3
$\begingroup$

Why are the parameters of a Restricted Boltzmann machine trained for a fixed number of iterations (epochs) in many papers instead of choosing the ones corresponding to a stationary point of the likelihood?

Denote the observable data by $x$, hidden data by $h$, the energy function by $E$ and the normalizing constant by $Z$. The probability of $x$ is: \begin{equation} P(x) = \sum_h P(x,h) = \sum_h \frac{e^{-E(x,h)}}{Z}. \end{equation} The goal is to maximize the probability of $x$ conditional on the parameters of the model $\theta$. Suppose one has access to a sample of $N$ observations of $x$ with typical element $x_i$. As estimator, one could find the roots of the derivative of the average sample log-likelihood: \begin{equation} \left\lbrace \hat{\theta} \in \hat{\Theta} : N^{-1} \sum_{x_i} \frac{\partial \log p(x_i)} {\partial \theta} = 0 \right\rbrace \end{equation} and chose the one $\theta^\star \in \hat{\Theta} $ maximizing the empirical likelihood. There exists many different ways to approximate the derivative of the log-likelihood to facilitate (maybe even permit) its computation. For example, Contrastive Divergence and Persistent Contrastive Divergence are used often. I wonder whether it makes sense to estimate the parameters $\theta$ recursively until convergence while continuing to approximate the derivative of the log-likelihood. One could update the parameters after seeing each data point $x_i$ as: \begin{equation} \theta_{i+1} = \theta_{i} - \eta_i \frac{\partial \log p(x_i)}{\partial \theta_i} \end{equation} The practice I learned in Hinton et al. (2006) and in Tieleman (2008) is different though: Both papers define a number of fixed iterations a priori. Could somebody kindly educate me why recursively updating the parameters until convergence is not a good idea? In particular, I'm interested whether there's a theoretical flaw in my reasoning or whether computational capacities dictate sticking to a fixed number of iterations. I am grateful for any help!

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I believe the problem is that log-likelihood is not directly computable, because of exponential in number of units complexity. There exist different proxies to the true log-likelihood, for instance pseudo log-likelihood (more here), and in principle you can train RBM until PLL is not changed too much.

Hovewer, there is a lot of randomness involved in the training process, so PLL most likely will be quite noisy (even true log-likelihood would be I believe).

$\endgroup$

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.