skip to main content
10.1145/3357384.3357946acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Automatic Construction of Multi-layer Perceptron Network from Streaming Examples

Published:03 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Autonomous construction of deep neural network (DNNs) is desired for data streams because it potentially offers two advantages: proper model's capacity and quick reaction to drift and shift. While self-organizing mechanism of DNNs remains an open issue, this task is even more challenging to be developed for standard multi-layer DNNs than that using the different-depth structures, because addition of a new layer results in information loss of previously trained knowledge. A Neural Network with Dynamically Evolved Capacity (NADINE) is proposed in this paper. NADINE features a fully open structure where its network structure, depth and width, can be automatically evolved from scratch in the online manner and without the use of problem-specific thresholds. NADINE is structured under a standard MLP architecture and the catastrophic forgetting issue during the hidden layer addition phase is resolved using the proposal of soft-forgetting and adaptive memory methods. The advantage of NADINE, namely elastic structure and online learning trait, is numerically validated using nine data stream classification and regression problems where it demonstrates performance's improvement over prominent algorithms in all problems. In addition, it is capable of dealing with data stream regression and classification problems equally well.

References

  1. Andri Ashfahani and Mahardhika Pratama. 2019. Autonomous Deep Learning: Continual Learning Approach for Dynamic Environments. In In SIAM International Conference on Data Mining.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Baldi, Paul D. Sadowski, and Daniel Whiteson. 2014. Searching for exotic particles in high-energy physics with deep learning. Nature communications 5 (2014), 4308.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrea Coraddu, Luca Oneto, Alessandro Ghio, Stefano Savio, Davide Anguita, and Massimo Figari. 2014. Machine Learning Approaches for Improving Condition? Based Maintenance of Naval Propulsion Plants. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment --, -- (2014), --.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. G. Ditzler and R. Polikar. 2013. Incremental Learning of Concept Drift from Streaming Imbalanced Data. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng. 25, 10 (Oct. 2013), 2283--2301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Elwell and R. Polikar. 2011. Incremental Learning of Concept Drift in Nonstationary Environments. Trans. Neur. Netw. 22, 10 (Oct. 2011), 1517--1531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. I. Frias-Blanco, J. d. Campo-Avila, G. Ramos-Jimenez, R. Morales-Bueno, A. Ortiz- Diaz, and Y. Caballero-Mota. 2015. Online and Non-Parametric Drift Detection Methods Based on Hoeffdings Bounds. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27, 3 (March 2015), 810--823. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2014. 2345382Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Joao Gama. 2010. Knowledge Discovery from Data Streams (1st ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC. 8] João Gama, Ricardo Fernandes, and Ricardo Rocha. 2006. Decision Trees for Mining Data Streams. Intell. Data Anal. 10, 1 (Jan. 2006), 23--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. João Gama, Indre Zliobaite, Albert Bifet, Mykola Pechenizkiy, and Abdelhamid Bouchachia. 2014. A Survey on Concept Drift Adaptation. ACM Comput. Surv. 46, 4, Article 44 (March 2014), 37 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Young Hun Jung, Jack Goetz, and Ambuj Tewari. [n. d.]. Online multiclass boosting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A. Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, Demis Hassabis, Claudia Clopath, Dharshan Kumaran, and Raia Hadsell. 2016. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00796 cite arxiv:1612.00796.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David Lopez-Paz and Marc' Aurelio Ranzato. [n. d.]. Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Guido F. Montúfar, Razvan Pascanu, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the Number of Linear Regions of Deep Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, December 8--13 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2924--2932. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 5422-on-the-number-of-linear-regions-of-deep-neural-networksGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Masud Moshtaghi, James C. Bezdek, Christopher Leckie, Shanika Karunasekera, and Marimuthu Palaniswami. 2015. Evolving Fuzzy Rules for Anomaly Detection in Data Streams. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 23, 3 (2015), 688--700. https://doi. org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2014.2322385Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kevin P. Murphy. 2012. Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C Oza Nikunj and January Russell Stuart. 2001. Online bagging and boosting. Jaakkola Tommi and Richardson Thomas, editors. In Eighth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 105--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ali Pesaranghader, Herna Viktor, and Eric Paquet. 2018. Reservoir of diverse adaptive learners and stacking fast hoeffding drift detection methods for evolving data streams. Machine Learning (01 Jun 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10994-018--5719-zGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Pratama, W. Pedrycz, and E. Lughofer. 2018. Evolving Ensemble Fuzzy Classifier. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2018), 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. "Andrei A. Rusu"; "Neil C. Rabinowitz". 2016. Progressive Neural Networks. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Sahoo, Q. D. Pham, J. Lu, and S. C. Hoi. 2017. Online Deep Learning: Learning Deep Neural Networks on the Fly. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03705 abs/1711.03705 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tom Schaul, John Quan, Ioannis Antonoglou, and David Silver. 2016. Prioritized Experience Replay. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Puerto Rico.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Joan Serra, Didac Suris, Marius Miron, and Alexandros Karatzoglou. 2018. Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting with Hard Attention to the Task. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. 4548--4557.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Rupesh K Srivastava, Jonathan Masci, Sohrob Kazerounian, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. [n. d.]. Compete to Compute. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Salvatore J. Stolfo,Wei Fan,Wenke Lee, Andreas Prodromidis, and Philip K. Chan. 2000. Cost-based Modeling for Fraud and Intrusion Detection: Results from the JAM Project. In In Proceedings of the 2000 DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. IEEE Computer Press, 130--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J. Gordon. 2019. An Empirical Study of Example Forgetting during Deep Neural Network Learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJlxm30cKmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. D. H. Wolpert. 2016. The Power of Depth for Feed-forward Neural Networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 49 (2016), 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu Yingwei, N. Sundararajan, and P. Saratchandran. 1997. A Sequential Learning Scheme for Function Approximation Using Minimal Radial Basis Function Neural Networks. Neural Comput. 9, 2 (Feb. 1997), 461--478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jaehong Yoon, Eunho Yang, Jeongtae Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2018. Lifelong Learning with Dynamically Expandable Networks. ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Guanyu Zhou, Kihyuk Sohn, and Honglak Lee. 2012. Online incremental feature learning with denoising autoencoders. Journal of Machine Learning Research 22 (2012), 1453--1461.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Automatic Construction of Multi-layer Perceptron Network from Streaming Examples

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CIKM '19: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
      November 2019
      3373 pages
      ISBN:9781450369763
      DOI:10.1145/3357384

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 November 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CIKM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate202of1,031submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader