|
| 1 | +# Example of how to use Embedding layers |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +Let's imagine that we have need to do following task: |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | + Convert the textual assessment of the quality of the work into a numerical grade. |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | + If work is not done (or is done in a bad way) then assessment is 0.0 |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | + If work is done (and is done in a good way) then assessment is 1.0 |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | + If work is done in a mediocre way then assessment is 0.5 |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +Examples of input data (with corresponding assessment): |
| 14 | +``` |
| 15 | +Well done! - 1.0 |
| 16 | +Good work - 1.0 |
| 17 | +Great effort - 1.0 |
| 18 | +nice work - 1.0 |
| 19 | +Excellent! - 1.0 |
| 20 | +Weak - 0.0 |
| 21 | +Poor effort! - 0.0 |
| 22 | +not good - 0.0 |
| 23 | +poor work - 0.0 |
| 24 | +Could be way better. - 0.0 |
| 25 | +average :( - 0.5 |
| 26 | +middle level - 0.5 |
| 27 | +ordinary stuff - 0.5 |
| 28 | +boilerplate - 0.5 |
| 29 | +standart approach - 0.5 |
| 30 | +``` |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +Restrictions: |
| 33 | +* Assume that vocabulary size is 50 |
| 34 | +* Max amount of words in a text assesment 5 |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +So, neural network structure would be: |
| 37 | +* Input shape equals to {**1** x **Max number of words in a sentence**}. Max number of words is defined as "5" |
| 38 | +* Output shape equals to {**1** x **1**} since there is only one possible output (0.0, 1.0 or 0.5 in perfect conditions) |
| 39 | +* Layers: |
| 40 | + * Embedding layer - Let's assume embedding dimensions is 12. |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | + It means that this layer has **Vocabulary size (which is 50)**-tensor of size **embedding dimensions (which is 12)**. |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | + No activation function is required. No bias is required. |
| 45 | + * Flatten layer - just represent N-tensor as [**1** x **Total number of elements in tensor**] |
| 46 | + * Output layer - just linear layer with sigmoid activation function. |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | + Number of input neurons: [**Max number of words in a sentence** x **Embedding dimensions**]. Number of output neurons: [**1** x **1**] |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | + No bias is required. |
| 51 | +* How to represent text as numerical data? Well, [HashingTrick](../../../utils.go#L313) and [PaddingInt64Slice](../../../utils.go#L288) will help to do this task |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +Final representation of network: |
| 54 | +input(1, 5) -> embedding(inputs=5, voc=50, dims=12) -> flatten(5,12) -> linear(inputs=60, outputs=1) -> sigmoid(1) |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +Assume that number of training epochs is 200, learning rate is 0.01, solver is Adam, batch size is 1 |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +Main code is in [main.go file](main.go). I guess it's pretty straightforward. But if it's not than I appreciate yours PR to improve this document |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +Simply execute: |
| 61 | +```shell |
| 62 | +go run main.go |
| 63 | +``` |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +Final output on for trainig data (may vary due the nature of rand() calls): |
| 66 | +```shell |
| 67 | +Epoch 0: |
| 68 | + Discriminator's loss: 0.0016569854606968827 |
| 69 | +Epoch 40: |
| 70 | + Discriminator's loss: 0.04548602801653217 |
| 71 | +Epoch 80: |
| 72 | + Discriminator's loss: 0.0034698363241729554 |
| 73 | +Epoch 120: |
| 74 | + Discriminator's loss: 0.007486103427248882 |
| 75 | +Epoch 160: |
| 76 | + Discriminator's loss: 9.23967546782277e-05 |
| 77 | +Text assessment: Weak |
| 78 | + Its hashed value: [5 0 0 0 0] |
| 79 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 80 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 81 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 82 | +Text assessment: middle level |
| 83 | + Its hashed value: [12 40 0 0 0] |
| 84 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 85 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 86 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 87 | +Text assessment: not good |
| 88 | + Its hashed value: [31 14 0 0 0] |
| 89 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 90 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 91 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 92 | +Text assessment: Good work |
| 93 | + Its hashed value: [14 24 0 0 0] |
| 94 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 95 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.9 |
| 96 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.1 |
| 97 | +Text assessment: ordinary stuff |
| 98 | + Its hashed value: [23 44 0 0 0] |
| 99 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 100 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 101 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 102 | +Text assessment: Could be way better. |
| 103 | + Its hashed value: [36 25 5 18 0] |
| 104 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 105 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 106 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 107 | +Text assessment: average :( |
| 108 | + Its hashed value: [35 41 0 0 0] |
| 109 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 110 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 111 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 112 | +Text assessment: Great effort |
| 113 | + Its hashed value: [26 11 0 0 0] |
| 114 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 115 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.9 |
| 116 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.1 |
| 117 | +Text assessment: poor work |
| 118 | + Its hashed value: [28 24 0 0 0] |
| 119 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 120 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.1 |
| 121 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.1 |
| 122 | +Text assessment: boilerplate |
| 123 | + Its hashed value: [36 0 0 0 0] |
| 124 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 125 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 126 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 127 | +Text assessment: standart approach |
| 128 | + Its hashed value: [13 29 0 0 0] |
| 129 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 130 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.5 |
| 131 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 132 | +Text assessment: Poor effort! |
| 133 | + Its hashed value: [28 11 0 0 0] |
| 134 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 135 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.0 |
| 136 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 137 | +Text assessment: Excellent! |
| 138 | + Its hashed value: [26 0 0 0 0] |
| 139 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 140 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 141 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 142 | +Text assessment: nice work |
| 143 | + Its hashed value: [34 24 0 0 0] |
| 144 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 145 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 0.9 |
| 146 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.1 |
| 147 | +Text assessment: Well done! |
| 148 | + Its hashed value: [26 13 0 0 0] |
| 149 | + Its defined numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 150 | + Its evaluated numerical assessment: 1.0 |
| 151 | + Difference between defined and evaluated: 0.0 |
| 152 | +``` |
0 commit comments