Posts

Sentiment Analysis of IMDB reviews

Sentiment Analysis of IMDB reviews

This article shows you how to build a Neural Network from scratch(no libraries) for the purpose of detecting whether a movie review on IMDB is negative or positive.

Outline:

  • Curating a dataset and developing a "Predictive Theory"

  • Transforming Text to Numbers Creating the Input/Output Data

  • Building our Neural Network

  • Making Learning Faster by Reducing "Neural Noise"

  • Reducing Noise by strategically reducing the vocabulary

Curating the Dataset

In [3]:
def pretty_print_review_and_label(i):
    print(labels[i] + "\t:\t" + reviews[i][:80] + "...")

g = open('reviews.txt','r') # features of our dataset
reviews = list(map(lambda x:x[:-1],g.readlines()))
g.close()

g = open('labels.txt','r') # labels
labels = list(map(lambda x:x[:-1].upper(),g.readlines()))
g.close()

Note: The data in reviews.txt we're contains only lower case characters. That's so we treat different variations of the same word, like The, the, and THE, all the same way.

It's always a good idea to get check out your dataset before you proceed.

In [2]:
len(reviews) #No. of reviews
Out[2]:
25000
In [3]:
reviews[0] #first review
Out[3]:
'bromwell high is a cartoon comedy . it ran at the same time as some other programs about school life  such as  teachers  . my   years in the teaching profession lead me to believe that bromwell high  s satire is much closer to reality than is  teachers  . the scramble to survive financially  the insightful students who can see right through their pathetic teachers  pomp  the pettiness of the whole situation  all remind me of the schools i knew and their students . when i saw the episode in which a student repeatedly tried to burn down the school  i immediately recalled . . . . . . . . . at . . . . . . . . . . high . a classic line inspector i  m here to sack one of your teachers . student welcome to bromwell high . i expect that many adults of my age think that bromwell high is far fetched . what a pity that it isn  t   '
In [4]:
labels[0] #first label
Out[4]:
'POSITIVE'

Developing a Predictive Theory

Analysing how you would go about predicting whether its a positive or a negative review.

In [5]:
print("labels.txt \t : \t reviews.txt\n")
pretty_print_review_and_label(2137)
pretty_print_review_and_label(12816)
pretty_print_review_and_label(6267)
pretty_print_review_and_label(21934)
pretty_print_review_and_label(5297)
pretty_print_review_and_label(4998)
labels.txt 	 : 	 reviews.txt

NEGATIVE	:	this movie is terrible but it has some good effects .  ...
POSITIVE	:	adrian pasdar is excellent is this film . he makes a fascinating woman .  ...
NEGATIVE	:	comment this movie is impossible . is terrible  very improbable  bad interpretat...
POSITIVE	:	excellent episode movie ala pulp fiction .  days   suicides . it doesnt get more...
NEGATIVE	:	if you haven  t seen this  it  s terrible . it is pure trash . i saw this about ...
POSITIVE	:	this schiffer guy is a real genius  the movie is of excellent quality and both e...
In [41]:
from collections import Counter
import numpy as np

We'll create three Counter objects, one for words from postive reviews, one for words from negative reviews, and one for all the words.

In [56]:
# Create three Counter objects to store positive, negative and total counts
positive_counts = Counter()
negative_counts = Counter()
total_counts = Counter()

Examine all the reviews. For each word in a positive review, increase the count for that word in both your positive counter and the total words counter; likewise, for each word in a negative review, increase the count for that word in both your negative counter and the total words counter. You should use split(' ') to divide a piece of text (such as a review) into individual words.

In [57]:
# Loop over all the words in all the reviews and increment the counts in the appropriate counter objects
for i in range(len(reviews)):
    if(labels[i] == 'POSITIVE'):
        for word in reviews[i].split(" "):
            positive_counts[word] += 1
            total_counts[word] += 1
    else:
        for word in reviews[i].split(" "):
            negative_counts[word] += 1
            total_counts[word] += 1

Most common positive & negative words

In [ ]:
positive_counts.most_common()

The above statement retrieves alot of words, the top 3 being : ('the', 173324), ('.', 159654), ('and', 89722),

In [ ]:
negative_counts.most_common()

The above statement retrieves alot of words, the top 3 being : ('', 561462), ('.', 167538), ('the', 163389),

As you can see, common words like "the" appear very often in both positive and negative reviews. Instead of finding the most common words in positive or negative reviews, what you really want are the words found in positive reviews more often than in negative reviews, and vice versa. To accomplish this, you'll need to calculate the ratios of word usage between positive and negative reviews.

The positive-to-negative ratio for a given word can be calculated with positive_counts[word] / float(negative_counts[word]+1). Notice the +1 in the denominator – that ensures we don't divide by zero for words that are only seen in positive reviews.

In [58]:
pos_neg_ratios = Counter()

# Calculate the ratios of positive and negative uses of the most common words
# Consider words to be "common" if they've been used at least 100 times
for term,cnt in list(total_counts.most_common()):
    if(cnt > 100):
        pos_neg_ratio = positive_counts[term] / float(negative_counts[term]+1)
        pos_neg_ratios[term] = pos_neg_ratio

Examine the ratios

In [12]:
print("Pos-to-neg ratio for 'the' = {}".format(pos_neg_ratios["the"]))
print("Pos-to-neg ratio for 'amazing' = {}".format(pos_neg_ratios["amazing"]))
print("Pos-to-neg ratio for 'terrible' = {}".format(pos_neg_ratios["terrible"]))
Pos-to-neg ratio for 'the' = 1.0607993145235326
Pos-to-neg ratio for 'amazing' = 4.022813688212928
Pos-to-neg ratio for 'terrible' = 0.17744252873563218

We see the following:

  • Words that you would expect to see more often in positive reviews – like "amazing" – have a ratio greater than 1. The more skewed a word is toward postive, the farther from 1 its positive-to-negative ratio will be.
  • Words that you would expect to see more often in negative reviews – like "terrible" – have positive values that are less than 1. The more skewed a word is toward negative, the closer to zero its positive-to-negative ratio will be.
  • Neutral words, which don't really convey any sentiment because you would expect to see them in all sorts of reviews – like "the" – have values very close to 1. A perfectly neutral word – one that was used in exactly the same number of positive reviews as negative reviews – would be almost exactly 1.

Ok, the ratios tell us which words are used more often in postive or negative reviews, but the specific values we've calculated are a bit difficult to work with. A very positive word like "amazing" has a value above 4, whereas a very negative word like "terrible" has a value around 0.18. Those values aren't easy to compare for a couple of reasons:

  • Right now, 1 is considered neutral, but the absolute value of the postive-to-negative rations of very postive words is larger than the absolute value of the ratios for the very negative words. So there is no way to directly compare two numbers and see if one word conveys the same magnitude of positive sentiment as another word conveys negative sentiment. So we should center all the values around netural so the absolute value fro neutral of the postive-to-negative ratio for a word would indicate how much sentiment (positive or negative) that word conveys.
  • When comparing absolute values it's easier to do that around zero than one.

To fix these issues, we'll convert all of our ratios to new values using logarithms (i.e. use np.log(ratio))

In the end, extremely positive and extremely negative words will have positive-to-negative ratios with similar magnitudes but opposite signs.

In [59]:
# Convert ratios to logs
for word,ratio in pos_neg_ratios.most_common():
    pos_neg_ratios[word] = np.log(ratio)

Examine the new ratios

In [14]:
print("Pos-to-neg ratio for 'the' = {}".format(pos_neg_ratios["the"]))
print("Pos-to-neg ratio for 'amazing' = {}".format(pos_neg_ratios["amazing"]))
print("Pos-to-neg ratio for 'terrible' = {}".format(pos_neg_ratios["terrible"]))
Pos-to-neg ratio for 'the' = 0.05902269426102881
Pos-to-neg ratio for 'amazing' = 1.3919815802404802
Pos-to-neg ratio for 'terrible' = -1.7291085042663878

If everything worked, now you should see neutral words with values close to zero. In this case, "the" is near zero but slightly positive, so it was probably used in more positive reviews than negative reviews. But look at "amazing"'s ratio - it's above 1, showing it is clearly a word with positive sentiment. And "terrible" has a similar score, but in the opposite direction, so it's below -1. It's now clear that both of these words are associated with specific, opposing sentiments.

Run the below code to see more ratios.

It displays all the words, ordered by how associated they are with postive reviews.

In [ ]:
pos_neg_ratios.most_common()

The top most common words for the above code : ('edie', 4.6913478822291435), ('paulie', 4.0775374439057197), ('felix', 3.1527360223636558), ('polanski', 2.8233610476132043), ('matthau', 2.8067217286092401), ('victoria', 2.6810215287142909), ('mildred', 2.6026896854443837), ('gandhi', 2.5389738710582761), ('flawless', 2.451005098112319), ('superbly', 2.2600254785752498), ('perfection', 2.1594842493533721), ('astaire', 2.1400661634962708), ('captures', 2.0386195471595809), ('voight', 2.0301704926730531), ('wonderfully', 2.0218960560332353), ('powell', 1.9783454248084671), ('brosnan', 1.9547990964725592)

Transforming Text into Numbers

Creating the Input/Output Data

Create a set named vocab that contains every word in the vocabulary.

In [19]:
vocab = set(total_counts.keys())

Check vocabulary size

In [20]:
vocab_size = len(vocab)
print(vocab_size)
74074

Th following image rpresents the layers of the neural network you'll be building throughout this notebook. layer_0 is the input layer, layer_1 is a hidden layer, and layer_2 is the output layer.

In [1]:
 
Out[1]:

TODO: Create a numpy array called layer_0 and initialize it to all zeros. Create layer_0 as a 2-dimensional matrix with 1 row and vocab_size columns.

In [21]:
layer_0 = np.zeros((1,vocab_size))

layer_0 contains one entry for every word in the vocabulary, as shown in the above image. We need to make sure we know the index of each word, so run the following cell to create a lookup table that stores the index of every word.

TODO: Complete the implementation of update_input_layer. It should count how many times each word is used in the given review, and then store those counts at the appropriate indices inside layer_0.

In [ ]:
# Create a dictionary of words in the vocabulary mapped to index positions 
# (to be used in layer_0)
word2index = {}
for i,word in enumerate(vocab):
    word2index[word] = i

It stores the indexes like this: 'antony': 22, 'pinjar': 23, 'helsig': 24, 'dances': 25, 'good': 26, 'willard': 71500, 'faridany': 27, 'foment': 28, 'matts': 12313,

Lets implement some functions for simplifying our inputs to the neural network.

In [25]:
def update_input_layer(review):
    """
    The element at a given index of layer_0 should represent
    how many times the given word occurs in the review.
    """
     
    global layer_0
    
    # clear out previous state, reset the layer to be all 0s
    layer_0 *= 0
    
    # count how many times each word is used in the given review and store the results in layer_0 
    for word in review.split(" "):
        layer_0[0][word2index[word]] += 1

Run the following cell to test updating the input layer with the first review. The indices assigned may not be the same as in the solution, but hopefully you'll see some non-zero values in layer_0.

In [26]:
update_input_layer(reviews[0])
layer_0
Out[26]:
array([[ 18.,   0.,   0., ...,   0.,   0.,   0.]])

get_target_for_labels should return 0 or 1, depending on whether the given label is NEGATIVE or POSITIVE, respectively.

In [27]:
def get_target_for_label(label):
    if(label == 'POSITIVE'):
        return 1
    else:
        return 0

Building a Neural Network

In [32]:
import time
import sys
import numpy as np

# Encapsulate our neural network in a class
class SentimentNetwork:
    def __init__(self, reviews,labels,hidden_nodes = 10, learning_rate = 0.1):
        """
        Args:
            reviews(list) - List of reviews used for training
            labels(list) - List of POSITIVE/NEGATIVE labels
            hidden_nodes(int) - Number of nodes to create in the hidden layer
            learning_rate(float) - Learning rate to use while training
        
        """
        # Assign a seed to our random number generator to ensure we get
        # reproducable results
        np.random.seed(1)

        # process the reviews and their associated labels so that everything
        # is ready for training
        self.pre_process_data(reviews, labels)
        
        # Build the network to have the number of hidden nodes and the learning rate that
        # were passed into this initializer. Make the same number of input nodes as
        # there are vocabulary words and create a single output node.
        self.init_network(len(self.review_vocab),hidden_nodes, 1, learning_rate)

    def pre_process_data(self, reviews, labels):
        
        # populate review_vocab with all of the words in the given reviews
        review_vocab = set()
        for review in reviews:
            for word in review.split(" "):
                review_vocab.add(word)

        # Convert the vocabulary set to a list so we can access words via indices
        self.review_vocab = list(review_vocab)
        
        # populate label_vocab with all of the words in the given labels.
        label_vocab = set()
        for label in labels:
            label_vocab.add(label)
        
        # Convert the label vocabulary set to a list so we can access labels via indices
        self.label_vocab = list(label_vocab)
        
        # Store the sizes of the review and label vocabularies.
        self.review_vocab_size = len(self.review_vocab)
        self.label_vocab_size = len(self.label_vocab)
        
        # Create a dictionary of words in the vocabulary mapped to index positions
        self.word2index = {}
        for i, word in enumerate(self.review_vocab):
            self.word2index[word] = i
        
        # Create a dictionary of labels mapped to index positions
        self.label2index = {}
        for i, label in enumerate(self.label_vocab):
            self.label2index[label] = i
        
    def init_network(self, input_nodes, hidden_nodes, output_nodes, learning_rate):
        # Set number of nodes in input, hidden and output layers.
        self.input_nodes = input_nodes
        self.hidden_nodes = hidden_nodes
        self.output_nodes = output_nodes

        # Store the learning rate
        self.learning_rate = learning_rate

        # Initialize weights

        # These are the weights between the input layer and the hidden layer.
        self.weights_0_1 = np.zeros((self.input_nodes,self.hidden_nodes))
    
        # These are the weights between the hidden layer and the output layer.
        self.weights_1_2 = np.random.normal(0.0, self.output_nodes**-0.5, 
                                                (self.hidden_nodes, self.output_nodes))
        
        # The input layer, a two-dimensional matrix with shape 1 x input_nodes
        self.layer_0 = np.zeros((1,input_nodes))
    
    def update_input_layer(self,review):

        # clear out previous state, reset the layer to be all 0s
        self.layer_0 *= 0
        
        for word in review.split(" "):
            if(word in self.word2index.keys()):
                self.layer_0[0][self.word2index[word]] += 1
                
    def get_target_for_label(self,label):
        if(label == 'POSITIVE'):
            return 1
        else:
            return 0
        
    def sigmoid(self,x):
        return 1 / (1 + np.exp(-x))
    
    def sigmoid_output_2_derivative(self,output):
        return output * (1 - output)
    
    def train(self, training_reviews, training_labels):
        
        # make sure out we have a matching number of reviews and labels
        assert(len(training_reviews) == len(training_labels))
        
        # Keep track of correct predictions to display accuracy during training 
        correct_so_far = 0

        # Remember when we started for printing time statistics
        start = time.time()
        
        # loop through all the given reviews and run a forward and backward pass,
        # updating weights for every item
        for i in range(len(training_reviews)):
            
            # Get the next review and its correct label
            review = training_reviews[i]
            label = training_labels[i]
            
            ### Forward pass ###

            # Input Layer
            self.update_input_layer(review)

            # Hidden layer
            layer_1 = self.layer_0.dot(self.weights_0_1)

            # Output layer
            layer_2 = self.sigmoid(layer_1.dot(self.weights_1_2))
            
            ### Backward pass ###

            # Output error
            layer_2_error = layer_2 - self.get_target_for_label(label) # Output layer error is the difference between desired target and actual output.
            layer_2_delta = layer_2_error * self.sigmoid_output_2_derivative(layer_2)

            # Backpropagated error
            layer_1_error = layer_2_delta.dot(self.weights_1_2.T) # errors propagated to the hidden layer
            layer_1_delta = layer_1_error # hidden layer gradients - no nonlinearity so it's the same as the error

            # Update the weights
            self.weights_1_2 -= layer_1.T.dot(layer_2_delta) * self.learning_rate # update hidden-to-output weights with gradient descent step
            self.weights_0_1 -= self.layer_0.T.dot(layer_1_delta) * self.learning_rate # update input-to-hidden weights with gradient descent step

            # Keep track of correct predictions.
            if(layer_2 >= 0.5 and label == 'POSITIVE'):
                correct_so_far += 1
            elif(layer_2 < 0.5 and label == 'NEGATIVE'):
                correct_so_far += 1
            
            sys.stdout.write(" #Correct:" + str(correct_so_far) + " #Trained:" + str(i+1) \
                             + " Training Accuracy:" + str(correct_so_far * 100 / float(i+1))[:4] + "%")
    
    def test(self, testing_reviews, testing_labels):
        """
        Attempts to predict the labels for the given testing_reviews,
        and uses the test_labels to calculate the accuracy of those predictions.
        """
        
        # keep track of how many correct predictions we make
        correct = 0

        # Loop through each of the given reviews and call run to predict
        # its label. 
        for i in range(len(testing_reviews)):
            pred = self.run(testing_reviews[i])
            if(pred == testing_labels[i]):
                correct += 1
            
            sys.stdout.write(" #Correct:" + str(correct) + " #Tested:" + str(i+1) \
                             + " Testing Accuracy:" + str(correct * 100 / float(i+1))[:4] + "%")
    
    def run(self, review):
        """
        Returns a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE prediction for the given review.
        """
        # Run a forward pass through the network, like in the "train" function.
        
        # Input Layer
        self.update_input_layer(review.lower())

        # Hidden layer
        layer_1 = self.layer_0.dot(self.weights_0_1)

        # Output layer
        layer_2 = self.sigmoid(layer_1.dot(self.weights_1_2))
        
        # Return POSITIVE for values above greater-than-or-equal-to 0.5 in the output layer;
        # return NEGATIVE for other values
        if(layer_2[0] >= 0.5):
            return "POSITIVE"
        else:
            return "NEGATIVE"
        

Run the following code to create the network with a small learning rate, 0.001, and then train the new network. Using learning rate larger than this, for example 0.1 or even 0.01 would result in poor performance.

In [ ]:
mlp = SentimentNetwork(reviews[:-1000],labels[:-1000], learning_rate=0.001)
mlp.train(reviews[:-1000],labels[:-1000])

Running the above code would have given an accuracy around 62.2%

Reducing Noise in Our Input Data

Counting how many times each word occured in our review might not be the most efficient way. Instead just including whether a word was there or not will improve our training time and accuracy. Hence we update our update_input_layer() function.

In [ ]:
def update_input_layer(self,review):
    self.layer_0 *= 0
        
    for word in review.split(" "):
        if(word in self.word2index.keys()):
            self.layer_0[0][self.word2index[word]] =1

Creating and running our neural network again, even with a higher learning rate of 0.1 gave us a training accuracy of 83.8% and testing accuracy(testing on last 1000 reviews) of 85.7%.

Reducing Noise by Strategically Reducing the Vocabulary

Let us put the pos to neg ratio's that we found were much more effective at detecting a positive or negative label. We could do that by a few change:

  • Modify pre_process_data:
    • Add two additional parameters: min_count and polarity_cutoff
    • Calculate the positive-to-negative ratios of words used in the reviews.
    • Change so words are only added to the vocabulary if they occur in the vocabulary more than min_count times.
    • Change so words are only added to the vocabulary if the absolute value of their postive-to-negative ratio is at least polarity_cutoff
In [ ]:
def pre_process_data(self, reviews, labels, polarity_cutoff, min_count):
        
        positive_counts = Counter()
        negative_counts = Counter()
        total_counts = Counter()

        for i in range(len(reviews)):
            if(labels[i] == 'POSITIVE'):
                for word in reviews[i].split(" "):
                    positive_counts[word] += 1
                    total_counts[word] += 1
            else:
                for word in reviews[i].split(" "):
                    negative_counts[word] += 1
                    total_counts[word] += 1

        pos_neg_ratios = Counter()

        for term,cnt in list(total_counts.most_common()):
            if(cnt >= 50):
                pos_neg_ratio = positive_counts[term] / float(negative_counts[term]+1)
                pos_neg_ratios[term] = pos_neg_ratio

        for word,ratio in pos_neg_ratios.most_common():
            if(ratio > 1):
                pos_neg_ratios[word] = np.log(ratio)
            else:
                pos_neg_ratios[word] = -np.log((1 / (ratio + 0.01)))

        # populate review_vocab with all of the words in the given reviews
        review_vocab = set()
        for review in reviews:
            for word in review.split(" "):
                if(total_counts[word] > min_count):
                    if(word in pos_neg_ratios.keys()):
                        if((pos_neg_ratios[word] >= polarity_cutoff) or (pos_neg_ratios[word] <= -polarity_cutoff)):
                            review_vocab.add(word)
                    else:
                        review_vocab.add(word)

        # Convert the vocabulary set to a list so we can access words via indices
        self.review_vocab = list(review_vocab)
        
        # populate label_vocab with all of the words in the given labels.
        label_vocab = set()
        for label in labels:
            label_vocab.add(label)
        
        # Convert the label vocabulary set to a list so we can access labels via indices
        self.label_vocab = list(label_vocab)
        
        # Store the sizes of the review and label vocabularies.
        self.review_vocab_size = len(self.review_vocab)
        self.label_vocab_size = len(self.label_vocab)
        
        # Create a dictionary of words in the vocabulary mapped to index positions
        self.word2index = {}
        for i, word in enumerate(self.review_vocab):
            self.word2index[word] = i
        
        # Create a dictionary of labels mapped to index positions
        self.label2index = {}
        for i, label in enumerate(self.label_vocab):
            self.label2index[label] = i

Our training accuracy increased to 85.6% after this change. As we can see our accuracy saw a huge jump by making minor changes based on our intuition. We can keep making such changes and increase the accuracy even further.

 

Download the Data Sources

The data sources used in this article can be downloaded here:

Neural Nets: Time Series Prediction

Artificial neural networks are very strong universal approximators. Google recently defeated the worlds strongest Go (“chinese chess”) player with two neural nets, which captured the game board as a picture. Aside from these classification tasks, neural nets can be used to predict future values, behaviors or patterns solely based on learned history. In the machine learning literature, this is often referred to as time series prediction, because, you know, values over time need to be predicted. Hah! To illustrate the concept, we will train a neural net to learn the shape of a sinusoidal wave, so it can continue to draw the shape without any help. We will do this with Scala. Scala is a great lang, because it is strongly typed but feels easy like Python. Throughout this article, I will use the library NeuroFlow, which is a simple, lightweight library I wrote to build and train nets. Because Open Source is the way to go, feel free to check (and contribute to? :-)) the code on GitHub.

Introduction of the shape

If we, as humans, want to predict the future based on historic observations, we would have no other chance but to be guided by the shape drawn so far. Let’s study the plot below, asking ourselves: How would a human continue the plot?

sinuspredictdr
f(x) = sin(10*x)

Intuitively, we would keep on oscillating up and down, just like the grey dotted line tries to rough out. To us, the continuation of the shape is reasonably easy to understand, but a machine does not have a gut feeling to ask for a good guess. However, we can summon a Frankenstein, which will be able to learn and continue the shape based on numbers. In order to do so, let’s have a look at the raw, discrete data of our sinusoidal wave:

x f(x)
0.0 0.0
0.05 0.479425538604203
0.10 0.8414709848078965
0.15 0.9974949866040544
0.20 0.9092974268256817
0.25 0.5984721441039564
0.30 0.1411200080598672
0.35 -0.35078322768961984
0.75 0.9379999767747389

Ranging from 0.0 until 0.75, these discrete values drawn from our function with step size 0.05 will be the basis for training. Now, one could come up with the idea to just memorize all values, so a sufficiently reasonable value can be picked based on comparison. For instance, to continue at the point 0.75 in our plot, we could simply examine the area close to 0.15, noticing a similar value close to 1, and hence go downwards. Well, of course this is cheating, but if a good cheat is a superior solution, why not cheat? Being hackers, we wouldn’t care. What’s really limiting here is the fact that the whole data set needs to be kept in memory, which can be infeasible for large sets, plus for more complex shapes, this approach would quickly result in a lot of weird rules and exceptions to be made in order to find comprehensible predictions.

Net to the rescue

Let’s go back to our table and see if a neural net can learn the shape, instead of simply memorizing it. Here, we want our net architecture to be of kind [3, 5, 3, 1]. Three input neurons, two hidden layers with five and three neurons respectively, as well as one neuron for the output layer will capture the data shown in the table.

sinuspredictnet

A supervised training mode means, that we want to train our net with three discrete steps as input and the fourth step as the supervised training element. So we will train a, b, c -> d and e, f, g -> h et cetera, hoping that this way our net will capture the slope pattern of our sinusoidal wave. Let’s code this in Scala:

import neuroflow.core.Activator.Tanh 
import neuroflow.core.WeightProvider.randomWeights 
import neuroflow.nets.DynamicNetwork.constructor

First, we want a Tanh activation function, because the domain of our sinusoidal wave is [-1, 1], just like the hyperbolic tangent. This way we can be sure that we are not comparing apples with oranges. Further, we want a dynamic network (adaptive learning rate) and random initial weights. Let’s put this down:

val fn = Tanh.apply
val sets = Settings(true, 10.0, 0.0000001, 500, None, None, Some(Map("τ" -> 0.25, "c" -> 0.25)))
val net = Network(Input(3) :: Hidden(5, fn) :: Hidden(3, fn) :: Output(1, fn) :: Nil, sets)

No surprises here. After some experiments, we can pick values for the settings instance, which will promise good convergence during training. Now, let’s prepare our discrete steps drawn from the sinus function:

val group = 4
val sinusoidal = Range.Double(0.0, 0.8, 0.05).grouped(group).toList.map(i => i.map(k => (k, Math.sin(10 * k))))
val xsys = sinusoidal.map(s => (s.dropRight(1).map(_._2), s.takeRight(1).map(_._2)))
val xs = xsys.map(_._1)
val ys = xsys.map(_._2)
net.train(xs, ys)

We will draw samples from the range with step size 0.05. After this, we will construct our training values xs as well as our supervised output values ys. Here, a group consists of 4 steps, with 3 steps as input and the last step as the supervised value.

[INFO] [25.01.2016 14:07:51:677] [run-main-5] Taking step 499 - error: 1.4395661497489177E-4  , error per sample: 3.598915374372294E-5
[INFO] [25.01.2016 14:07:51:681] [run-main-5] Took 500 iterations of 500 with error 1.4304189739640242E-4  
[success] Total time: 4 s, completed 25.01.2016 14:20:56

After a pretty short time, we will see good news. Now, how can we check if our net can successfully predict the sinusoidal wave? We can’t simply call our net like a sinus function to map from one input value to one output value, e. g. something like net(0.75) == sin(0.75). Our net does not care about any x values, because it was trained purely based on the function values f(x), or the slope pattern in general. We need to feed our net with a three-dimensional input vector holding the first three, original function values to predict the fourth step, then drop the first original step and append the recently predicted step to predict the fifth step, et cetera. In other words, we need to traverse the net. Let’s code this:

val initial = Range.Double(0.0, 0.15, 0.05).zipWithIndex.map(p => (p._1, xs.head(p._2)))
val result = predict(net, xs.head, 0.15, initial)
result.foreach(r => println(s"${r._1}, ${r._2}"))

with

@tailrec def predict(net: Network, last: Seq[Double], i: Double, results: Seq[(Double, Double)]): Seq[(Double, Double)] = {
  if (i < 4.0) {
    val score = net.evaluate(last).head
    predict(net, last.drop(1) :+ score, i + 0.05, results :+ (i, score))
  } else results
}

So, basically we don’t just continue to draw the sinusoidal shape at the point 0.75, we draw the entire shape right from the start until 4.0 – solely based on our trained net! Now, let’s see how our Frankenstein will complete the sinusoidal shape from 0.75 on:

sinuspredictfintwo

I’d say, pretty neat? Keep in mind, here, the discrete predictions are connected through splines. Another interesting property of our trained net is its prediction compared to the original sinus function when taking the limit towards 4.0. Let’s plot both:

sinuspredictfin

The purple line is the original sinusoidal wave, whereas the green line is the prediction of our net. The first steps show great consistency, but slowly the curves diverge a little over time, as uncertainties will add up. To keep this divergence rather low, one could fine tune settings, for instance numeric precision. However, if one is taking the limit towards infinity, a perfect fit is illusory.

Final thoughts

That’s it! We have trained our net to learn and continue the sinusoidal shape. Now, I know that this is a rather academic example, but to train a neural net to learn more complex shapes is straightforward from here.

Thanks for reading!