Integrating n-gram about bindsnet

[hqkhan]

Absolutely. I submitted a test to swarm2 yesterday to test whenever it's working or not. I should be making a pull request tonight most likely.

[djsaunde]

Awesome, let me know whether you need help with this.

[djsaunde]

Hey @hqkhan,

Any movement on this? Let me know if you need any help.

[hqkhan]

Hey. I'm still stuck at the bug that I was previously mentioning with the spiking activity suddenly being nothing. I tried making some counter-measures but for some reason it still ends up crashing.

Also, there's this weird thing where the ngram accuracy currently is always 100%. I tried checking predictions vs truth but they're actually the exact same. So, I'm confused.

Haven't been able to work on this for a couple of days though.

[djsaunde]

Okay, I'll try my best to look into it.

I think the n-gram accuracy is 100% because you're testing on the n-gram training data; i.e., you're updating the n-grams with the same data you're classifying. I could be wrong.

[djsaunde]

I rearranged the ngram_scores update to after the ngram_pred = ... call, which fixed the 100% accuracy all the time as expected. However, I'm running into a problem with the ngram scores calculation:

I'm looking at update_ngram_scores, and it seems like you're keep around a dictionary mapping from 2-tuples of time points to a vector of label counts.

I don't think this is what we want, right? We want to map tuples of neuron IDs to vectors of counts, I believe. I'm trying to rewrite the function to do this.

[djsaunde]

These two lines in ngram() cause the crash you mentioned earlier. Just remove these, and I think it won't affect the logic.

[djsaunde]

By the way, this method doesn't exactly implement n-gram; it implements a 2-gram with variable spacing between the two considered neurons indices. For example, if you pass n=3, you'll record all pairs of spikes separated by a single intermediate spike; if you pass n=4, you'll record all pairs of spikes separated by two intermediate spikes, and so on.

Does this make sense?

[hqkhan]

I see. I was hoping to speed through the computation by removing timesteps with no firing at all. I'll try removing it when I'm back.

Yes! I know exactly what you mean because it was one of the things I mentioned to Hananel. The main complaint I had was with the "ngram" method itself. If n=5 then we create a window of sizes n=2, 3, 4, 5 and slide each one across our "firing order" for that timestep of an example. But in the "ngram" method, we ONLY use the largest n size to evaluate. I looked at the lmm-snn repo to check what was implemented there and although we record all the tuples of different sizes up to the maximum n size, we evaluate ONLY for the largest n. I think there should be another outer loop which should go over the different window sizes same as update_ngram_scores.

[djsaunde]

Hm, I wasn't involved with the initial development of ngram, so I didn't know that.

No need to fix it, I'm doing it myself (and have already a pull request to the BindsNET repo).

[djsaunde]

We'll have to fix the ngram implementation in the future!

[hqkhan]

Yes, I agree. Have you tried running it? Does it work?

[djsaunde]

Yup, it does! I just fixed up the diehl_and_cook_2015.py script to use the 2-gram evaluation scheme (2-gram is all that works for now!).

[djsaunde]

By the way, I accidentally pushed to your branch. Sorry about that...

[hqkhan]

Awesome! Thanks for that. Just to check, it crashes at 5k training data, not instantly. I'm assuming you ran it for a while to check?

No worries about that. I'll pull. Thanks for letting me know.

[djsaunde]

Well, it can crash at any point. It depends on essentially all hyperparameters. I didn't run until 5k to check, because I was pretty certain what was causing the error.

[hqkhan]

Gotcha. True that it can crash at any point but for the default set of hyperparameters, it was crashing at 5k. No worries though, I'm sure you got it.

[Hananel-Hazan]

Last time I check, you dont need to run until 5k to check. Instead you can train on 500 and then run the test. It should crash on the 1050~ish image

[djsaunde]

I believe the issue is fixed now

[Hananel-Hazan]

About 2-gram evaluation, Darpan found that 2 was the best score. We need to check if its the case today

[djsaunde]

We need to first implement general n-gram. Darpan actually only implemented 2-gram, according to @hqkhan's comments above.

[Hananel-Hazan]

By the way, this method doesn't exactly implement n-gram; it implements a 2-gram with variable spacing between the two considered neurons indices. For example, if you pass n=3, you'll record all pairs of spikes separated by a single intermediate spike; if you pass n=4, you'll record all pairs of spikes separated by two intermediate spikes, and so on.

Does this make sense?

No.
Is it the same implementation from the old LM-SNN?

[djsaunde]

Yes. What I'm trying to say is, the old n-gram implementation is incorrect.

If the above doesn't make sense, try reading it again. @hqkhan saw the same problem.