0
$\begingroup$

I'm currently working on a project where I'm using an LSTM to learn and predict sequences of categorical data.

My dataset consists of variable-length sequences of items $s_i = [x_{i_0}, x_{i_1}, ..., x_{i_{-1}}]$. Each item $x$ belongs to one of 190,000 categories. Therefore, my initial approach has been to encode each $x$ with a one-hot vector representing its category.

However, using one-hot encoding makes the computational cost very high, and I want to find a more compact way of representing the categories before training the model.

In information theory, the base-2 logarithm of a number indicates how many bits are necessary to represent a number. In this case, log2(190000) =~ 18, which means that 18 bits are needed to represent each category.

So, my question is, what are good approaches to represent the categories using lower-dimensional vectors?

  • For example, I could use 18-dimensional binary vectors, where the index of each category is encoded in binary format. If I understand correctly, this approach would introduce a false additive relationship, but it might be worth experimenting with.

  • Alternatively, I am considering passing the one-hot vectors through a linear layer with 190k inputs and 18 outputs. The idea here is that the linear layer does not produce zero outputs but small floats. However, I don't know how well this approach can encode the categorical information.

Do these approaches make sense? Alternatively, what might be better ways to achieve what I'm looking for?

I appreciate any advice or thoughts on this approach. Thanks!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Use embeddings.

Your use case seems similar to language modelling, where text is represented as discrete tokens. While 190k categories are a lot, you can adjust the embedding dimensionality to fit your computational budget.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. As part of the project, I will be using Word2Vec embeddings, which I expect to produce the best results. However, I would like to investigate the difference in performance compared to a naive encoding like one-hot. The problem is that one-hot encoding with this dimensionality becomes too expensive with my data, even with very small batches. $\endgroup$
    – acxcv
    Feb 28, 2023 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ I meant trainable embeddings, not pre-trained ones. Having a one-hot vector multiplied by a matrix is equivalent to having an embedding layer, but without the memory spent on the one-hot vectors. $\endgroup$
    – noe
    Feb 28, 2023 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't think I can follow. I don't understand how your suggestion (having a one-hot vector multiplied by a matrix) differs from the linear layer approach in my question? Can you elaborate? $\endgroup$
    – acxcv
    Feb 28, 2023 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ You save the memory of the one-hot vector with dimension 190000 x seq.length x batch size. $\endgroup$
    – noe
    Feb 28, 2023 at 20:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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