Ethem Alpaydin

Ethem Alpaydin

Many researchers investigated neural networks with some of their weights fixed to values randomly drawn from a given distribution, e.g., $N(0, I)$. Our proposed HalfNet draws random weights from $N(0, Σ)$, where $Σ$, which defines the geometry of the distribution, has a low-rank factorization that we learn from data. Experiments on MNIST and CIFAR-10 demonstrate that HalfNet can match the performance of fully trained multilayer perceptrons while using substantially fewer parameters. Spectral analysis indicates that much of the predictive power of neural networks lies in the geometry of their weight space rather than in the precise values of individual parameters, and we observe that accuracy scales smoothly with rank. HalfNet is not a neural architecture trick for low-rank structure; it implements a data-dependent random embedding that can also be interpreted through supervised metric learning, or random-feature and kernel perspectives.

Ethem Alpaydin

We propose a ``half'' layer of hidden units that has some of its weights randomly set and some of them trained. A half unit is composed of two stages: First, it takes a weighted sum of its inputs with fixed random weights, and second, the total activation is multiplied and then translated using two modifiable weights, before the result is passed through a nonlinearity. The number of modifiable weights of each hidden unit is thus two and does not depend on the fan-in. We show how such half units can be used in the first or any later layer in a deep network, possibly following convolutional layers. Our experiments on MNIST and FashionMNIST data sets indicate the promise of half layers, where we can achieve reasonable accuracy with a reduced number of parameters due to the regularizing effect of the randomized connections.

Olcay Taner Yildiz, Ethem Alpaydin

Statistical tests that compare classification algorithms are univariate and use a single performance measure, e.g., misclassification error, $F$ measure, AUC, and so on. In multivariate tests, comparison is done using multiple measures simultaneously. For example, error is the sum of false positives and false negatives and a univariate test on error cannot make a distinction between these two sources, but a 2-variate test can. Similarly, instead of combining precision and recall in $F$ measure, we can have a 2-variate test on (precision, recall). We use Hotelling's multivariate $T^2$ test for comparing two algorithms, and when we have three or more algorithms we use the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) followed by pairwise post hoc tests. In our experiments, we see that multivariate tests have higher power than univariate tests, that is, they can detect differences that univariate tests cannot. We also discuss how multivariate analysis allows us to automatically extract performance measures that best distinguish the behavior of multiple algorithms.