the sample is assigned to task <math>g_k</math>. Under the CSL framework, the risk functional (using MSE loss) is <br />
<br />
$$ R(g,h) = \int_x \sum_{j,k} (f_j(x) - g_k(x))^2 \; h(x, f_j(x), g_k) \;p(f_j) \; p(x) \;\mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
which can be estimated empirically with<br />
<br />
$$R_e(g,h) = \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^n |y_i - g_k(x_i)|^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i, g_k) $$<br />
<br />
The risk metric of every sample affects only its assigned task.<br />
<br />
== Theoretical Results ==<br />
<br />
This novel framework yields some theoretical results to show the viability of its construction.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 1 (Existence of Solution)'''<br />
''With the confusing supervised learning framework, there is an optimal solution''<br />
$$h^*(x, f_j(x), g_k) = \mathbb{I}[j=k]$$<br />
<br />
$$g_k^*(x) = f_k(x)$$<br />
<br />
''for each <math>k=1,..., n</math> that makes the expected risk function of the CSL problem zero.''<br />
<br />
However, necessity constraints are needed to avoid meaningless trivial solutions in all optimal risk solutions.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 2 (Error Bound of CSL)'''<br />
''With probability at least <math>1 - \eta</math> simultaneously with finite VC dimension <math>\tau</math> of CSL learning framework, the risk measure is bounded by<br />
<br />
$$R(\alpha) \leq R_e(\alpha) + \frac{B\epsilon(m)}{2} \left(1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{4R_e(\alpha)}{B\epsilon(m)}}\right)$$<br />
<br />
''where <math>\alpha</math> is the total parameters of learning functions <math>g, h</math>, <math>B</math> is the upper bound of one sample's risk, <math>m</math> is the size of training data and''<br />
$$\epsilon(m) = 4 \; \frac{\tau (\ln \frac{2m}{\tau} + 1) - \ln \eta / 4}{m}$$<br />
<br />
This theorem shows the method of empirical risk minimization is valid in the CSL framework. Moreover, the assumed number of tasks affects the VC dimension of the learning functions, which is positively related to the generalization error. Therefore, to make the training risk small, we need to choose the ''minimum number'' of tasks when determining the task.<br />
<br />
= CSL-Net =<br />
In this section, the authors describe how to implement and train a network for CSL.<br />
<br />
== The Structure of CSL-Net ==<br />
Two neural networks, deconfusing-net and mapping-net are trained to implement two learning function variables in empirical risk. The optimization target of the training algorithm is:<br />
$$\min_{g, h} R_e = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{n} (y_i - g_k(x_i))^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i; g_k)$$<br />
<br />
The mapping-net is corresponding to functions set <math>g_k</math>, where <math>y_k = g_k(x)</math> represents the output of one certain task. The deconfusing-net is corresponding to function h, whose input is a sample <math>(x,y)</math> and output is an n-dimensional one-hot vector. This output vector determines which task the sample <math>(x,y)</math> should be assigned to. The core difficulty of this algorithm is that the risk function cannot be optimized by gradient back-propagation due to the constraint of one-hot output from deconfusing-net. Approximation of softmax will lead the deconfusing-net output into a non-one-hot form, which results in meaningless trivial solutions.<br />
<br />
== Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm ==<br />
To overcome the training difficulty, the authors divide the empirical risk minimization into two local optimization problems. In each single-network optimization step, the parameters of one network are updated while the parameters of another remain fixed. With one network's parameters unchanged, the problem can be solved by a gradient descent method of neural networks. <br />
<br />
'''Training of Mapping-Net''': With function h from deconfusing-net being determined, the goal is to train every mapping function <math>g_k</math> with its corresponding sample <math>(x_i^k, y_i^k)</math>. The optimization problem becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{g_k} L_{map}(g_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} \mid y_i^k - g_k(x_i^k)\mid^2</math>. Back-propagation algorithm can be applied to solve this optimization problem.<br />
<br />
'''Training of Deconfusing-Net''': The task allocation is re-evaluated during the training phase while the parameters of the mapping-net remain fixed. To minimize the original risk, every sample <math>(x, y)</math> will be assigned to <math>g_k</math> that is closest to label y among all different <math>k</math>s. Mapping-net thus provides a temporary solution for deconfusing-net: <math>\hat{h}(x_i, y_i) = arg \displaystyle\min_{k} \mid y_i - g_k(x_i)\mid^2</math>. The optimization becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{h} L_{dec}(h) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \mid {h}(x_i, y_i) - \hat{h}(x_i, y_i)\mid^2</math>. Similarly, the optimization problem can be solved by updating the deconfusing-net with a back-propagation algorithm.<br />
<br />
The two optimization stages are carried out alternately until the solution converges.<br />
<br />
=Experiment=<br />
==Setup==<br />
<br />
3 data sets are used to compare CSL to existing methods, 1 function regression task, and 2 image classification tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': The function regression data comes in the form of <math>(x_i,y_i),i=1,...,m</math> pairs. However, unlike typical regression problems, there are multiple <math>f_j(x),j=1,...,n</math> mapping functions, so the goal is to recover both the mapping functions <math>f_j</math> as well as determine which mapping function corresponds to each of the <math>m</math> observations. 3 scalar-valued, scalar-input functions that intersect at several points with each other have been chosen as the different tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Colorful-MNIST''': The first image classification data set consists of the MNIST digit data that has been colored. Each observation in this modified set consists of a colored image (<math>x_i</math>) and either the color, or the digit it represents (<math>y_i</math>). The goal is to recover the classification task ("color" or "digit") for each observation and construct the 2 classifiers for both tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Kaggle Fashion Product''': This data set has more observations than the "colored-MNIST" data and consists of pictures labeled with either the “Gender”, “Category”, and “Color” of the clothing item.<br />
<br />
==Use of Pre-Trained CNN Feature Layers==<br />
<br />
In the Kaggle Fashion Product experiment, CSL trains fully-connected layers that have been attached to feature-identifying layers from pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks. The CSL methods autonomously learned three tasks which corresponded exactly to “Gender”,<br />
“Category”, and “Color” as we see it.<br />
<br />
==Metrics of Confusing Supervised Learning==<br />
<br />
There are two measures of accuracy used to evaluate and compare CSL to other methods, corresponding respectively to the accuracy of the task labeling and the accuracy of the learned mapping function. <br />
<br />
'''Task Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_T(j)</math> is the average number of times the learned deconfusing function <math>h</math> agrees with the task-assignment ability of humans <math>\tilde h</math> on whether each observation in the data "is" or "is not" in task <math>j</math>.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_T(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m I[h(x_i,y_i;f_k),\tilde h(x_i,y_i;f_j)]$$<br />
<br />
The max over <math>k</math> is taken because we need to determine which learned task corresponds to which ground-truth task.<br />
<br />
'''Label Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_L(j)</math> again chooses <math>f_k</math>, the learned mapping function that is closest to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, and measures its average absolute accuracy compared to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, <math>f_j</math>, across all <math>m</math> observations.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_L(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m 1-\dfrac{|g_k(x_i)-f_j(x_i)|}{|f_j(x_i)|}$$<br />
<br />
The purpose of this measure arises from the fact that, in addition to learning mapping allocations like humans, machines should be able to approximate all mapping functions accurately in order to provide corresponding labels. The Label Prediction Accuracy measure captures the exchange equivalence of the following task: each mapping contains its ground-truth output, and machines should be predicting the correct output that is close to the ground-truth. <br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
<br />
Given confusing data, CSL performs better than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017). This is demonstrated by CSL's <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of around 95%, compared to <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of under 50% for the other methods. This supports the assertion that traditional methods only learn the means of all the ground-truth mapping functions when presented with confusing data.<br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': To "correctly" partition the observations into the correct tasks, a 5-shot warm-up was used. In this situation, the CSL methods work well in learning the ground-truth. That means the initialization of the neural network is set up properly.<br />
<br />
'''Image Classification''': Visualizations created through Spectral embedding confirm the task labelling proficiency of the deconfusing neural network <math>h</math>.<br />
<br />
The classification and function prediction accuracy of CSL are comparable to supervised learning programs that have been given access to the ground-truth labels.<br />
<br />
==Application of Multi-label Learning==<br />
<br />
CSL also had better accuracy than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017) when presented with partially labelled multi-label data <math>(x_i,y_i)</math>, where <math>y_i</math> is a <math>n</math>-long indicator vector for whether the image <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> corresponds to each of the <math>n</math> labels.<br />
<br />
Applications of multi-label classification include building a recommendation system, social media targeting, as well as detecting adverse drug reactions from the text.<br />
<br />
Multi-label can be used to improve the syndrome diagnosis of a patient by focusing on multiple syndromes instead of a single syndrome.<br />
<br />
==Limitations==<br />
<br />
'''Number of Tasks''': The number of tasks is determined by increasing the task numbers progressively and testing the performance. Ideally, a better way of deciding the number of tasks is expected rather than increasing it one by one and seeing which is the minimum number of tasks that gives the smallest risk. Adding low-quality constraints to deconfusing-net is a reasonable solution to this problem.<br />
<br />
'''Learning of Basic Features''': The CSL framework is not good at learning features. So far, a pre-trained CNN backbone is needed for complicated image classification problems. Even though the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features hasn't been affected, the full-connect network can only be trained based on learned CNN features. It is still a challenge for the current algorithm to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
This paper proposes the CSL method for tackling the multi-task learning problem without manual task annotations from basic input data. The model obtains a basic task concept by learning the minimum risk for confusing samples from differentiating multiple mappings. The paper also demonstrates that the CSL method is an important step to moving from Narrow AI towards General AI for multi-task learning.<br />
<br />
However, some limitations can be improved for future work:<br />
<br />
- The repeated training process of determining the lowest best task number that has the closest to zero causes inefficiency in the learning process; <br />
<br />
- The current algorithm is difficult to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously by training a full-connect network. However, this limitation does not affect the effectiveness of our algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features.<br />
<br />
= Critique =<br />
<br />
The classification accuracy of CSL was made with algorithms not designed to deal with confusing data and which do not first classify the task of each observation.<br />
<br />
Human task annotation is also imperfect, so one additional application of CSL may be to attempt to flag task annotation errors made by humans, such as in sorting comments for items sold by online retailers; concerned customers, in particular, may not correctly label their comments as "refund", "order didn't arrive", "order damaged", "how good the item is" etc.<br />
<br />
This algorithm will also have a huge issue in scaling, as the proposed method requires repeated training processes, so it might be too expensive for researchers to implement and improve on this algorithm.<br />
<br />
This research paper should have included a plot on loss (of both functions) against epochs in the paper. A common issue with fixing the parameters of one network and updating the other is the variability during training. This is prevalent in other algorithms with similar training methods such as generative adversarial networks (GAN). For instance, ''mode collapse'' is the issue of one network stuck in local minima and other networks that rely on this network may receive incorrect signals during backpropagation. In the case of CSL-Net, since the Deconfusing-Net directly relies on Mapping-Net for training labels, if the Mapping-Net is unable to sufficiently converge, the Deconfusing-Net may incorrectly learn the mapping from inputs to the task. For data with high noise, oscillations may severely prolong the time needed to converge because of the strong correlation in prediction between the two networks.<br />
<br />
- It would be interesting to see this implemented in more examples, to test the robustness of different types of data. The validation tasks chosen by data are all very simple, and CSL is actually not necessary for those tasks. For the colored MNIST data, a simple function can be written to distinguish the color label from the number label. The same problem applied to the Kaggle Fashion product dataset. The candidate label can be easily classified into different tasks by some wording analysis or meaning classification program or even manual classification. Even though the idea discussed by authors are interesting, the examples suggested by authors seem to suggest very limited or even unnessary application. In most cases, it is more benefitial to treat the Confusing Multi-task Data problems separately into two distinct stages: we classify the tasks first according to the meaning of the label, and then we perform a multi-class/multi-label training process.<br />
<br />
Even though this paper has already included some examples when testing the CSL in experiments, it will be better to include more detailed examples for partial-label in the "Application of Multi-label Learning" section.<br />
<br />
When using this framework for classification, the order of the one-hot classification labels for each task will likely influence the relationships learned between each task, since the same output header is used for all tasks. This may be why this method fails to learn low-level representations and requires pretraining. I would like to see more explanation in the paper about why this isn't a problem if it was investigated.<br />
<br />
It would be a good idea to include comparison details in the summary to make the results and the conclusion more convincing. For instance, though the paper introduced the result generated using confusion data, and provide some applications for multi-label learning, these two sections still fell short and could use some technical details as supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate if the order of adding tasks will influence the model performance.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of applying CSL in face recognition, such that not only does the algorithm map the face to identity, it also categorizes the face based on other features like beard/no beard and glasses/no glasses simultaneously.<br />
<br />
For pattern recognition,pre-trained features were used in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see how the effectiveness of the model changes if we train it with data directly from the CNN structure in the future.<br />
<br />
So basically given a confused dataset CSL finds the important tasks or labels from the dataset as can be seen from the fruit example. In the example, fruits are grouped under their names, their tastes, and their color, when CSL is given a mixed dataset. Hence given an unstructured data, unlabeled, confused dataset CSL helps in finding the labels, which in turn can help in cleaning the dataset and further in preparing high-quality training data set which is very important in different ML algorithms. Since at present preparing these dataset requires manual data annotations, CSL can save time in that process.<br />
<br />
For the Colorful-Mnist data set, the goal is to understand the concept of multiple classification tasks from these examples. All inputs have multiple classification tasks. Each observed sample only represents the classification result of one task, and the task from which the sample comes is unknown.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to know why the given metrics of confusing supervised learning are used. The authors should have used several different metrics and show that CSL's overall performs better than other methods. And what are "the other methods" referring to?<br />
<br />
For the Training of Mapping-Net in the part of "Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm", authors did not mention what is Training of Mapping-Net doing. Authors should specify what is this doing before showing the formula of it. It is hard for readers to understand.<br />
<br />
For the results section, it would be more intuitive and stronger if the author provide more detail on these two methods and add a plot to support the claim. Based on the text, it might not be an obvious comparison.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<br />
[1] Su, Xin, et al. "Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data."<br />
<br />
[2] Caruana, R. (1997) "Multi-task learning"<br />
<br />
[3] Lee, D.-H. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, vol. 3, 2013, pp. 2–8. <br />
<br />
[4] Tan, Q., Yu, Y., Yu, G., and Wang, J. Semi-supervised multi-label classification using incomplete label information. Neurocomputing, vol. 260, 2017, pp. 192–202.<br />
<br />
[5] Chavdarova, Tatjana, and François Fleuret. "Sgan: An alternative training of generative adversarial networks." In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9407-9415. 2018.<br />
<br />
[6] Guo-Ping Liu, Jian-Jun Yan, Yi-Qin Wang, Jing-Jing Fu, Zhao-Xia Xu, Rui Guo, Peng Qian, "Application of Multilabel Learning Using the Relevant Feature for Each Label in Chronic Gastritis Syndrome Diagnosis", Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 135387, 9 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/135387</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Task_Understanding_from_Confusing_Multi-task_Data&diff=48257Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data2020-11-30T04:05:04Z<p>Y52wen: /* Critique */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Presented By'''<br />
<br />
Qianlin Song, William Loh, Junyue Bai, Phoebe Choi<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
<br />
Narrow AI is an artificial intelligence that outperforms humans in a narrowly defined task. The application of Narrow AI is becoming more and more common. For example, Narrow AI can be used for spam filtering, music recommendation services, assist doctors to make data-driven decisions, and even self-driving cars. One of the most famous integrated forms of Narrow AI is Apple's Siri. Siri has no self-awareness or genuine intelligence, and hence often has challenges performing tasks outside its range of abilities. However, the widespread use of Narrow AI in important infrastructure functions raises some concerns. Some people think that the characteristics of Narrow AI make it fragile, and when neural networks can be used to control important systems (such as power grids, financial transactions), alternatives may be more inclined to avoid risks. While these machines help companies improve efficiency and cut costs, the limitations of Narrow AI encouraged researchers to look into General AI. <br />
<br />
General AI is a machine that can apply its learning to different contexts, which closely resembles human intelligence. This paper attempts to generalize the multi-task learning system that learns from data from multiple classification tasks. One application is image recognition. In figure 1, an image of an apple corresponds to 3 labels: “red”, “apple” and “sweet”. These labels correspond to 3 different classification tasks: color, fruit, and taste. <br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure1.PNG | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Currently, multi-task machines require researchers to construct a task definition. Otherwise, it will end up with different outputs with the same input value. Researchers manually assign tasks to each input in the sample to train the machine. See figure 1(a). This method incurs high annotation costs and restricts the machine’s ability to mirror the human recognition process. This paper is interested in developing an algorithm that understands task concepts and performs multi-task learning without manual task annotations. <br />
<br />
This paper proposed a new learning method called confusing supervised learning (CSL) which includes 2 functions: de-confusing function and mapping function. The first function allocates an input to its respective task and the latter fuction maps the input to its label within the allocated tasks. See figure 1(b). To implement the CSL, we use two neural networks to represent the de-confusing function and mapping function respectively. However, simply combining the two functions or networks to a single architecture is impossible, since the the one-hot constraint of the outputs for the deconfusing network makes the gradient back-propagation unfeasible. This difficulty is solved by alternatively performing training for the de-confusing net and mapping net optimization in the proposed architecture CLS-Net.<br />
<br />
Experiments for function regression and image recognition problems were constructed and compared with multi-task learning with complete information to test CSL-Net’s performance. Experiment results show that CSL-Net can learn multiple mappings for every task simultaneously and achieve the same cognition result as the current multi-task machine assigned with complete information.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure2.PNG | 700px]]<br />
<br />
==Latent variable learning==<br />
Latent variable learning aims to estimate the true function with mixed probability models. See '''figure 2a'''. In the multi-task learning problem without task annotations, we know that samples are generated from multiple distinct distributions instead of one distribution combining a mixture of multiple probability models. Thus, the latent variable learning can not fully distinguish labels into different tasks and different distributions, and it is insufficient to classify the multi-task confusing samples. <br />
<br />
==Multi-task learning==<br />
Multi-task learning aims to learn multiple tasks simultaneously using a shared feature representation. In multi-task learning, the task to which every sample belongs is known. By exploiting similarities and differences between tasks, the learning from one task can improve the learning of another task. (Caruana, 1997) This results in improved the overall learning efficiency, since the labels in different tasks are often correlated: improving the classfication result for one class also help with other classification tasks. In multi-task learning, the input-output mapping of every task can be represented by a unified function. However, these task definitions are manually constructed, and machines need manual task annotations to learn. If such manuual task annotation is abstent, then the algorithm can not be performed. <br />
<br />
==Multi-label learning==<br />
Multi-label learning aims to assign an input to a set of classes/labels. See '''figure 2b'''. It is a generalization of multi-class classification, which classifies an input into one class. In multi-label learning, an input can be classified into more than one class. Unlike multi-task learning, multi-label does not consider the relationship between different label judgments and it is assumed that each judgment is independent. An example where multi-label learning is applicable is the scenario where a website wants to automatically assign applicable tags/categories to an article. Since an article can be related to multiple categories (eg. an article can be tagged under the politics and business categories) multi-label learning is of primary concern here.<br />
<br />
= Confusing Supervised Learning =<br />
<br />
== Description of the Problem ==<br />
<br />
Confusing supervised learning (CSL) offers a solution to the issue at hand. A major area of improvement can be seen in the choice of risk measure. In traditional supervised learning, let <math> (x,y)</math> be the training samples from <math>y=f(x)</math>, which is an identical but unknown mapping relationship. Assuming the risk measure is mean squared error (MSE), the expected risk function is<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x (f(x) - g(x))^2 p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
where <math>p(x)</math> is the data distribution of the input variable <math>x</math>. In practice, the methods select the optimal function by minimizing the empirical risk:<br />
<br />
$$ R_e(g) = \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - g(x_i))^2 $$<br />
<br />
To minimize the risk function, the theoretically optimal solution is <math> f(x) </math>.<br />
<br />
When the problem involves different tasks, the model should optimize for each data point depending on the given task. Let <math>f_j(x)</math> be the true ground-truth function for each task <math> j </math>. Therefore, for some input variable <math> x_i </math>, an ideal model <math>g</math> would predict <math> g(x_i) = f_j(x_i) </math>. With this, the risk function can be modified to fit this new task for traditional supervised learning methods.<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x \sum_{j=1}^n (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
We call <math> (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) </math> the '''confusing multiple mappings'''. Then the optimal solution <math>g^*(x)</math> is <math>\bar{f}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n p(f_j) f_j(x)</math>. However, the optimal solution is not conditional on the specific task at hand but rather on the entire ground-truth functions. The solution represents a mixed probably model instead of knowing the exact tasks and their correpsonding individual probability distribution. Therefore, for every non-trivial set of tasks where <math>f_u(x) \neq f_v(x)</math> for some input <math>x</math> and <math>u \neq v</math>, <math>R(g^*) > 0</math> which implies that there is an unavoidable confusion risk.<br />
<br />
== Learning Functions of CSL ==<br />
<br />
To overcome this issue, the authors introduce two types of learning functions:<br />
* '''Deconfusing function''' &mdash; allocation of which samples come from the same task<br />
* '''Mapping function''' &mdash; mapping relation from input to the output of every learned task<br />
<br />
Suppose there are <math>n</math> ground-truth mappings <math>\{f_j : 1 \leq j \leq n\}</math> that we wish to approximate with a set of mapping functions <math>\{g_k : 1 \leq k \leq l\}</math>. The authors define the deconfusing function as an indicator function <math>h(x, y, g_k) </math> which takes some sample <math>(x,y)</math> and determines whether the sample is assigned to task <math>g_k</math>. Under the CSL framework, the risk functional (using MSE loss) is <br />
<br />
$$ R(g,h) = \int_x \sum_{j,k} (f_j(x) - g_k(x))^2 \; h(x, f_j(x), g_k) \;p(f_j) \; p(x) \;\mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
which can be estimated empirically with<br />
<br />
$$R_e(g,h) = \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^n |y_i - g_k(x_i)|^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i, g_k) $$<br />
<br />
The risk metric of every sample affects only its assigned task.<br />
<br />
== Theoretical Results ==<br />
<br />
This novel framework yields some theoretical results to show the viability of its construction.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 1 (Existence of Solution)'''<br />
''With the confusing supervised learning framework, there is an optimal solution''<br />
$$h^*(x, f_j(x), g_k) = \mathbb{I}[j=k]$$<br />
<br />
$$g_k^*(x) = f_k(x)$$<br />
<br />
''for each <math>k=1,..., n</math> that makes the expected risk function of the CSL problem zero.''<br />
<br />
However, necessity constraints are needed to avoid meaningless trivial solutions in all optimal risk solutions.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 2 (Error Bound of CSL)'''<br />
''With probability at least <math>1 - \eta</math> simultaneously with finite VC dimension <math>\tau</math> of CSL learning framework, the risk measure is bounded by<br />
<br />
$$R(\alpha) \leq R_e(\alpha) + \frac{B\epsilon(m)}{2} \left(1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{4R_e(\alpha)}{B\epsilon(m)}}\right)$$<br />
<br />
''where <math>\alpha</math> is the total parameters of learning functions <math>g, h</math>, <math>B</math> is the upper bound of one sample's risk, <math>m</math> is the size of training data and''<br />
$$\epsilon(m) = 4 \; \frac{\tau (\ln \frac{2m}{\tau} + 1) - \ln \eta / 4}{m}$$<br />
<br />
This theorem shows the method of empirical risk minimization is valid in the CSL framework. Moreover, the assumed number of tasks affects the VC dimension of the learning functions, which is positively related to the generalization error. Therefore, to make the training risk small, we need to choose the ''minimum number'' of tasks when determining the task.<br />
<br />
= CSL-Net =<br />
In this section, the authors describe how to implement and train a network for CSL.<br />
<br />
== The Structure of CSL-Net ==<br />
Two neural networks, deconfusing-net and mapping-net are trained to implement two learning function variables in empirical risk. The optimization target of the training algorithm is:<br />
$$\min_{g, h} R_e = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{n} (y_i - g_k(x_i))^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i; g_k)$$<br />
<br />
The mapping-net is corresponding to functions set <math>g_k</math>, where <math>y_k = g_k(x)</math> represents the output of one certain task. The deconfusing-net is corresponding to function h, whose input is a sample <math>(x,y)</math> and output is an n-dimensional one-hot vector. This output vector determines which task the sample <math>(x,y)</math> should be assigned to. The core difficulty of this algorithm is that the risk function cannot be optimized by gradient back-propagation due to the constraint of one-hot output from deconfusing-net. Approximation of softmax will lead the deconfusing-net output into a non-one-hot form, which results in meaningless trivial solutions.<br />
<br />
== Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm ==<br />
To overcome the training difficulty, the authors divide the empirical risk minimization into two local optimization problems. In each single-network optimization step, the parameters of one network are updated while the parameters of another remain fixed. With one network's parameters unchanged, the problem can be solved by a gradient descent method of neural networks. <br />
<br />
'''Training of Mapping-Net''': With function h from deconfusing-net being determined, the goal is to train every mapping function <math>g_k</math> with its corresponding sample <math>(x_i^k, y_i^k)</math>. The optimization problem becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{g_k} L_{map}(g_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} \mid y_i^k - g_k(x_i^k)\mid^2</math>. Back-propagation algorithm can be applied to solve this optimization problem.<br />
<br />
'''Training of Deconfusing-Net''': The task allocation is re-evaluated during the training phase while the parameters of the mapping-net remain fixed. To minimize the original risk, every sample <math>(x, y)</math> will be assigned to <math>g_k</math> that is closest to label y among all different <math>k</math>s. Mapping-net thus provides a temporary solution for deconfusing-net: <math>\hat{h}(x_i, y_i) = arg \displaystyle\min_{k} \mid y_i - g_k(x_i)\mid^2</math>. The optimization becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{h} L_{dec}(h) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \mid {h}(x_i, y_i) - \hat{h}(x_i, y_i)\mid^2</math>. Similarly, the optimization problem can be solved by updating the deconfusing-net with a back-propagation algorithm.<br />
<br />
The two optimization stages are carried out alternately until the solution converges.<br />
<br />
=Experiment=<br />
==Setup==<br />
<br />
3 data sets are used to compare CSL to existing methods, 1 function regression task, and 2 image classification tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': The function regression data comes in the form of <math>(x_i,y_i),i=1,...,m</math> pairs. However, unlike typical regression problems, there are multiple <math>f_j(x),j=1,...,n</math> mapping functions, so the goal is to recover both the mapping functions <math>f_j</math> as well as determine which mapping function corresponds to each of the <math>m</math> observations. 3 scalar-valued, scalar-input functions that intersect at several points with each other have been chosen as the different tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Colorful-MNIST''': The first image classification data set consists of the MNIST digit data that has been colored. Each observation in this modified set consists of a colored image (<math>x_i</math>) and either the color, or the digit it represents (<math>y_i</math>). The goal is to recover the classification task ("color" or "digit") for each observation and construct the 2 classifiers for both tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Kaggle Fashion Product''': This data set has more observations than the "colored-MNIST" data and consists of pictures labeled with either the “Gender”, “Category”, and “Color” of the clothing item.<br />
<br />
==Use of Pre-Trained CNN Feature Layers==<br />
<br />
In the Kaggle Fashion Product experiment, CSL trains fully-connected layers that have been attached to feature-identifying layers from pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks. The CSL methods autonomously learned three tasks which corresponded exactly to “Gender”,<br />
“Category”, and “Color” as we see it.<br />
<br />
==Metrics of Confusing Supervised Learning==<br />
<br />
There are two measures of accuracy used to evaluate and compare CSL to other methods, corresponding respectively to the accuracy of the task labeling and the accuracy of the learned mapping function. <br />
<br />
'''Task Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_T(j)</math> is the average number of times the learned deconfusing function <math>h</math> agrees with the task-assignment ability of humans <math>\tilde h</math> on whether each observation in the data "is" or "is not" in task <math>j</math>.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_T(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m I[h(x_i,y_i;f_k),\tilde h(x_i,y_i;f_j)]$$<br />
<br />
The max over <math>k</math> is taken because we need to determine which learned task corresponds to which ground-truth task.<br />
<br />
'''Label Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_L(j)</math> again chooses <math>f_k</math>, the learned mapping function that is closest to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, and measures its average absolute accuracy compared to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, <math>f_j</math>, across all <math>m</math> observations.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_L(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m 1-\dfrac{|g_k(x_i)-f_j(x_i)|}{|f_j(x_i)|}$$<br />
<br />
The purpose of this measure arises from the fact that, in addition to learning mapping allocations like humans, machines should be able to approximate all mapping functions accurately in order to provide corresponding labels. The Label Prediction Accuracy measure captures the exchange equivalence of the following task: each mapping contains its ground-truth output, and machines should be predicting the correct output that is close to the ground-truth. <br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
<br />
Given confusing data, CSL performs better than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017). This is demonstrated by CSL's <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of around 95%, compared to <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of under 50% for the other methods. This supports the assertion that traditional methods only learn the means of all the ground-truth mapping functions when presented with confusing data.<br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': To "correctly" partition the observations into the correct tasks, a 5-shot warm-up was used. In this situation, the CSL methods work well in learning the ground-truth. That means the initialization of the neural network is set up properly.<br />
<br />
'''Image Classification''': Visualizations created through Spectral embedding confirm the task labelling proficiency of the deconfusing neural network <math>h</math>.<br />
<br />
The classification and function prediction accuracy of CSL are comparable to supervised learning programs that have been given access to the ground-truth labels.<br />
<br />
==Application of Multi-label Learning==<br />
<br />
CSL also had better accuracy than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017) when presented with partially labelled multi-label data <math>(x_i,y_i)</math>, where <math>y_i</math> is a <math>n</math>-long indicator vector for whether the image <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> corresponds to each of the <math>n</math> labels.<br />
<br />
Applications of multi-label classification include building a recommendation system, social media targeting, as well as detecting adverse drug reactions from the text.<br />
<br />
Multi-label can be used to improve the syndrome diagnosis of a patient by focusing on multiple syndromes instead of a single syndrome.<br />
<br />
==Limitations==<br />
<br />
'''Number of Tasks''': The number of tasks is determined by increasing the task numbers progressively and testing the performance. Ideally, a better way of deciding the number of tasks is expected rather than increasing it one by one and seeing which is the minimum number of tasks that gives the smallest risk. Adding low-quality constraints to deconfusing-net is a reasonable solution to this problem.<br />
<br />
'''Learning of Basic Features''': The CSL framework is not good at learning features. So far, a pre-trained CNN backbone is needed for complicated image classification problems. Even though the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features hasn't been affected, the full-connect network can only be trained based on learned CNN features. It is still a challenge for the current algorithm to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
This paper proposes the CSL method for tackling the multi-task learning problem without manual task annotations from basic input data. The model obtains a basic task concept by learning the minimum risk for confusing samples from differentiating multiple mappings. The paper also demonstrates that the CSL method is an important step to moving from Narrow AI towards General AI for multi-task learning.<br />
<br />
However, some limitations can be improved for future work:<br />
<br />
- The repeated training process of determining the lowest best task number that has the closest to zero causes inefficiency in the learning process; <br />
<br />
- The current algorithm is difficult to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously by training a full-connect network. However, this limitation does not affect the effectiveness of our algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features.<br />
<br />
= Critique =<br />
<br />
The classification accuracy of CSL was made with algorithms not designed to deal with confusing data and which do not first classify the task of each observation.<br />
<br />
Human task annotation is also imperfect, so one additional application of CSL may be to attempt to flag task annotation errors made by humans, such as in sorting comments for items sold by online retailers; concerned customers, in particular, may not correctly label their comments as "refund", "order didn't arrive", "order damaged", "how good the item is" etc.<br />
<br />
This algorithm will also have a huge issue in scaling, as the proposed method requires repeated training processes, so it might be too expensive for researchers to implement and improve on this algorithm.<br />
<br />
This research paper should have included a plot on loss (of both functions) against epochs in the paper. A common issue with fixing the parameters of one network and updating the other is the variability during training. This is prevalent in other algorithms with similar training methods such as generative adversarial networks (GAN). For instance, ''mode collapse'' is the issue of one network stuck in local minima and other networks that rely on this network may receive incorrect signals during backpropagation. In the case of CSL-Net, since the Deconfusing-Net directly relies on Mapping-Net for training labels, if the Mapping-Net is unable to sufficiently converge, the Deconfusing-Net may incorrectly learn the mapping from inputs to the task. For data with high noise, oscillations may severely prolong the time needed to converge because of the strong correlation in prediction between the two networks.<br />
<br />
- It would be interesting to see this implemented in more examples, to test the robustness of different types of data. The validation tasks chosen by data are all very simple, and CSL is actually not necessary. For the colored MNIST data, a simple function can be written to distinguish the color label from the number label. The same problem applied to the Kaggle Fashion product dataset. The candidate label can be easily classified into different tasks by some wording analysis or meaning classification program or even manual classification. Even though the idea discussed by authors are interesting, the examples suggested by authors seem to suggest very limited or even unnessary application.<br />
<br />
Even though this paper has already included some examples when testing the CSL in experiments, it will be better to include more detailed examples for partial-label in the "Application of Multi-label Learning" section.<br />
<br />
When using this framework for classification, the order of the one-hot classification labels for each task will likely influence the relationships learned between each task, since the same output header is used for all tasks. This may be why this method fails to learn low-level representations and requires pretraining. I would like to see more explanation in the paper about why this isn't a problem if it was investigated.<br />
<br />
It would be a good idea to include comparison details in the summary to make the results and the conclusion more convincing. For instance, though the paper introduced the result generated using confusion data, and provide some applications for multi-label learning, these two sections still fell short and could use some technical details as supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate if the order of adding tasks will influence the model performance.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of applying CSL in face recognition, such that not only does the algorithm map the face to identity, it also categorizes the face based on other features like beard/no beard and glasses/no glasses simultaneously.<br />
<br />
For pattern recognition,pre-trained features were used in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see how the effectiveness of the model changes if we train it with data directly from the CNN structure in the future.<br />
<br />
So basically given a confused dataset CSL finds the important tasks or labels from the dataset as can be seen from the fruit example. In the example, fruits are grouped under their names, their tastes, and their color, when CSL is given a mixed dataset. Hence given an unstructured data, unlabeled, confused dataset CSL helps in finding the labels, which in turn can help in cleaning the dataset and further in preparing high-quality training data set which is very important in different ML algorithms. Since at present preparing these dataset requires manual data annotations, CSL can save time in that process.<br />
<br />
For the Colorful-Mnist data set, the goal is to understand the concept of multiple classification tasks from these examples. All inputs have multiple classification tasks. Each observed sample only represents the classification result of one task, and the task from which the sample comes is unknown.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to know why the given metrics of confusing supervised learning are used. The authors should have used several different metrics and show that CSL's overall performs better than other methods. And what are "the other methods" referring to?<br />
<br />
For the Training of Mapping-Net in the part of "Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm", authors did not mention what is Training of Mapping-Net doing. Authors should specify what is this doing before showing the formula of it. It is hard for readers to understand.<br />
<br />
For the results section, it would be more intuitive and stronger if the author provide more detail on these two methods and add a plot to support the claim. Based on the text, it might not be an obvious comparison.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<br />
[1] Su, Xin, et al. "Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data."<br />
<br />
[2] Caruana, R. (1997) "Multi-task learning"<br />
<br />
[3] Lee, D.-H. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, vol. 3, 2013, pp. 2–8. <br />
<br />
[4] Tan, Q., Yu, Y., Yu, G., and Wang, J. Semi-supervised multi-label classification using incomplete label information. Neurocomputing, vol. 260, 2017, pp. 192–202.<br />
<br />
[5] Chavdarova, Tatjana, and François Fleuret. "Sgan: An alternative training of generative adversarial networks." In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9407-9415. 2018.<br />
<br />
[6] Guo-Ping Liu, Jian-Jun Yan, Yi-Qin Wang, Jing-Jing Fu, Zhao-Xia Xu, Rui Guo, Peng Qian, "Application of Multilabel Learning Using the Relevant Feature for Each Label in Chronic Gastritis Syndrome Diagnosis", Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 135387, 9 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/135387</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Task_Understanding_from_Confusing_Multi-task_Data&diff=48252Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data2020-11-30T03:59:16Z<p>Y52wen: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Presented By'''<br />
<br />
Qianlin Song, William Loh, Junyue Bai, Phoebe Choi<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
<br />
Narrow AI is an artificial intelligence that outperforms humans in a narrowly defined task. The application of Narrow AI is becoming more and more common. For example, Narrow AI can be used for spam filtering, music recommendation services, assist doctors to make data-driven decisions, and even self-driving cars. One of the most famous integrated forms of Narrow AI is Apple's Siri. Siri has no self-awareness or genuine intelligence, and hence often has challenges performing tasks outside its range of abilities. However, the widespread use of Narrow AI in important infrastructure functions raises some concerns. Some people think that the characteristics of Narrow AI make it fragile, and when neural networks can be used to control important systems (such as power grids, financial transactions), alternatives may be more inclined to avoid risks. While these machines help companies improve efficiency and cut costs, the limitations of Narrow AI encouraged researchers to look into General AI. <br />
<br />
General AI is a machine that can apply its learning to different contexts, which closely resembles human intelligence. This paper attempts to generalize the multi-task learning system that learns from data from multiple classification tasks. One application is image recognition. In figure 1, an image of an apple corresponds to 3 labels: “red”, “apple” and “sweet”. These labels correspond to 3 different classification tasks: color, fruit, and taste. <br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure1.PNG | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Currently, multi-task machines require researchers to construct a task definition. Otherwise, it will end up with different outputs with the same input value. Researchers manually assign tasks to each input in the sample to train the machine. See figure 1(a). This method incurs high annotation costs and restricts the machine’s ability to mirror the human recognition process. This paper is interested in developing an algorithm that understands task concepts and performs multi-task learning without manual task annotations. <br />
<br />
This paper proposed a new learning method called confusing supervised learning (CSL) which includes 2 functions: de-confusing function and mapping function. The first function allocates an input to its respective task and the latter fuction maps the input to its label within the allocated tasks. See figure 1(b). To implement the CSL, we use two neural networks to represent the de-confusing function and mapping function respectively. However, simply combining the two functions or networks to a single architecture is impossible, since the the one-hot constraint of the outputs for the deconfusing network makes the gradient back-propagation unfeasible. This difficulty is solved by alternatively performing training for the de-confusing net and mapping net optimization in the proposed architecture CLS-Net.<br />
<br />
Experiments for function regression and image recognition problems were constructed and compared with multi-task learning with complete information to test CSL-Net’s performance. Experiment results show that CSL-Net can learn multiple mappings for every task simultaneously and achieve the same cognition result as the current multi-task machine assigned with complete information.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure2.PNG | 700px]]<br />
<br />
==Latent variable learning==<br />
Latent variable learning aims to estimate the true function with mixed probability models. See '''figure 2a'''. In the multi-task learning problem without task annotations, we know that samples are generated from multiple distinct distributions instead of one distribution combining a mixture of multiple probability models. Thus, the latent variable learning can not fully distinguish labels into different tasks and different distributions, and it is insufficient to classify the multi-task confusing samples. <br />
<br />
==Multi-task learning==<br />
Multi-task learning aims to learn multiple tasks simultaneously using a shared feature representation. In multi-task learning, the task to which every sample belongs is known. By exploiting similarities and differences between tasks, the learning from one task can improve the learning of another task. (Caruana, 1997) This results in improved the overall learning efficiency, since the labels in different tasks are often correlated: improving the classfication result for one class also help with other classification tasks. In multi-task learning, the input-output mapping of every task can be represented by a unified function. However, these task definitions are manually constructed, and machines need manual task annotations to learn. If such manuual task annotation is abstent, then the algorithm can not be performed. <br />
<br />
==Multi-label learning==<br />
Multi-label learning aims to assign an input to a set of classes/labels. See '''figure 2b'''. It is a generalization of multi-class classification, which classifies an input into one class. In multi-label learning, an input can be classified into more than one class. Unlike multi-task learning, multi-label does not consider the relationship between different label judgments and it is assumed that each judgment is independent. An example where multi-label learning is applicable is the scenario where a website wants to automatically assign applicable tags/categories to an article. Since an article can be related to multiple categories (eg. an article can be tagged under the politics and business categories) multi-label learning is of primary concern here.<br />
<br />
= Confusing Supervised Learning =<br />
<br />
== Description of the Problem ==<br />
<br />
Confusing supervised learning (CSL) offers a solution to the issue at hand. A major area of improvement can be seen in the choice of risk measure. In traditional supervised learning, let <math> (x,y)</math> be the training samples from <math>y=f(x)</math>, which is an identical but unknown mapping relationship. Assuming the risk measure is mean squared error (MSE), the expected risk function is<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x (f(x) - g(x))^2 p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
where <math>p(x)</math> is the data distribution of the input variable <math>x</math>. In practice, the methods select the optimal function by minimizing the empirical risk:<br />
<br />
$$ R_e(g) = \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - g(x_i))^2 $$<br />
<br />
To minimize the risk function, the theoretically optimal solution is <math> f(x) </math>.<br />
<br />
When the problem involves different tasks, the model should optimize for each data point depending on the given task. Let <math>f_j(x)</math> be the true ground-truth function for each task <math> j </math>. Therefore, for some input variable <math> x_i </math>, an ideal model <math>g</math> would predict <math> g(x_i) = f_j(x_i) </math>. With this, the risk function can be modified to fit this new task for traditional supervised learning methods.<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x \sum_{j=1}^n (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
We call <math> (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) </math> the '''confusing multiple mappings'''. Then the optimal solution <math>g^*(x)</math> is <math>\bar{f}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n p(f_j) f_j(x)</math>. However, the optimal solution is not conditional on the specific task at hand but rather on the entire ground-truth functions. The solution represents a mixed probably model instead of knowing the exact tasks and their correpsonding individual probability distribution. Therefore, for every non-trivial set of tasks where <math>f_u(x) \neq f_v(x)</math> for some input <math>x</math> and <math>u \neq v</math>, <math>R(g^*) > 0</math> which implies that there is an unavoidable confusion risk.<br />
<br />
== Learning Functions of CSL ==<br />
<br />
To overcome this issue, the authors introduce two types of learning functions:<br />
* '''Deconfusing function''' &mdash; allocation of which samples come from the same task<br />
* '''Mapping function''' &mdash; mapping relation from input to the output of every learned task<br />
<br />
Suppose there are <math>n</math> ground-truth mappings <math>\{f_j : 1 \leq j \leq n\}</math> that we wish to approximate with a set of mapping functions <math>\{g_k : 1 \leq k \leq l\}</math>. The authors define the deconfusing function as an indicator function <math>h(x, y, g_k) </math> which takes some sample <math>(x,y)</math> and determines whether the sample is assigned to task <math>g_k</math>. Under the CSL framework, the risk functional (using MSE loss) is <br />
<br />
$$ R(g,h) = \int_x \sum_{j,k} (f_j(x) - g_k(x))^2 \; h(x, f_j(x), g_k) \;p(f_j) \; p(x) \;\mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
which can be estimated empirically with<br />
<br />
$$R_e(g,h) = \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^n |y_i - g_k(x_i)|^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i, g_k) $$<br />
<br />
The risk metric of every sample affects only its assigned task.<br />
<br />
== Theoretical Results ==<br />
<br />
This novel framework yields some theoretical results to show the viability of its construction.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 1 (Existence of Solution)'''<br />
''With the confusing supervised learning framework, there is an optimal solution''<br />
$$h^*(x, f_j(x), g_k) = \mathbb{I}[j=k]$$<br />
<br />
$$g_k^*(x) = f_k(x)$$<br />
<br />
''for each <math>k=1,..., n</math> that makes the expected risk function of the CSL problem zero.''<br />
<br />
However, necessity constraints are needed to avoid meaningless trivial solutions in all optimal risk solutions.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 2 (Error Bound of CSL)'''<br />
''With probability at least <math>1 - \eta</math> simultaneously with finite VC dimension <math>\tau</math> of CSL learning framework, the risk measure is bounded by<br />
<br />
$$R(\alpha) \leq R_e(\alpha) + \frac{B\epsilon(m)}{2} \left(1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{4R_e(\alpha)}{B\epsilon(m)}}\right)$$<br />
<br />
''where <math>\alpha</math> is the total parameters of learning functions <math>g, h</math>, <math>B</math> is the upper bound of one sample's risk, <math>m</math> is the size of training data and''<br />
$$\epsilon(m) = 4 \; \frac{\tau (\ln \frac{2m}{\tau} + 1) - \ln \eta / 4}{m}$$<br />
<br />
This theorem shows the method of empirical risk minimization is valid in the CSL framework. Moreover, the assumed number of tasks affects the VC dimension of the learning functions, which is positively related to the generalization error. Therefore, to make the training risk small, we need to choose the ''minimum number'' of tasks when determining the task.<br />
<br />
= CSL-Net =<br />
In this section, the authors describe how to implement and train a network for CSL.<br />
<br />
== The Structure of CSL-Net ==<br />
Two neural networks, deconfusing-net and mapping-net are trained to implement two learning function variables in empirical risk. The optimization target of the training algorithm is:<br />
$$\min_{g, h} R_e = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{n} (y_i - g_k(x_i))^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i; g_k)$$<br />
<br />
The mapping-net is corresponding to functions set <math>g_k</math>, where <math>y_k = g_k(x)</math> represents the output of one certain task. The deconfusing-net is corresponding to function h, whose input is a sample <math>(x,y)</math> and output is an n-dimensional one-hot vector. This output vector determines which task the sample <math>(x,y)</math> should be assigned to. The core difficulty of this algorithm is that the risk function cannot be optimized by gradient back-propagation due to the constraint of one-hot output from deconfusing-net. Approximation of softmax will lead the deconfusing-net output into a non-one-hot form, which results in meaningless trivial solutions.<br />
<br />
== Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm ==<br />
To overcome the training difficulty, the authors divide the empirical risk minimization into two local optimization problems. In each single-network optimization step, the parameters of one network are updated while the parameters of another remain fixed. With one network's parameters unchanged, the problem can be solved by a gradient descent method of neural networks. <br />
<br />
'''Training of Mapping-Net''': With function h from deconfusing-net being determined, the goal is to train every mapping function <math>g_k</math> with its corresponding sample <math>(x_i^k, y_i^k)</math>. The optimization problem becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{g_k} L_{map}(g_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} \mid y_i^k - g_k(x_i^k)\mid^2</math>. Back-propagation algorithm can be applied to solve this optimization problem.<br />
<br />
'''Training of Deconfusing-Net''': The task allocation is re-evaluated during the training phase while the parameters of the mapping-net remain fixed. To minimize the original risk, every sample <math>(x, y)</math> will be assigned to <math>g_k</math> that is closest to label y among all different <math>k</math>s. Mapping-net thus provides a temporary solution for deconfusing-net: <math>\hat{h}(x_i, y_i) = arg \displaystyle\min_{k} \mid y_i - g_k(x_i)\mid^2</math>. The optimization becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{h} L_{dec}(h) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \mid {h}(x_i, y_i) - \hat{h}(x_i, y_i)\mid^2</math>. Similarly, the optimization problem can be solved by updating the deconfusing-net with a back-propagation algorithm.<br />
<br />
The two optimization stages are carried out alternately until the solution converges.<br />
<br />
=Experiment=<br />
==Setup==<br />
<br />
3 data sets are used to compare CSL to existing methods, 1 function regression task, and 2 image classification tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': The function regression data comes in the form of <math>(x_i,y_i),i=1,...,m</math> pairs. However, unlike typical regression problems, there are multiple <math>f_j(x),j=1,...,n</math> mapping functions, so the goal is to recover both the mapping functions <math>f_j</math> as well as determine which mapping function corresponds to each of the <math>m</math> observations. 3 scalar-valued, scalar-input functions that intersect at several points with each other have been chosen as the different tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Colorful-MNIST''': The first image classification data set consists of the MNIST digit data that has been colored. Each observation in this modified set consists of a colored image (<math>x_i</math>) and either the color, or the digit it represents (<math>y_i</math>). The goal is to recover the classification task ("color" or "digit") for each observation and construct the 2 classifiers for both tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Kaggle Fashion Product''': This data set has more observations than the "colored-MNIST" data and consists of pictures labeled with either the “Gender”, “Category”, and “Color” of the clothing item.<br />
<br />
==Use of Pre-Trained CNN Feature Layers==<br />
<br />
In the Kaggle Fashion Product experiment, CSL trains fully-connected layers that have been attached to feature-identifying layers from pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks. The CSL methods autonomously learned three tasks which corresponded exactly to “Gender”,<br />
“Category”, and “Color” as we see it.<br />
<br />
==Metrics of Confusing Supervised Learning==<br />
<br />
There are two measures of accuracy used to evaluate and compare CSL to other methods, corresponding respectively to the accuracy of the task labeling and the accuracy of the learned mapping function. <br />
<br />
'''Task Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_T(j)</math> is the average number of times the learned deconfusing function <math>h</math> agrees with the task-assignment ability of humans <math>\tilde h</math> on whether each observation in the data "is" or "is not" in task <math>j</math>.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_T(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m I[h(x_i,y_i;f_k),\tilde h(x_i,y_i;f_j)]$$<br />
<br />
The max over <math>k</math> is taken because we need to determine which learned task corresponds to which ground-truth task.<br />
<br />
'''Label Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_L(j)</math> again chooses <math>f_k</math>, the learned mapping function that is closest to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, and measures its average absolute accuracy compared to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, <math>f_j</math>, across all <math>m</math> observations.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_L(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m 1-\dfrac{|g_k(x_i)-f_j(x_i)|}{|f_j(x_i)|}$$<br />
<br />
The purpose of this measure arises from the fact that, in addition to learning mapping allocations like humans, machines should be able to approximate all mapping functions accurately in order to provide corresponding labels. The Label Prediction Accuracy measure captures the exchange equivalence of the following task: each mapping contains its ground-truth output, and machines should be predicting the correct output that is close to the ground-truth. <br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
<br />
Given confusing data, CSL performs better than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017). This is demonstrated by CSL's <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of around 95%, compared to <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of under 50% for the other methods. This supports the assertion that traditional methods only learn the means of all the ground-truth mapping functions when presented with confusing data.<br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': To "correctly" partition the observations into the correct tasks, a 5-shot warm-up was used. In this situation, the CSL methods work well in learning the ground-truth. That means the initialization of the neural network is set up properly.<br />
<br />
'''Image Classification''': Visualizations created through Spectral embedding confirm the task labelling proficiency of the deconfusing neural network <math>h</math>.<br />
<br />
The classification and function prediction accuracy of CSL are comparable to supervised learning programs that have been given access to the ground-truth labels.<br />
<br />
==Application of Multi-label Learning==<br />
<br />
CSL also had better accuracy than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017) when presented with partially labelled multi-label data <math>(x_i,y_i)</math>, where <math>y_i</math> is a <math>n</math>-long indicator vector for whether the image <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> corresponds to each of the <math>n</math> labels.<br />
<br />
Applications of multi-label classification include building a recommendation system, social media targeting, as well as detecting adverse drug reactions from the text.<br />
<br />
Multi-label can be used to improve the syndrome diagnosis of a patient by focusing on multiple syndromes instead of a single syndrome.<br />
<br />
==Limitations==<br />
<br />
'''Number of Tasks''': The number of tasks is determined by increasing the task numbers progressively and testing the performance. Ideally, a better way of deciding the number of tasks is expected rather than increasing it one by one and seeing which is the minimum number of tasks that gives the smallest risk. Adding low-quality constraints to deconfusing-net is a reasonable solution to this problem.<br />
<br />
'''Learning of Basic Features''': The CSL framework is not good at learning features. So far, a pre-trained CNN backbone is needed for complicated image classification problems. Even though the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features hasn't been affected, the full-connect network can only be trained based on learned CNN features. It is still a challenge for the current algorithm to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
This paper proposes the CSL method for tackling the multi-task learning problem without manual task annotations from basic input data. The model obtains a basic task concept by learning the minimum risk for confusing samples from differentiating multiple mappings. The paper also demonstrates that the CSL method is an important step to moving from Narrow AI towards General AI for multi-task learning.<br />
<br />
However, some limitations can be improved for future work:<br />
<br />
- The repeated training process of determining the lowest best task number that has the closest to zero causes inefficiency in the learning process; <br />
<br />
- The current algorithm is difficult to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously by training a full-connect network. However, this limitation does not affect the effectiveness of our algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features.<br />
<br />
= Critique =<br />
<br />
The classification accuracy of CSL was made with algorithms not designed to deal with confusing data and which do not first classify the task of each observation.<br />
<br />
Human task annotation is also imperfect, so one additional application of CSL may be to attempt to flag task annotation errors made by humans, such as in sorting comments for items sold by online retailers; concerned customers, in particular, may not correctly label their comments as "refund", "order didn't arrive", "order damaged", "how good the item is" etc.<br />
<br />
This algorithm will also have a huge issue in scaling, as the proposed method requires repeated training processes, so it might be too expensive for researchers to implement and improve on this algorithm.<br />
<br />
This research paper should have included a plot on loss (of both functions) against epochs in the paper. A common issue with fixing the parameters of one network and updating the other is the variability during training. This is prevalent in other algorithms with similar training methods such as generative adversarial networks (GAN). For instance, ''mode collapse'' is the issue of one network stuck in local minima and other networks that rely on this network may receive incorrect signals during backpropagation. In the case of CSL-Net, since the Deconfusing-Net directly relies on Mapping-Net for training labels, if the Mapping-Net is unable to sufficiently converge, the Deconfusing-Net may incorrectly learn the mapping from inputs to the task. For data with high noise, oscillations may severely prolong the time needed to converge because of the strong correlation in prediction between the two networks.<br />
<br />
- It would be interesting to see this implemented in more examples, to test the robustness of different types of data.<br />
<br />
Even though this paper has already included some examples when testing the CSL in experiments, it will be better to include more detailed examples for partial-label in the "Application of Multi-label Learning" section.<br />
<br />
When using this framework for classification, the order of the one-hot classification labels for each task will likely influence the relationships learned between each task, since the same output header is used for all tasks. This may be why this method fails to learn low-level representations and requires pretraining. I would like to see more explanation in the paper about why this isn't a problem if it was investigated.<br />
<br />
It would be a good idea to include comparison details in the summary to make the results and the conclusion more convincing. For instance, though the paper introduced the result generated using confusion data, and provide some applications for multi-label learning, these two sections still fell short and could use some technical details as supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate if the order of adding tasks will influence the model performance.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of applying CSL in face recognition, such that not only does the algorithm map the face to identity, it also categorizes the face based on other features like beard/no beard and glasses/no glasses simultaneously.<br />
<br />
For pattern recognition,pre-trained features were used in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see how the effectiveness of the model changes if we train it with data directly from the CNN structure in the future.<br />
<br />
So basically given a confused dataset CSL finds the important tasks or labels from the dataset as can be seen from the fruit example. In the example, fruits are grouped under their names, their tastes, and their color, when CSL is given a mixed dataset. Hence given an unstructured data, unlabeled, confused dataset CSL helps in finding the labels, which in turn can help in cleaning the dataset and further in preparing high-quality training data set which is very important in different ML algorithms. Since at present preparing these dataset requires manual data annotations, CSL can save time in that process.<br />
<br />
For the Colorful-Mnist data set, the goal is to understand the concept of multiple classification tasks from these examples. All inputs have multiple classification tasks. Each observed sample only represents the classification result of one task, and the task from which the sample comes is unknown.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to know why the given metrics of confusing supervised learning are used. The authors should have used several different metrics and show that CSL's overall performs better than other methods. And what are "the other methods" referring to?<br />
<br />
For the Training of Mapping-Net in the part of "Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm", authors did not mention what is Training of Mapping-Net doing. Authors should specify what is this doing before showing the formula of it. It is hard for readers to understand.<br />
<br />
For the results section, it would be more intuitive and stronger if the author provide more detail on these two methods and add a plot to support the claim. Based on the text, it might not be an obvious comparison.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<br />
[1] Su, Xin, et al. "Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data."<br />
<br />
[2] Caruana, R. (1997) "Multi-task learning"<br />
<br />
[3] Lee, D.-H. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, vol. 3, 2013, pp. 2–8. <br />
<br />
[4] Tan, Q., Yu, Y., Yu, G., and Wang, J. Semi-supervised multi-label classification using incomplete label information. Neurocomputing, vol. 260, 2017, pp. 192–202.<br />
<br />
[5] Chavdarova, Tatjana, and François Fleuret. "Sgan: An alternative training of generative adversarial networks." In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9407-9415. 2018.<br />
<br />
[6] Guo-Ping Liu, Jian-Jun Yan, Yi-Qin Wang, Jing-Jing Fu, Zhao-Xia Xu, Rui Guo, Peng Qian, "Application of Multilabel Learning Using the Relevant Feature for Each Label in Chronic Gastritis Syndrome Diagnosis", Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 135387, 9 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/135387</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Task_Understanding_from_Confusing_Multi-task_Data&diff=48251Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data2020-11-30T03:57:25Z<p>Y52wen: /* Description of the Problem */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Presented By'''<br />
<br />
Qianlin Song, William Loh, Junyue Bai, Phoebe Choi<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
<br />
Narrow AI is an artificial intelligence that outperforms humans in a narrowly defined task. The application of Narrow AI is becoming more and more common. For example, Narrow AI can be used for spam filtering, music recommendation services, assist doctors to make data-driven decisions, and even self-driving cars. One of the most famous integrated forms of Narrow AI is Apple's Siri. Siri has no self-awareness or genuine intelligence, and hence often has challenges performing tasks outside its range of abilities. However, the widespread use of Narrow AI in important infrastructure functions raises some concerns. Some people think that the characteristics of Narrow AI make it fragile, and when neural networks can be used to control important systems (such as power grids, financial transactions), alternatives may be more inclined to avoid risks. While these machines help companies improve efficiency and cut costs, the limitations of Narrow AI encouraged researchers to look into General AI. <br />
<br />
General AI is a machine that can apply its learning to different contexts, which closely resembles human intelligence. This paper attempts to generalize the multi-task learning system that learns from data from multiple classification tasks. One application is image recognition. In figure 1, an image of an apple corresponds to 3 labels: “red”, “apple” and “sweet”. These labels correspond to 3 different classification tasks: color, fruit, and taste. <br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure1.PNG | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Currently, multi-task machines require researchers to construct a task definition. Otherwise, it will end up with different outputs with the same input value. Researchers manually assign tasks to each input in the sample to train the machine. See figure 1(a). This method incurs high annotation costs and restricts the machine’s ability to mirror the human recognition process. This paper is interested in developing an algorithm that understands task concepts and performs multi-task learning without manual task annotations. <br />
<br />
This paper proposed a new learning method called confusing supervised learning (CSL) which includes 2 functions: de-confusing function and mapping function. The first function allocates an input to its respective task and the latter fuction maps the input to its label within the allocated tasks, and each function is represented by a neural network. See figure 1(b). However, simply combining the two functions or networks to a single architecture is impossible, since the the one-hot constraint of the outputs for the deconfusing network makes the gradient back-propagation unfeasible. This difficulty is solved by alternatively performing training for the de-confusing net and mapping net optimization in the proposed architecture CLS-Net.<br />
<br />
Experiments for function regression and image recognition problems were constructed and compared with multi-task learning with complete information to test CSL-Net’s performance. Experiment results show that CSL-Net can learn multiple mappings for every task simultaneously and achieve the same cognition result as the current multi-task machine assigned with complete information.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure2.PNG | 700px]]<br />
<br />
==Latent variable learning==<br />
Latent variable learning aims to estimate the true function with mixed probability models. See '''figure 2a'''. In the multi-task learning problem without task annotations, we know that samples are generated from multiple distinct distributions instead of one distribution combining a mixture of multiple probability models. Thus, the latent variable learning can not fully distinguish labels into different tasks and different distributions, and it is insufficient to classify the multi-task confusing samples. <br />
<br />
==Multi-task learning==<br />
Multi-task learning aims to learn multiple tasks simultaneously using a shared feature representation. In multi-task learning, the task to which every sample belongs is known. By exploiting similarities and differences between tasks, the learning from one task can improve the learning of another task. (Caruana, 1997) This results in improved the overall learning efficiency, since the labels in different tasks are often correlated: improving the classfication result for one class also help with other classification tasks. In multi-task learning, the input-output mapping of every task can be represented by a unified function. However, these task definitions are manually constructed, and machines need manual task annotations to learn. If such manuual task annotation is abstent, then the algorithm can not be performed. <br />
<br />
==Multi-label learning==<br />
Multi-label learning aims to assign an input to a set of classes/labels. See '''figure 2b'''. It is a generalization of multi-class classification, which classifies an input into one class. In multi-label learning, an input can be classified into more than one class. Unlike multi-task learning, multi-label does not consider the relationship between different label judgments and it is assumed that each judgment is independent. An example where multi-label learning is applicable is the scenario where a website wants to automatically assign applicable tags/categories to an article. Since an article can be related to multiple categories (eg. an article can be tagged under the politics and business categories) multi-label learning is of primary concern here.<br />
<br />
= Confusing Supervised Learning =<br />
<br />
== Description of the Problem ==<br />
<br />
Confusing supervised learning (CSL) offers a solution to the issue at hand. A major area of improvement can be seen in the choice of risk measure. In traditional supervised learning, let <math> (x,y)</math> be the training samples from <math>y=f(x)</math>, which is an identical but unknown mapping relationship. Assuming the risk measure is mean squared error (MSE), the expected risk function is<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x (f(x) - g(x))^2 p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
where <math>p(x)</math> is the data distribution of the input variable <math>x</math>. In practice, the methods select the optimal function by minimizing the empirical risk:<br />
<br />
$$ R_e(g) = \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - g(x_i))^2 $$<br />
<br />
To minimize the risk function, the theoretically optimal solution is <math> f(x) </math>.<br />
<br />
When the problem involves different tasks, the model should optimize for each data point depending on the given task. Let <math>f_j(x)</math> be the true ground-truth function for each task <math> j </math>. Therefore, for some input variable <math> x_i </math>, an ideal model <math>g</math> would predict <math> g(x_i) = f_j(x_i) </math>. With this, the risk function can be modified to fit this new task for traditional supervised learning methods.<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x \sum_{j=1}^n (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
We call <math> (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) </math> the '''confusing multiple mappings'''. Then the optimal solution <math>g^*(x)</math> is <math>\bar{f}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n p(f_j) f_j(x)</math>. However, the optimal solution is not conditional on the specific task at hand but rather on the entire ground-truth functions. The solution represents a mixed probably model instead of knowing the exact tasks and their correpsonding individual probability distribution. Therefore, for every non-trivial set of tasks where <math>f_u(x) \neq f_v(x)</math> for some input <math>x</math> and <math>u \neq v</math>, <math>R(g^*) > 0</math> which implies that there is an unavoidable confusion risk.<br />
<br />
== Learning Functions of CSL ==<br />
<br />
To overcome this issue, the authors introduce two types of learning functions:<br />
* '''Deconfusing function''' &mdash; allocation of which samples come from the same task<br />
* '''Mapping function''' &mdash; mapping relation from input to the output of every learned task<br />
<br />
Suppose there are <math>n</math> ground-truth mappings <math>\{f_j : 1 \leq j \leq n\}</math> that we wish to approximate with a set of mapping functions <math>\{g_k : 1 \leq k \leq l\}</math>. The authors define the deconfusing function as an indicator function <math>h(x, y, g_k) </math> which takes some sample <math>(x,y)</math> and determines whether the sample is assigned to task <math>g_k</math>. Under the CSL framework, the risk functional (using MSE loss) is <br />
<br />
$$ R(g,h) = \int_x \sum_{j,k} (f_j(x) - g_k(x))^2 \; h(x, f_j(x), g_k) \;p(f_j) \; p(x) \;\mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
which can be estimated empirically with<br />
<br />
$$R_e(g,h) = \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^n |y_i - g_k(x_i)|^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i, g_k) $$<br />
<br />
The risk metric of every sample affects only its assigned task.<br />
<br />
== Theoretical Results ==<br />
<br />
This novel framework yields some theoretical results to show the viability of its construction.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 1 (Existence of Solution)'''<br />
''With the confusing supervised learning framework, there is an optimal solution''<br />
$$h^*(x, f_j(x), g_k) = \mathbb{I}[j=k]$$<br />
<br />
$$g_k^*(x) = f_k(x)$$<br />
<br />
''for each <math>k=1,..., n</math> that makes the expected risk function of the CSL problem zero.''<br />
<br />
However, necessity constraints are needed to avoid meaningless trivial solutions in all optimal risk solutions.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 2 (Error Bound of CSL)'''<br />
''With probability at least <math>1 - \eta</math> simultaneously with finite VC dimension <math>\tau</math> of CSL learning framework, the risk measure is bounded by<br />
<br />
$$R(\alpha) \leq R_e(\alpha) + \frac{B\epsilon(m)}{2} \left(1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{4R_e(\alpha)}{B\epsilon(m)}}\right)$$<br />
<br />
''where <math>\alpha</math> is the total parameters of learning functions <math>g, h</math>, <math>B</math> is the upper bound of one sample's risk, <math>m</math> is the size of training data and''<br />
$$\epsilon(m) = 4 \; \frac{\tau (\ln \frac{2m}{\tau} + 1) - \ln \eta / 4}{m}$$<br />
<br />
This theorem shows the method of empirical risk minimization is valid in the CSL framework. Moreover, the assumed number of tasks affects the VC dimension of the learning functions, which is positively related to the generalization error. Therefore, to make the training risk small, we need to choose the ''minimum number'' of tasks when determining the task.<br />
<br />
= CSL-Net =<br />
In this section, the authors describe how to implement and train a network for CSL.<br />
<br />
== The Structure of CSL-Net ==<br />
Two neural networks, deconfusing-net and mapping-net are trained to implement two learning function variables in empirical risk. The optimization target of the training algorithm is:<br />
$$\min_{g, h} R_e = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{n} (y_i - g_k(x_i))^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i; g_k)$$<br />
<br />
The mapping-net is corresponding to functions set <math>g_k</math>, where <math>y_k = g_k(x)</math> represents the output of one certain task. The deconfusing-net is corresponding to function h, whose input is a sample <math>(x,y)</math> and output is an n-dimensional one-hot vector. This output vector determines which task the sample <math>(x,y)</math> should be assigned to. The core difficulty of this algorithm is that the risk function cannot be optimized by gradient back-propagation due to the constraint of one-hot output from deconfusing-net. Approximation of softmax will lead the deconfusing-net output into a non-one-hot form, which results in meaningless trivial solutions.<br />
<br />
== Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm ==<br />
To overcome the training difficulty, the authors divide the empirical risk minimization into two local optimization problems. In each single-network optimization step, the parameters of one network are updated while the parameters of another remain fixed. With one network's parameters unchanged, the problem can be solved by a gradient descent method of neural networks. <br />
<br />
'''Training of Mapping-Net''': With function h from deconfusing-net being determined, the goal is to train every mapping function <math>g_k</math> with its corresponding sample <math>(x_i^k, y_i^k)</math>. The optimization problem becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{g_k} L_{map}(g_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} \mid y_i^k - g_k(x_i^k)\mid^2</math>. Back-propagation algorithm can be applied to solve this optimization problem.<br />
<br />
'''Training of Deconfusing-Net''': The task allocation is re-evaluated during the training phase while the parameters of the mapping-net remain fixed. To minimize the original risk, every sample <math>(x, y)</math> will be assigned to <math>g_k</math> that is closest to label y among all different <math>k</math>s. Mapping-net thus provides a temporary solution for deconfusing-net: <math>\hat{h}(x_i, y_i) = arg \displaystyle\min_{k} \mid y_i - g_k(x_i)\mid^2</math>. The optimization becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{h} L_{dec}(h) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \mid {h}(x_i, y_i) - \hat{h}(x_i, y_i)\mid^2</math>. Similarly, the optimization problem can be solved by updating the deconfusing-net with a back-propagation algorithm.<br />
<br />
The two optimization stages are carried out alternately until the solution converges.<br />
<br />
=Experiment=<br />
==Setup==<br />
<br />
3 data sets are used to compare CSL to existing methods, 1 function regression task, and 2 image classification tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': The function regression data comes in the form of <math>(x_i,y_i),i=1,...,m</math> pairs. However, unlike typical regression problems, there are multiple <math>f_j(x),j=1,...,n</math> mapping functions, so the goal is to recover both the mapping functions <math>f_j</math> as well as determine which mapping function corresponds to each of the <math>m</math> observations. 3 scalar-valued, scalar-input functions that intersect at several points with each other have been chosen as the different tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Colorful-MNIST''': The first image classification data set consists of the MNIST digit data that has been colored. Each observation in this modified set consists of a colored image (<math>x_i</math>) and either the color, or the digit it represents (<math>y_i</math>). The goal is to recover the classification task ("color" or "digit") for each observation and construct the 2 classifiers for both tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Kaggle Fashion Product''': This data set has more observations than the "colored-MNIST" data and consists of pictures labeled with either the “Gender”, “Category”, and “Color” of the clothing item.<br />
<br />
==Use of Pre-Trained CNN Feature Layers==<br />
<br />
In the Kaggle Fashion Product experiment, CSL trains fully-connected layers that have been attached to feature-identifying layers from pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks. The CSL methods autonomously learned three tasks which corresponded exactly to “Gender”,<br />
“Category”, and “Color” as we see it.<br />
<br />
==Metrics of Confusing Supervised Learning==<br />
<br />
There are two measures of accuracy used to evaluate and compare CSL to other methods, corresponding respectively to the accuracy of the task labeling and the accuracy of the learned mapping function. <br />
<br />
'''Task Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_T(j)</math> is the average number of times the learned deconfusing function <math>h</math> agrees with the task-assignment ability of humans <math>\tilde h</math> on whether each observation in the data "is" or "is not" in task <math>j</math>.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_T(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m I[h(x_i,y_i;f_k),\tilde h(x_i,y_i;f_j)]$$<br />
<br />
The max over <math>k</math> is taken because we need to determine which learned task corresponds to which ground-truth task.<br />
<br />
'''Label Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_L(j)</math> again chooses <math>f_k</math>, the learned mapping function that is closest to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, and measures its average absolute accuracy compared to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, <math>f_j</math>, across all <math>m</math> observations.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_L(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m 1-\dfrac{|g_k(x_i)-f_j(x_i)|}{|f_j(x_i)|}$$<br />
<br />
The purpose of this measure arises from the fact that, in addition to learning mapping allocations like humans, machines should be able to approximate all mapping functions accurately in order to provide corresponding labels. The Label Prediction Accuracy measure captures the exchange equivalence of the following task: each mapping contains its ground-truth output, and machines should be predicting the correct output that is close to the ground-truth. <br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
<br />
Given confusing data, CSL performs better than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017). This is demonstrated by CSL's <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of around 95%, compared to <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of under 50% for the other methods. This supports the assertion that traditional methods only learn the means of all the ground-truth mapping functions when presented with confusing data.<br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': To "correctly" partition the observations into the correct tasks, a 5-shot warm-up was used. In this situation, the CSL methods work well in learning the ground-truth. That means the initialization of the neural network is set up properly.<br />
<br />
'''Image Classification''': Visualizations created through Spectral embedding confirm the task labelling proficiency of the deconfusing neural network <math>h</math>.<br />
<br />
The classification and function prediction accuracy of CSL are comparable to supervised learning programs that have been given access to the ground-truth labels.<br />
<br />
==Application of Multi-label Learning==<br />
<br />
CSL also had better accuracy than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017) when presented with partially labelled multi-label data <math>(x_i,y_i)</math>, where <math>y_i</math> is a <math>n</math>-long indicator vector for whether the image <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> corresponds to each of the <math>n</math> labels.<br />
<br />
Applications of multi-label classification include building a recommendation system, social media targeting, as well as detecting adverse drug reactions from the text.<br />
<br />
Multi-label can be used to improve the syndrome diagnosis of a patient by focusing on multiple syndromes instead of a single syndrome.<br />
<br />
==Limitations==<br />
<br />
'''Number of Tasks''': The number of tasks is determined by increasing the task numbers progressively and testing the performance. Ideally, a better way of deciding the number of tasks is expected rather than increasing it one by one and seeing which is the minimum number of tasks that gives the smallest risk. Adding low-quality constraints to deconfusing-net is a reasonable solution to this problem.<br />
<br />
'''Learning of Basic Features''': The CSL framework is not good at learning features. So far, a pre-trained CNN backbone is needed for complicated image classification problems. Even though the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features hasn't been affected, the full-connect network can only be trained based on learned CNN features. It is still a challenge for the current algorithm to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
This paper proposes the CSL method for tackling the multi-task learning problem without manual task annotations from basic input data. The model obtains a basic task concept by learning the minimum risk for confusing samples from differentiating multiple mappings. The paper also demonstrates that the CSL method is an important step to moving from Narrow AI towards General AI for multi-task learning.<br />
<br />
However, some limitations can be improved for future work:<br />
<br />
- The repeated training process of determining the lowest best task number that has the closest to zero causes inefficiency in the learning process; <br />
<br />
- The current algorithm is difficult to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously by training a full-connect network. However, this limitation does not affect the effectiveness of our algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features.<br />
<br />
= Critique =<br />
<br />
The classification accuracy of CSL was made with algorithms not designed to deal with confusing data and which do not first classify the task of each observation.<br />
<br />
Human task annotation is also imperfect, so one additional application of CSL may be to attempt to flag task annotation errors made by humans, such as in sorting comments for items sold by online retailers; concerned customers, in particular, may not correctly label their comments as "refund", "order didn't arrive", "order damaged", "how good the item is" etc.<br />
<br />
This algorithm will also have a huge issue in scaling, as the proposed method requires repeated training processes, so it might be too expensive for researchers to implement and improve on this algorithm.<br />
<br />
This research paper should have included a plot on loss (of both functions) against epochs in the paper. A common issue with fixing the parameters of one network and updating the other is the variability during training. This is prevalent in other algorithms with similar training methods such as generative adversarial networks (GAN). For instance, ''mode collapse'' is the issue of one network stuck in local minima and other networks that rely on this network may receive incorrect signals during backpropagation. In the case of CSL-Net, since the Deconfusing-Net directly relies on Mapping-Net for training labels, if the Mapping-Net is unable to sufficiently converge, the Deconfusing-Net may incorrectly learn the mapping from inputs to the task. For data with high noise, oscillations may severely prolong the time needed to converge because of the strong correlation in prediction between the two networks.<br />
<br />
- It would be interesting to see this implemented in more examples, to test the robustness of different types of data.<br />
<br />
Even though this paper has already included some examples when testing the CSL in experiments, it will be better to include more detailed examples for partial-label in the "Application of Multi-label Learning" section.<br />
<br />
When using this framework for classification, the order of the one-hot classification labels for each task will likely influence the relationships learned between each task, since the same output header is used for all tasks. This may be why this method fails to learn low-level representations and requires pretraining. I would like to see more explanation in the paper about why this isn't a problem if it was investigated.<br />
<br />
It would be a good idea to include comparison details in the summary to make the results and the conclusion more convincing. For instance, though the paper introduced the result generated using confusion data, and provide some applications for multi-label learning, these two sections still fell short and could use some technical details as supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate if the order of adding tasks will influence the model performance.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of applying CSL in face recognition, such that not only does the algorithm map the face to identity, it also categorizes the face based on other features like beard/no beard and glasses/no glasses simultaneously.<br />
<br />
For pattern recognition,pre-trained features were used in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see how the effectiveness of the model changes if we train it with data directly from the CNN structure in the future.<br />
<br />
So basically given a confused dataset CSL finds the important tasks or labels from the dataset as can be seen from the fruit example. In the example, fruits are grouped under their names, their tastes, and their color, when CSL is given a mixed dataset. Hence given an unstructured data, unlabeled, confused dataset CSL helps in finding the labels, which in turn can help in cleaning the dataset and further in preparing high-quality training data set which is very important in different ML algorithms. Since at present preparing these dataset requires manual data annotations, CSL can save time in that process.<br />
<br />
For the Colorful-Mnist data set, the goal is to understand the concept of multiple classification tasks from these examples. All inputs have multiple classification tasks. Each observed sample only represents the classification result of one task, and the task from which the sample comes is unknown.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to know why the given metrics of confusing supervised learning are used. The authors should have used several different metrics and show that CSL's overall performs better than other methods. And what are "the other methods" referring to?<br />
<br />
For the Training of Mapping-Net in the part of "Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm", authors did not mention what is Training of Mapping-Net doing. Authors should specify what is this doing before showing the formula of it. It is hard for readers to understand.<br />
<br />
For the results section, it would be more intuitive and stronger if the author provide more detail on these two methods and add a plot to support the claim. Based on the text, it might not be an obvious comparison.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<br />
[1] Su, Xin, et al. "Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data."<br />
<br />
[2] Caruana, R. (1997) "Multi-task learning"<br />
<br />
[3] Lee, D.-H. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, vol. 3, 2013, pp. 2–8. <br />
<br />
[4] Tan, Q., Yu, Y., Yu, G., and Wang, J. Semi-supervised multi-label classification using incomplete label information. Neurocomputing, vol. 260, 2017, pp. 192–202.<br />
<br />
[5] Chavdarova, Tatjana, and François Fleuret. "Sgan: An alternative training of generative adversarial networks." In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9407-9415. 2018.<br />
<br />
[6] Guo-Ping Liu, Jian-Jun Yan, Yi-Qin Wang, Jing-Jing Fu, Zhao-Xia Xu, Rui Guo, Peng Qian, "Application of Multilabel Learning Using the Relevant Feature for Each Label in Chronic Gastritis Syndrome Diagnosis", Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 135387, 9 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/135387</div>Y52wenhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Task_Understanding_from_Confusing_Multi-task_Data&diff=48245Task Understanding from Confusing Multi-task Data2020-11-30T03:54:47Z<p>Y52wen: /* Description of the Problem */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Presented By'''<br />
<br />
Qianlin Song, William Loh, Junyue Bai, Phoebe Choi<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
<br />
Narrow AI is an artificial intelligence that outperforms humans in a narrowly defined task. The application of Narrow AI is becoming more and more common. For example, Narrow AI can be used for spam filtering, music recommendation services, assist doctors to make data-driven decisions, and even self-driving cars. One of the most famous integrated forms of Narrow AI is Apple's Siri. Siri has no self-awareness or genuine intelligence, and hence often has challenges performing tasks outside its range of abilities. However, the widespread use of Narrow AI in important infrastructure functions raises some concerns. Some people think that the characteristics of Narrow AI make it fragile, and when neural networks can be used to control important systems (such as power grids, financial transactions), alternatives may be more inclined to avoid risks. While these machines help companies improve efficiency and cut costs, the limitations of Narrow AI encouraged researchers to look into General AI. <br />
<br />
General AI is a machine that can apply its learning to different contexts, which closely resembles human intelligence. This paper attempts to generalize the multi-task learning system that learns from data from multiple classification tasks. One application is image recognition. In figure 1, an image of an apple corresponds to 3 labels: “red”, “apple” and “sweet”. These labels correspond to 3 different classification tasks: color, fruit, and taste. <br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure1.PNG | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Currently, multi-task machines require researchers to construct a task definition. Otherwise, it will end up with different outputs with the same input value. Researchers manually assign tasks to each input in the sample to train the machine. See figure 1(a). This method incurs high annotation costs and restricts the machine’s ability to mirror the human recognition process. This paper is interested in developing an algorithm that understands task concepts and performs multi-task learning without manual task annotations. <br />
<br />
This paper proposed a new learning method called confusing supervised learning (CSL) which includes 2 functions: de-confusing function and mapping function. The first function allocates an input to its respective task and the latter fuction maps the input to its label within the allocated tasks, and each function is represented by a neural network. See figure 1(b). However, simply combining the two functions or networks to a single architecture is impossible, since the the one-hot constraint of the outputs for the deconfusing network makes the gradient back-propagation unfeasible. This difficulty is solved by alternatively performing training for the de-confusing net and mapping net optimization in the proposed architecture CLS-Net.<br />
<br />
Experiments for function regression and image recognition problems were constructed and compared with multi-task learning with complete information to test CSL-Net’s performance. Experiment results show that CSL-Net can learn multiple mappings for every task simultaneously and achieve the same cognition result as the current multi-task machine assigned with complete information.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
[[File:CSLFigure2.PNG | 700px]]<br />
<br />
==Latent variable learning==<br />
Latent variable learning aims to estimate the true function with mixed probability models. See '''figure 2a'''. In the multi-task learning problem without task annotations, we know that samples are generated from multiple distinct distributions instead of one distribution combining a mixture of multiple probability models. Thus, the latent variable learning can not fully distinguish labels into different tasks and different distributions, and it is insufficient to classify the multi-task confusing samples. <br />
<br />
==Multi-task learning==<br />
Multi-task learning aims to learn multiple tasks simultaneously using a shared feature representation. In multi-task learning, the task to which every sample belongs is known. By exploiting similarities and differences between tasks, the learning from one task can improve the learning of another task. (Caruana, 1997) This results in improved the overall learning efficiency, since the labels in different tasks are often correlated: improving the classfication result for one class also help with other classification tasks. In multi-task learning, the input-output mapping of every task can be represented by a unified function. However, these task definitions are manually constructed, and machines need manual task annotations to learn. If such manuual task annotation is abstent, then the algorithm can not be performed. <br />
<br />
==Multi-label learning==<br />
Multi-label learning aims to assign an input to a set of classes/labels. See '''figure 2b'''. It is a generalization of multi-class classification, which classifies an input into one class. In multi-label learning, an input can be classified into more than one class. Unlike multi-task learning, multi-label does not consider the relationship between different label judgments and it is assumed that each judgment is independent. An example where multi-label learning is applicable is the scenario where a website wants to automatically assign applicable tags/categories to an article. Since an article can be related to multiple categories (eg. an article can be tagged under the politics and business categories) multi-label learning is of primary concern here.<br />
<br />
= Confusing Supervised Learning =<br />
<br />
== Description of the Problem ==<br />
<br />
Confusing supervised learning (CSL) offers a solution to the issue at hand. A major area of improvement can be seen in the choice of risk measure. In traditional supervised learning, let <math> (x,y)</math> be the training samples from <math>y=f(x)</math>, which is an identical but unknown mapping relationship. Assuming the risk measure is mean squared error (MSE), the expected risk function is<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x (f(x) - g(x))^2 p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
where <math>p(x)</math> is the data distribution of the input variable <math>x</math>. In practice, the methods select the optimal function by minimizing the empirical risk:<br />
<br />
$$ R_e(g) = \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - g(x_i))^2 $$<br />
<br />
To minimize the risk function, the theoretically optimal solution is <math> f(x) </math>.<br />
<br />
When the problem involves different tasks, the model should optimize for each data point depending on the given task. Let <math>f_j(x)</math> be the true ground-truth function for each task <math> j </math>. Therefore, for some input variable <math> x_i </math>, an ideal model <math>g</math> would predict <math> g(x_i) = f_j(x_i) </math>. With this, the risk function can be modified to fit this new task for traditional supervised learning methods.<br />
<br />
$$ R(g) = \int_x \sum_{j=1}^n (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) p(x) \; \mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
We call <math> (f_j(x) - g(x))^2 p(f_j) </math> the '''confusing multiple mappings'''. Then the optimal solution <math>g^*(x)</math> is <math>\bar{f}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n p(f_j) f_j(x)</math>. However, the optimal solution is not conditional on the specific task at hand but rather on the entire ground-truth functions. Therefore, for every non-trivial set of tasks where <math>f_u(x) \neq f_v(x)</math> for some input <math>x</math> and <math>u \neq v</math>, <math>R(g^*) > 0</math> which implies that there is an unavoidable confusion risk.<br />
<br />
== Learning Functions of CSL ==<br />
<br />
To overcome this issue, the authors introduce two types of learning functions:<br />
* '''Deconfusing function''' &mdash; allocation of which samples come from the same task<br />
* '''Mapping function''' &mdash; mapping relation from input to the output of every learned task<br />
<br />
Suppose there are <math>n</math> ground-truth mappings <math>\{f_j : 1 \leq j \leq n\}</math> that we wish to approximate with a set of mapping functions <math>\{g_k : 1 \leq k \leq l\}</math>. The authors define the deconfusing function as an indicator function <math>h(x, y, g_k) </math> which takes some sample <math>(x,y)</math> and determines whether the sample is assigned to task <math>g_k</math>. Under the CSL framework, the risk functional (using MSE loss) is <br />
<br />
$$ R(g,h) = \int_x \sum_{j,k} (f_j(x) - g_k(x))^2 \; h(x, f_j(x), g_k) \;p(f_j) \; p(x) \;\mathrm{d}x $$<br />
<br />
which can be estimated empirically with<br />
<br />
$$R_e(g,h) = \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^n |y_i - g_k(x_i)|^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i, g_k) $$<br />
<br />
The risk metric of every sample affects only its assigned task.<br />
<br />
== Theoretical Results ==<br />
<br />
This novel framework yields some theoretical results to show the viability of its construction.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 1 (Existence of Solution)'''<br />
''With the confusing supervised learning framework, there is an optimal solution''<br />
$$h^*(x, f_j(x), g_k) = \mathbb{I}[j=k]$$<br />
<br />
$$g_k^*(x) = f_k(x)$$<br />
<br />
''for each <math>k=1,..., n</math> that makes the expected risk function of the CSL problem zero.''<br />
<br />
However, necessity constraints are needed to avoid meaningless trivial solutions in all optimal risk solutions.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 2 (Error Bound of CSL)'''<br />
''With probability at least <math>1 - \eta</math> simultaneously with finite VC dimension <math>\tau</math> of CSL learning framework, the risk measure is bounded by<br />
<br />
$$R(\alpha) \leq R_e(\alpha) + \frac{B\epsilon(m)}{2} \left(1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{4R_e(\alpha)}{B\epsilon(m)}}\right)$$<br />
<br />
''where <math>\alpha</math> is the total parameters of learning functions <math>g, h</math>, <math>B</math> is the upper bound of one sample's risk, <math>m</math> is the size of training data and''<br />
$$\epsilon(m) = 4 \; \frac{\tau (\ln \frac{2m}{\tau} + 1) - \ln \eta / 4}{m}$$<br />
<br />
This theorem shows the method of empirical risk minimization is valid in the CSL framework. Moreover, the assumed number of tasks affects the VC dimension of the learning functions, which is positively related to the generalization error. Therefore, to make the training risk small, we need to choose the ''minimum number'' of tasks when determining the task.<br />
<br />
= CSL-Net =<br />
In this section, the authors describe how to implement and train a network for CSL.<br />
<br />
== The Structure of CSL-Net ==<br />
Two neural networks, deconfusing-net and mapping-net are trained to implement two learning function variables in empirical risk. The optimization target of the training algorithm is:<br />
$$\min_{g, h} R_e = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{n} (y_i - g_k(x_i))^2 \cdot h(x_i, y_i; g_k)$$<br />
<br />
The mapping-net is corresponding to functions set <math>g_k</math>, where <math>y_k = g_k(x)</math> represents the output of one certain task. The deconfusing-net is corresponding to function h, whose input is a sample <math>(x,y)</math> and output is an n-dimensional one-hot vector. This output vector determines which task the sample <math>(x,y)</math> should be assigned to. The core difficulty of this algorithm is that the risk function cannot be optimized by gradient back-propagation due to the constraint of one-hot output from deconfusing-net. Approximation of softmax will lead the deconfusing-net output into a non-one-hot form, which results in meaningless trivial solutions.<br />
<br />
== Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm ==<br />
To overcome the training difficulty, the authors divide the empirical risk minimization into two local optimization problems. In each single-network optimization step, the parameters of one network are updated while the parameters of another remain fixed. With one network's parameters unchanged, the problem can be solved by a gradient descent method of neural networks. <br />
<br />
'''Training of Mapping-Net''': With function h from deconfusing-net being determined, the goal is to train every mapping function <math>g_k</math> with its corresponding sample <math>(x_i^k, y_i^k)</math>. The optimization problem becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{g_k} L_{map}(g_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} \mid y_i^k - g_k(x_i^k)\mid^2</math>. Back-propagation algorithm can be applied to solve this optimization problem.<br />
<br />
'''Training of Deconfusing-Net''': The task allocation is re-evaluated during the training phase while the parameters of the mapping-net remain fixed. To minimize the original risk, every sample <math>(x, y)</math> will be assigned to <math>g_k</math> that is closest to label y among all different <math>k</math>s. Mapping-net thus provides a temporary solution for deconfusing-net: <math>\hat{h}(x_i, y_i) = arg \displaystyle\min_{k} \mid y_i - g_k(x_i)\mid^2</math>. The optimization becomes: <math>\displaystyle \min_{h} L_{dec}(h) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \mid {h}(x_i, y_i) - \hat{h}(x_i, y_i)\mid^2</math>. Similarly, the optimization problem can be solved by updating the deconfusing-net with a back-propagation algorithm.<br />
<br />
The two optimization stages are carried out alternately until the solution converges.<br />
<br />
=Experiment=<br />
==Setup==<br />
<br />
3 data sets are used to compare CSL to existing methods, 1 function regression task, and 2 image classification tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': The function regression data comes in the form of <math>(x_i,y_i),i=1,...,m</math> pairs. However, unlike typical regression problems, there are multiple <math>f_j(x),j=1,...,n</math> mapping functions, so the goal is to recover both the mapping functions <math>f_j</math> as well as determine which mapping function corresponds to each of the <math>m</math> observations. 3 scalar-valued, scalar-input functions that intersect at several points with each other have been chosen as the different tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Colorful-MNIST''': The first image classification data set consists of the MNIST digit data that has been colored. Each observation in this modified set consists of a colored image (<math>x_i</math>) and either the color, or the digit it represents (<math>y_i</math>). The goal is to recover the classification task ("color" or "digit") for each observation and construct the 2 classifiers for both tasks. <br />
<br />
'''Kaggle Fashion Product''': This data set has more observations than the "colored-MNIST" data and consists of pictures labeled with either the “Gender”, “Category”, and “Color” of the clothing item.<br />
<br />
==Use of Pre-Trained CNN Feature Layers==<br />
<br />
In the Kaggle Fashion Product experiment, CSL trains fully-connected layers that have been attached to feature-identifying layers from pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks. The CSL methods autonomously learned three tasks which corresponded exactly to “Gender”,<br />
“Category”, and “Color” as we see it.<br />
<br />
==Metrics of Confusing Supervised Learning==<br />
<br />
There are two measures of accuracy used to evaluate and compare CSL to other methods, corresponding respectively to the accuracy of the task labeling and the accuracy of the learned mapping function. <br />
<br />
'''Task Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_T(j)</math> is the average number of times the learned deconfusing function <math>h</math> agrees with the task-assignment ability of humans <math>\tilde h</math> on whether each observation in the data "is" or "is not" in task <math>j</math>.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_T(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m I[h(x_i,y_i;f_k),\tilde h(x_i,y_i;f_j)]$$<br />
<br />
The max over <math>k</math> is taken because we need to determine which learned task corresponds to which ground-truth task.<br />
<br />
'''Label Prediction Accuracy''': <math>\alpha_L(j)</math> again chooses <math>f_k</math>, the learned mapping function that is closest to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, and measures its average absolute accuracy compared to the ground-truth of task <math>j</math>, <math>f_j</math>, across all <math>m</math> observations.<br />
<br />
$$ \alpha_L(j) = \operatorname{max}_k\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m 1-\dfrac{|g_k(x_i)-f_j(x_i)|}{|f_j(x_i)|}$$<br />
<br />
The purpose of this measure arises from the fact that, in addition to learning mapping allocations like humans, machines should be able to approximate all mapping functions accurately in order to provide corresponding labels. The Label Prediction Accuracy measure captures the exchange equivalence of the following task: each mapping contains its ground-truth output, and machines should be predicting the correct output that is close to the ground-truth. <br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
<br />
Given confusing data, CSL performs better than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017). This is demonstrated by CSL's <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of around 95%, compared to <math>\alpha_L</math> scores of under 50% for the other methods. This supports the assertion that traditional methods only learn the means of all the ground-truth mapping functions when presented with confusing data.<br />
<br />
'''Function Regression''': To "correctly" partition the observations into the correct tasks, a 5-shot warm-up was used. In this situation, the CSL methods work well in learning the ground-truth. That means the initialization of the neural network is set up properly.<br />
<br />
'''Image Classification''': Visualizations created through Spectral embedding confirm the task labelling proficiency of the deconfusing neural network <math>h</math>.<br />
<br />
The classification and function prediction accuracy of CSL are comparable to supervised learning programs that have been given access to the ground-truth labels.<br />
<br />
==Application of Multi-label Learning==<br />
<br />
CSL also had better accuracy than traditional supervised learning methods, Pseudo-Label(Lee, 2013), and SMiLE(Tan et al., 2017) when presented with partially labelled multi-label data <math>(x_i,y_i)</math>, where <math>y_i</math> is a <math>n</math>-long indicator vector for whether the image <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> corresponds to each of the <math>n</math> labels.<br />
<br />
Applications of multi-label classification include building a recommendation system, social media targeting, as well as detecting adverse drug reactions from the text.<br />
<br />
Multi-label can be used to improve the syndrome diagnosis of a patient by focusing on multiple syndromes instead of a single syndrome.<br />
<br />
==Limitations==<br />
<br />
'''Number of Tasks''': The number of tasks is determined by increasing the task numbers progressively and testing the performance. Ideally, a better way of deciding the number of tasks is expected rather than increasing it one by one and seeing which is the minimum number of tasks that gives the smallest risk. Adding low-quality constraints to deconfusing-net is a reasonable solution to this problem.<br />
<br />
'''Learning of Basic Features''': The CSL framework is not good at learning features. So far, a pre-trained CNN backbone is needed for complicated image classification problems. Even though the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features hasn't been affected, the full-connect network can only be trained based on learned CNN features. It is still a challenge for the current algorithm to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
This paper proposes the CSL method for tackling the multi-task learning problem without manual task annotations from basic input data. The model obtains a basic task concept by learning the minimum risk for confusing samples from differentiating multiple mappings. The paper also demonstrates that the CSL method is an important step to moving from Narrow AI towards General AI for multi-task learning.<br />
<br />
However, some limitations can be improved for future work:<br />
<br />
- The repeated training process of determining the lowest best task number that has the closest to zero causes inefficiency in the learning process; <br />
<br />
- The current algorithm is difficult to learn basic features directly through a CNN structure and understand tasks simultaneously by training a full-connect network. However, this limitation does not affect the effectiveness of our algorithm in learning confusing data based on pre-trained features.<br />
<br />
= Critique =<br />
<br />
The classification accuracy of CSL was made with algorithms not designed to deal with confusing data and which do not first classify the task of each observation.<br />
<br />
Human task annotation is also imperfect, so one additional application of CSL may be to attempt to flag task annotation errors made by humans, such as in sorting comments for items sold by online retailers; concerned customers, in particular, may not correctly label their comments as "refund", "order didn't arrive", "order damaged", "how good the item is" etc.<br />
<br />
This algorithm will also have a huge issue in scaling, as the proposed method requires repeated training processes, so it might be too expensive for researchers to implement and improve on this algorithm.<br />
<br />
This research paper should have included a plot on loss (of both functions) against epochs in the paper. A common issue with fixing the parameters of one network and updating the other is the variability during training. This is prevalent in other algorithms with similar training methods such as generative adversarial networks (GAN). For instance, ''mode collapse'' is the issue of one network stuck in local minima and other networks that rely on this network may receive incorrect signals during backpropagation. In the case of CSL-Net, since the Deconfusing-Net directly relies on Mapping-Net for training labels, if the Mapping-Net is unable to sufficiently converge, the Deconfusing-Net may incorrectly learn the mapping from inputs to the task. For data with high noise, oscillations may severely prolong the time needed to converge because of the strong correlation in prediction between the two networks.<br />
<br />
- It would be interesting to see this implemented in more examples, to test the robustness of different types of data.<br />
<br />
Even though this paper has already included some examples when testing the CSL in experiments, it will be better to include more detailed examples for partial-label in the "Application of Multi-label Learning" section.<br />
<br />
When using this framework for classification, the order of the one-hot classification labels for each task will likely influence the relationships learned between each task, since the same output header is used for all tasks. This may be why this method fails to learn low-level representations and requires pretraining. I would like to see more explanation in the paper about why this isn't a problem if it was investigated.<br />
<br />
It would be a good idea to include comparison details in the summary to make the results and the conclusion more convincing. For instance, though the paper introduced the result generated using confusion data, and provide some applications for multi-label learning, these two sections still fell short and could use some technical details as supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to investigate if the order of adding tasks will influence the model performance.<br />
<br />
It would be interesting to see the effectiveness of applying CSL in face recognition, such that not only does the algorithm map the face to identity, it also categorizes the face based on other features like beard/no beard and glasses/no glasses simultaneously.<br />
<br />
For pattern recognition,pre-trained features were used in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see how the effectiveness of the model changes if we train it with data directly from the CNN structure in the future.<br />
<br />
So basically given a confused dataset CSL finds the important tasks or labels from the dataset as can be seen from the fruit example. In the example, fruits are grouped under their names, their tastes, and their color, when CSL is given a mixed dataset. Hence given an unstructured data, unlabeled, confused dataset CSL helps in finding the labels, which in turn can help in cleaning the dataset and further in preparing high-quality training data set which is very important in different ML algorithms. Since at present preparing these dataset requires manual data annotations, CSL can save time in that process.<br />
<br />
For the Colorful-Mnist data set, the goal is to understand the concept of multiple classification tasks from these examples. All inputs have multiple classification tasks. Each observed sample only represents the classification result of one task, and the task from which the sample comes is unknown.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to know why the given metrics of confusing supervised learning are used. The authors should have used several different metrics and show that CSL's overall performs better than other methods. And what are "the other methods" referring to?<br />
<br />
For the Training of Mapping-Net in the part of "Iterative Deconfusing Algorithm", authors did not mention what is Training of Mapping-Net doing