1
$\begingroup$

I am new to machine learning and have quite good understanding of basic concepts.

I was implementing a 3 Layer neural network on MNIST dataset with 784, 100, 10 neurons in input, hidden, output layer respectively. I did not use any regularization here.

Firstly I trained the network on Intel i5 4th generation quad-core CPU with 4GB of ram which gave me 64% of accuracy. Then I trained the exact same network, with exact same code on Intel i5 7th generation quad core CPU with 8gb of ram which gave accuracy of about 89% This is the link to the implementation.

My question is in Torch, does the compute power effect the accuracy of the network? or is it something else that I am missing which has resulted in this huge change.

I did not use any different weight initialization method than the default provided in the torch libraries, so that is ruled out. I also did not use anything else which may effect the network to change its accuracy to this extent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Did you train it for the same number of iterations with the same learning rate? $\endgroup$ – franciscojavierarceo Nov 5 '16 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ No. Literally each and every detail of network is same, except the machine I trained it on. $\endgroup$ – Anuj Nov 6 '16 at 3:07
  • $\begingroup$ Did you figure this out Anuj? where you able to repeat the experiment several times? $\endgroup$ – Leo Gallucci Mar 4 '19 at 12:39
1
$\begingroup$

Available compute power does not directly affect the accuracy of a neural network. If your different runs of the network have:

  • identical architecture and meta-params
  • identical code (including library code)
  • all training data is identical
  • all stochastic parts of training use the same random seed and generator
  • all data types are identical precision (e.g. all vectors and matrices are 32-bit or 64-bit floats)

then the behaviour of neural network training in each run is fully deterministic and repeatable. Having a faster processor will just get you to the result faster*.

The most likely difference between your tests is due to not seeding the random number generators used in the training the process. For you this includes weight initialisation, possibly train/test split and possibly shuffling training data in each epoch. As you did not use any regularisation, then accuracy of the trained network can vary quite a bit due to over-fitting.

To verify this, you can train a second or third time on each CPU. I expect you will see a lot of variation in final accuracy, regardless of which machine you run it on.


* This does mean that having a faster machine can result in you having a more accurate final network in practice when you are tuning the parameters, because you can try more variations of meta-params with multiple training sessions.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes this is right. But In my case i did not change anything not the learning rate, not the regularization parameter or any such thing. All i did was i used a different machine to train. and the accuracy skyrocketed by approx 30%. So the point of my question was to make sure that it is something related to the framework that i am using. $\endgroup$ – Anuj Nov 8 '16 at 9:04

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.