Live data from Hacker News

Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

quantamagazine.org

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because our intuition about local minima is wrong in extremely high dimensional spaces. In two and three dimensions, local minima are common. In a million dimensions, local minima are rare. The intuitive explanation is that for a local minimum to exist, the function must be curving up (first derivative = 0, second derivative >= 0) simultaneously in every dimension. It makes sense that as you add more dimensions this…

By that argument gradient descent should work for any classifier with a sufficiently high number of independent parameters.

Do you have any good examples of where it is likely to fail?

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that argument gradient descent should work for any classifier with a sufficiently high number of independent parameters.

Do you have any good examples of where it is likely to fail?

My thinking is that if this line of reasoning is true it suggests that we may as well be using kernel methods or other feature generation systems with high dimensionality with better algebraic properties that be might be able to train quicker or better interpret. My understanding is that those other techniques haven't been especially competitive with deep neural nets on large data sets these days, so that implies that the high dimension argument for gradient descent is insufficient to explain the success of deep neural nets.

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#113

One problem with understanding ANNs is that the weight matrix carries a lot of spurious interactions. Running perturbation analysis you can see that many of the interactions do not contribute to the information processing of the circuit. This is the same for Gene Regulatory Networks. I wrote a paper published in Nature's "Systems Biology" entitled Survival of the Sparsest Gene Networks are Parsimonious. It's been cit…

Isn't this what dropout does?

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain weight matrix "spurious interactions"?

In short, a spurious interaction is a non-zero entry in the weight matrix that has no (positive) contribution to the network function, and that removing that interaction the network will perform at least as good as it would with the interaction. Most neural network models assume that all neurons in one level are fully connected to all neurons in the next level. This leads to confusion about how ANNs work. From my res…

Interesting, thank you.

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#115
Deep Neural Networks learn layers of linear functions - represented by adjustable 'learning' weighted connections.

Each layer of neuron activations is a new representation of the data - produced by the weighted connections.

Function compositions of linear functions are still only a linear function.

Each neuron in a layer sums it's weighted inputs this summation is a non-linearity that allows layers to be composed - function composition.

This is famously expressed in Minsky and Papert's 1968 'Perceptron': a single layer of network weights is incapable of learning XOR.

One analysis is that Neural nets transform the shape of the data until a single line on a twisty high dimensional manifold produces the desired distinction. http://colah.github.io/posts/2014-03-NN-Manifolds-Topology/

A single layer network is a universal approximator and a net can be trained or distilled from another net - but deep nets are overwhelmingly better at the initial learning and discovery.

Neural nets have been related to Kadanof's spin glasses, suggesting learning is alike to phase transitions or sand pile collapse where small local changes can produce profound global changes. https://charlesmartin14.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/why-deep-le...

Generally when training nets the learning initially learns a lot very quickly, most of the error vanishes at the start.

Word2Vec demonstrates that nets learn very powerful representations, that word2vec vector algebra is semantic points to unexpectedly powerful representations.

Similar semantic vector math can be performed on images and the same vectors can translate modalities, e.g. text to images. https://github.com/Newmu/dcgan_code#arithmetic-on-faces

Natural Evolution produces efficient solutions.

I propose the successes of deep learning so far are partially explicable because they are working within human culture and perception, relearning our very efficient solutions - akin to distilling a deepnet into a shallow one.

This hypothesis will be tested if embodied deep neural nets using re-inforcement learning discover their own efficient solutions to performing tasks in the real world - robotics.

IMHO Peter Abeel's deep net, learning to robustly output robot motor torques directly from camera pixels will show if embodied deep nets can do discovery rather than relearning what we know. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~pabbeel/research_rll.html

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#116

In addition to "We need a cluster for deep learning", the second most popular mostly untrue thing I hear is "We have no idea how neural networks learn". However, there are many papers that explore various ways to make a network learn, and they keep improving on performance, suggesting they're on to something . There are also many papers that discuss possible theoretical implications of experimental results. But what…

But what does Knowing Why The Network Works mean exactly?

I would say it means: Why do these algorithms seem to be doing "well" despite their well-known theoretical intractability? Is it something about the instances? Or is it simply a matter of scale (so the local optima they are getting stuck in are not as obvious)? Or is there something "deep" we do not understand yet about these algorithms (or the theory)?

Either way, there is something going on here for sure.

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that argument gradient descent should work for any classifier with a sufficiently high number of independent parameters.

Do you have any good examples of where it is likely to fail?

Take any smooth function f and consider the multi-dimensional g(x,y,z...) = f(x) + f(y) + f(z) + ... If f had m local minima, then the n-dimensional version of g has m^n local minima.

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#118
post #83

My super-hand-waving explanation of why machine learning works: MNIST is a handwritten digit database. Each 784-pixel image (28x28) corresponds to a digit from 0 to 9. As a pure mathematical construction, there are at most 2^784 inputs possible, and a small number of possible outputs. So if you have 784 completely different ways of analyzing the image, and you combine them in the right ways, you will get roughly an a…

So if you have 784 completely different ways of analyzing the image[...]

Interesting intuitions; but if by "ways of analyzing the image" you mean functions, there are an awful lot more than 784...

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there's been a few papers showing solid theoretical progress on understanding what structure in data deep networks are learning to represent. https://github.com/gregversteeg/CorEx http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1222 http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7404 Disclaimer: I reinvented the idea about a month or two ago, and ran into the existing papers when googling for joint entropy estimators after making some interesting gr…

Those papers are very interesting. I was particularly surprised that the method exactly recovers the Big-5 components of personality from the results of the survey questions. The whole idea of "simplest model that explains most of the data" has always been very appealing to me. The concept is closely tied to reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, which have recently experienced a revival in interest due to the represente…

You will probably be interested in Kolmogrov complexity, which studies this using an information theoretic lens. However it is just an abstract concept and not really something you can measure precisely.

Re: Machine learning works spectacularly well, but mathematicians aren’t sure why

#120
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you recommend a good introduction tutorial on SAT theory?

This should be an accessible introduction to SAT: http://www.georg.weissenbacher.name/papers/mod12.pdf . If you want something more "high-level", and I'll look for something appropriate.

Good look, homey. Thanks.
Post reply on HN