79
\$\begingroup\$

I have been studying the architecture of the Siamese neural network introduced by Yann LeCun and his colleagues in 1994 for the recognition of signatures ("Signature verification using a Siamese time delay neural network".pdf, NIPS 1994).

Image from  “Probabilistic Siamese Network for Learning Representations” by Chen Liu (University of Toronto 2013).

I had some problems in understanding the general architecture of this Siamese neural network model, and discussed with a friend on Cross Validated about it. I think I finally understood it, so now I have move to the next step: to implement it.

We ended up stating that the global algorithm should be something like:

  • Create the convolutional neural network convNetA, for the 1st signature.
  • Create the convolutional neural network convNetB, for the 2nd signature.
  • Tying the convNetA weights to the the convNetB weights.
  • Setting the cosine similarity function to compute the loss .
  • Run the training (forwards and backwards).

I'm new to Torch so I do not really know how to implement this algorithm. Here's my first version:

-- training
function gradientUpdate(perceptron, dataset, target, learningRate, max_iterations)

for i = 1, max_iterations do

      predictionValue = perceptron:forward(dataset)
       -- is this the cosine similarity?
  -- [output] forward(input): 
  -- Takes an input object, and computes the corresponding output of the module. In general input and output are Tensors. 


      io.write(" pre-predictionValue= "..predictionValue .."\n");

      -- the minus is because we're goin' backwards
      gradientWrtOutput = torch.Tensor({-target})

      perceptron:zeroGradParameters() -- zeroGradParameters(): If the module has parameters, this will zero the accumulation of the gradients with respect to these parameters, accumulated through accGradParameters(input, gradOutput,scale) calls. Otherwise, it does nothing.
      -- initialization

      perceptron:backward(dataset, gradientWrtOutput) -- Performs a backpropagation step through the module, with respect to the given input. 

      perceptron:updateParameters(learningRate)
  end

end

require "os"
require "nn"

input_number=5
output_number=2

-- imagine we have one network we are interested in, it is called "perceptronAAA"
perceptronAAA= nn.Sequential(); 
perceptronAAA:add(nn.Linear(input_number, output_number))

-- But we want to push examples towards or away from each other
-- so we make another copy of it called perceptronBBB
-- this *shares* the same weights via the set command, but has its own set of temporary gradient storage
-- that's why we create it again (so that the gradients of the pair don't wipe each other)
perceptronBBB= perceptronAAA:clone('weight', 'bias')

-- we make a parallel table that takes a pair of examples as input. they both go through the same (cloned) perceptron
-- ParallelTable is a container module that, in its forward() method, applies the i-th member module to the i-th input, and outputs a table of the set of outputs.
parallel_table = nn.ParallelTable()
parallel_table:add(perceptronAAA)
parallel_table:add(perceptronBBB)

-- now we define our top level network that takes this parallel table and computes the cosine distance betweem
-- the pair of outputs
perceptron= nn.Sequential()
perceptron:add(parallel_table)
perceptron:add(nn.CosineDistance())


-- lets make two example vectors
x_vector = torch.rand(input_number)
y_vector = torch.rand(input_number)
dataset = {x_vector, y_vector}

function dataset:size() return #dataset end


-- matrix having 5 rows * 2 columns
max_iterations = 100
learnRate = 0.1
target = 1 -- the target for cosine similarity is +1 on forwards, that becomes -1 on backwards

-- TRAINING:

-- push the pair x_vector and y_vector together, the distance should get larger..


 gradientUpdate(perceptron, dataset, target, learnRate, max_iterations)

Do you think this is a correct implementation of a Siamese neural network with cosine similarity function to minimize? Or can you see any errors/wrong stuff in it?

\$\endgroup\$

migrated from stackoverflow.com Jun 15 '15 at 22:19

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ That's pretty freaking cool, what was your inspiration for this? \$\endgroup\$ – 13aal Dec 18 '15 at 12:14
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Minor comment on the design for purpose: As you are doing signal verification, avionics-engineering uses 3 systems which have to be trained on distinct datasets: The primary system takes the input and produces the output signal. The secondary and tertiary systems are then used to check the primary systems signal. If the secondary and tertiary system disagree, system 1 is considered faulty and the signal is dumped. This is double redundancy verification and is very-useful for mission critical black box systems. This approach should simplify your architecture a bit. \$\endgroup\$ – root-11 Feb 14 '16 at 13:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ I see that you've joined Code Review since my answer, and I am interested on your feedback. Please leave a comment on my answer, or message me in the 2nd Monitor. If you deem it worthy, the answer could also be accepted. \$\endgroup\$ – syb0rg Jul 28 '16 at 13:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @syb0rg Your answer looks very interesting, but it does not reply to my question. I'm asking: "Do you think this is a correct implementation of a Siamese neural network with cosine similarity function to minimize?" Do you think it is or not? Thanks \$\endgroup\$ – DavideChicco.it Jul 29 '16 at 14:07
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @DavideChicco.it Well yes, but you do understand the point of Code Review is to improve the code, right? You are supposed to verify it is a correct implementation yourself. \$\endgroup\$ – syb0rg Jul 29 '16 at 14:13
27
+50
\$\begingroup\$

I think it's a great project! But it could do with a few improvements:

Neuron Type(1)

Suppose we have a network of perceptrons that we'd like to use to learn to solve some problem. For example, the inputs to the network might be the raw pixel data from a scanned image of a signature. And we'd like the network to learn weights and biases so that the output from the network correctly classifies the digit. To see how learning might work, suppose we make a small change in some weight (or bias) in the network. What we'd like is for this small change in weight to cause only a small corresponding change in the output from the network.

enter image description here

If it were true that a small change in a weight (or bias) causes only a small change in output, then we could use this fact to modify the weights and biases to get our network to behave more in the manner we want. For example, suppose the network was mistakenly classifying an image as an "c" when it should be a "o". We could figure out how to make a small change in the weights and biases so the network gets a little closer to classifying the image as a "o". And then we'd repeat this, changing the weights and biases over and over to produce better and better output. The network would be learning.

The problem is that this isn't what happens when our network contains perceptrons. In fact, a small change in the weights or bias of any single perceptron in the network can sometimes cause the output of that perceptron to completely flip, say from 0 to 1. That flip may then cause the behavior of the rest of the network to completely change in some very complicated way. So while your "o" might now be classified correctly, the behavior of the network on all the other images is likely to have completely changed in some hard-to-control way. That makes it difficult to see how to gradually modify the weights and biases so that the network gets closer to the desired behavior. Perhaps there's some clever way of getting around this problem. But it's not immediately obvious how we can get a network of perceptrons to learn.

We can overcome this problem by introducing a new type of artificial neuron called a sigmoid neuron. Sigmoid neurons are similar to perceptrons, but modified so that small changes in their weights and bias cause only a small change in their output. That's the crucial fact which will allow a network of sigmoid neurons to learn.

Just like a perceptron, the sigmoid neuron has inputs, \$ x1 \$, \$ x2 \$, ... But instead of being just 0 or 1, these inputs can also take on any values between 0 and 1. So, for instance, 0.638 is a valid input for a sigmoid neuron.

enter image description here

The Sigmoid Neuron is defined as:

$$ \sigma(z) = \dfrac{1}{1 + e^{-z}} $$

Torch implements this neuron type here.

(1) Excerpt with minor edits from Neural Networks and Deep learning


Cost Function

I don't see any use of a cost function in your code. I'm going to recommend you read this section in Neural Networks and Deep Learning to get a good reason why you should be using one.

In short, the cost function returns a number representing how well the neural network performed to map training examples to correct output. The basic idea is that the more "wrong" our network is at achieving the desired results, the higher the cost and the more we'll want to adjust the weights and bias to achieve a lower cost. We try and minimize this cost using methods such as gradient descent.

There are certain properties that you look for in a cost function, such as convexity (so gradient descent finds a global optima instead of getting stuck in a local optima). As the book suggests, I would lean towards using the cross-entropy cost function.

The way we implement this in Torch is with Criterions. Torch seems to have implemented a bunch of these cost functions, and I encourage you to try different ones and see how they affect your neural net accuracy.


Over-fitting

It could be possible that you fit your data too well, to the point where we don't generalize well enough. An example of this is given in the picture:

enter image description here

Noisy, linear-ish data is fitted to both linear and polynomial functions. Although the polynomial function is a perfect fit, the linear version generalizes the data better.

I don't know Lua very well, but by looking at your code I don't see any attempts to reduce over-fitting. A common approach to this is by implementing regularization. Since it's too hard of a topic to cover in-depth here, I'll leave you to understand it if you would like. It is quite simple to use once its concepts are understood, you can see from this Torch implementation here.

Another way to reduce over-fitting is by introducing dropout. At each training stage, individual nodes are "dropped out" of the net so that a reduced network is left. Only the reduced network is trained on the data in that stage. The removed nodes are then reinserted into the network with their original weights. The nodes become somewhat more insensitive to the weights of the other nodes, and they learn how to decide more on their own.

Dropout also significantly improves the speed of training while improving performance (important for deep learning)!


Gradient Checking

For more complex models, gradient computation can be notoriously difficult to debug and get right. Sometimes a buggy implementation will manage to learn something that can look surprisingly reasonable (while performing less well than a correct implementation). Thus, even with a buggy implementation, it may not at all be apparent that anything is amiss. Therefore, you should numerically check the derivatives computed by your code to make sure that your implementation is correct.

I found an implementation of gradient checking with Torch here. Be warned that this check is computationally expensive, so once you've verified that your implementation of backpropagation is correct you should turn off gradient checking.


Principal Components Analysis

PCA can be used for data compression to speed up learning algorithms, and can also be used to visualize feature relations. Basically, in a situation where you have a WHOLE BUNCH of independent variables, PCA helps you figure out which ones matter the most and gets rid of the others (think of having centimeters and inches both as input features, we only need one to get the same information).

Looking at the research paper you linked, it looks like there are only 10 features input into the neural net. But to me, it looks like we could get rid of 2, possibly 3 features! That's quite a bit for the few features we have. The functions \$ \sin \$ and \$ \cos \$ are related to each other, why do we need both to measure direction and curvature of the trajectory when we could use just one and get the same information into the neural network?

One could also make the argument that the centripetal and tangential accelerations are related to each other, or that the velocity and curvature together rule out the need for the centripetal acceleration since \$ a_c = \frac{v^2}{r}\$. More analysis would be needed by the software to determine that thoroughly.

Be warned, if not applied correctly PCA can reduce neural network accuracy. PCA is also not to be used to handle over-fitting (since overfitting usually occurs when many features are present). There is a nice GitHub repo here covering PCA using Torch.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.