Skip to Pairwise to pointwise ANNs | Validating pointwise ANNs | Training duration | Number of hidden layers | Hidden neurons | Improving quality of inputs | Removing bad inputs | Specialising by user segment | Experiment wrap-up | Looking in the closer future | Conclusions & next steps

Let’s start by repeating the *Disclaimer* from part
1: in spite of having a diploma that hints
otherwise, I wouldn’t consider myself an expert in any of this. Proceed with
caution (the graphs are still cute, though).

Importantly, as this is not science, we’ll be making making many assumptions so we can move forward. I did check that all results presented are consistent where applied to other datasets, but everything shown is run on a single, 1 month training + 1 month control dataset unless otherwise stated.

The ANN we ended up with so far proved that we can present search results that can more accurately predict user engagement than random order, and our historical, heuristic ranking (55% versus 50% and 44% respectively). It was also really too damn slow: training it would take hours, and using it would take seconds in the worst case.

We need it to be between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude faster to be able to

- provide live searches (our hero example being Google, not Kayak); and
- experiment quickly to answer the numerous questions above, in order to ultimately
- improve accuracy up to our (arbitrary) 60% target.

##### Pairwise to pointwise ANNs

We have a “performance problem” because:

- our dataset is large: training time is proportional to the size of the dataset.
- each entry has many inputs (28 inputs): both training time and runtime are
proportional to the
*product*of the number of inputs and the number of hidden neurons. - sorting a list of properties using our ANN requires \(O(n \log n)\), and up to \(O(n^2)\) runs of the ANN.

We’ll explore training time in more detail later; for now, we need a solution to this quadratic performance degradation.

To refresh our memory, the problem we’re solving here is to *rank*, which
reduces to determining a property comparator:

in proper English, we’re trying to answer this question:

Given a user

uand two propertiesp1andp2, which property is the user most likely to engage with?

We want our comparator to be true when *u* engages with *p1* but not with *p2*,
having seen both of their pages. We’ve chosen to model this comparison
function:

using what we call a “pairwise ANN”: one that takes as inputs attributes of the user and of both properties.

What we’d really like is to find a way just to make \(O(n)\) calls to a predictor, thus getting faster results.

Let’s take a leap of faith and imagine we build an “pointwise ANN” to model this function:

In other words, we’re trying to find a function \(\phi^*\) that *predicts*
whether a properties will be enquired about, rather than *comparing the
likelihoods* of a property being enquired over another.

We could define \(\phi\) in terms of \(\phi^*\):

because the comparison problem can be reduced to the prediction problem. We also wouldn’t need too, because ranking a list of properties \(p\) would be as simple as sorting them by \(\phi^*(u,p)\).

Let’s compare what would happen performance wise. Assuming we have 80,000 users, each having 5 positive and 5 negative events (5 properties enquired about, 5 properties just visited).

- For the pairwise approach, we have \( 80\cdot 10^3 \times C_5^2 = 1.6 \cdot 10^6\) training entries;
- For the pointwise approach, only \( 80\cdot 10^3 \times (5+5) = 0.8 \cdot 10^6\) entries.
- Instead of 28 inputs, we’re down to 19: this reduces training time by a further third (assuming there are as many hidden neurons; we’ll probably need less) and runtime by a third as well, because there is a third fewer connections in the ANN.

Overall

- training the pointwise ANN will be at least 3x faster than the pairwise ANN,
- using it to rank a list costs \(O(n)\) calls to the ANN instead of \(O(n \log n)\), with a lower multiplier to boot.

While at this point we’d expect the pointwise approach to yield a lower accuracy, it’s a reasonable direction to explore.

##### Validating pointwise ANNs

Building and training a pointwise ANN is rather straightforward, given at this point we have the machinery in place to build and train pairwise ANNs. Our networks now look simpler:

The dataset is also simpler, it is now a list of \([u,p,o]\) vectors, where \(o = [0,1]\) is \(u\) engaged with property \(p\), and \([1,0]\) otherwise.

To validate whether a pointwise ANN can be used for ranking purposes, we measure

- Its RMSE (the metric used during training, which is the square root of the mean of squared differences between expected and measured outputs);
- Its accuracy as a predictor (percentage of times the network makes a correct prediction about whether a user will engage with a given property, i.e. accuracy of \(\phi^*\)),
- Its accuracy as a comparator (accuracy of \(\phi\) as redefined based on \(\phi^*\)).

on a handful of wide set of network layouts, which we let converge for an unnecessarily large number of training iterations (known as “epochs”).

Several coffees later, the jury is back:

This confirms that, used as a pointwise classifier (“will the user enquire about this property?”), ANNs “work”. To be specific:

- The ANNs perform better with more nodes and plateau out, as expected;
- Accuracy on the control set is slightly lower than on the training set, without getting significantly worse (which would be a symptom of overfitting)
- RMSE is a good predictor of accuracy.

The last point is particularly important. The two metrics are quite different:
one is an objective quantitative measurement, the other is a count that could
vary wildly depending on the threshold chosen to discriminate our *positive* and
*negative* classes. Fortunately, they end up aligning fairly neatly.

For *pairwise* accuracy, the
picture is similar:

Accuracy increases as RMSE decreases, which suggests that training (which minimizes the RMSE of the pointwise prediction) also optimises accuracy.

This is what we’re after, and going forward, we’ll make the assumption that a low RMSE is a reasonable proxy for a high pairwise accuracy, therefore a “good” ranking.

##### Training duration

In the previous section, we trained numerous networks for 10,000 epochs, which took the better part of a day on our test machine (Core i7 2.5GHz). This is unreasonably long for the other experiments we want to run, so let’s take a look to how quickly networks typically converge.

Note that while we’ve explored the other training algorithms provided by FANN (namely “batch” and “quickprop”), we stuck with the default iRPROP algorithm which consistently yielded more stale results and better final RMSE.

Training a first network (1 hidden layer, 8 neurons), and reporting on RMSE at each epoch gives us a first hint at how it progresses:

RMSE lowers rapidly at first, then progresses much more slowly. There’s a cutoff around the 400th epoch, then diminishing returns, and eventually stabilisation around the 2,000th epoch.

Training a few more networks, and timing for a fixed number of training epochs gives us a sense of how speed degrades with network size:

By the looks of it, training speed degrades roughly linearly with number of hidden nodes; as a rule of thumb we’ll consider that doubling the number of hidden neurons increases training time for 50%—for a given number of epochs.

Now, our aim is to be able to train many networks in reasonable time, without worrying we didn’t let them converge long enough. For this next experiment we train networks with 8 to 24 hidden neurons in 1 layer, and reported the time spent and RMSE at each epoch:

All networks exhibit the same “hockey stick” convergence behaviour. After 2,400 epochs, the two smaller ones seem to have converged, but the three larger ones are still slowly improving.

Interestingly, the three larger one also have a “dip” (around 800, 1,200, and 2,200 epochs respectively) where convergence speed quickly improves before slowing down again.

Looking at the same data in terms of CPU time spent on training, instead of number of epochs elapsed, does not help much further:

The only conclusion so far is that independently of the network size, we observe a “hockey stick” convergence pattern; hitting the first plateau takes roughly 1 minute for a network of size 8, and that increases by roughly 50% for each doubling of the network size.

Differentiating those curves, and plotting the *speed* of convergence (variation of
RMSE per unit of time), makes this result more readable:

Each point here is the training speed (in RMSE/second) for a network and a given epoch. The points cluster to low, negative values on the left, as RMSE goes down quickly at first; they then cluster around zero while staying negative on average, as RMSE keeps going down, albeit more slowly. Asymptotically, the average speed is zero, although all networks will exhibit noise, and fluctuate around their optimum.

The hockey stick does end around 60 seconds for size 8 and 90 seconds for size 16. The “dip” at size 16, around the 180 second mark, is clearly visible.

Unfortunately, the larger networks are still converging at the end of our time period; we can’t easily derive for how many epochs, or for how much time, we should let training happen.

For the rest of this exploration, we’ll assume a training time of 2,400 epochs is “good enough” to compare results between networks, and we’ll regularly confirm convergence by looking at the RMSE-over-time graphs

##### Number of hidden layers

Now that we have a basic sense of how quickly iRPROP converges, we should start exploring for the ideal network layout. The experiments so far were with a single hidden layer; does adding more layers change the performance in any way?

In this graph the series are named after the layout of the network: `24,8,4`

stands for 3 hidden layers, with 24, 8 and 4 neurons respectively.

The instability of training as the complexity of the network increases is surprising. This also seems to be independent of the training algorithm (similar behaviour is observed with Quickprop and Batch).

Apart from that, it would seem that adding an extra layer can, at least in some
cases (see the `24,8`

example above), lead to faster training.

Taking a look at the accuracy of these networks suggests we should move on:

The simple, single hidden layer network outperforms the more complicated ones.

##### Hidden neurons

Given the above, we’ll settle on a single hidden layer.

There doesn’t seem to be an agreed on way to determine the number of hidden neurons. Stack Overflow, being its useful self, provides a number of rules of thumb (see this answer as well). The scientific literature isn’t much more helpful.

The gist seem that the emphasis should be put on experimenting, and that the number of input nodes, added to the number of output nodes, is generally a good place to start. For us, that’s 21 nodes in the hidden layer.

Out of curiosity (and a will to yield the best possible results, of course), we trial all hidden layer sizes from 1 to 40, training them for 2,400 epochs.

The pairwise accuracy (our ultimate measure of performance) seems to overall increase with the size of the hidden layer. Performance for small sizes (1 to 3 hidden nodes) is too small to be reported (between 50 and 55%).

Interestingly, it would seem that some network sizes fare much better then other, even after sizes over 15 where performance plateaus on average. Sizes 16, 29, and 34 stand out; we are unable to provide a rational explanation for this.

Let’s take a closer look at how the networks were trained to make sure these “peaks” aren’t an artifact caused by stopping at a given number of epochs. We plot their RMSE over epochs like above; we’ll choose a different representation, though, as overlaying 40 curves would be quite unreadable:

In this contour plot, training begins at the top (2,400 epochs “left” to train) and ends at the bottom. We can clearly see the low-node-count ANNs at the left with poor RMSE in green; the graph gets lighter to the right as RMSE gets lower more quickly. This also confirms our three “magic” layer sizes at 16, 29, and 34 nodes, where we can see white “troughs” at the bottom of the graph, indicating the lowest values of RMSE across our sample of networks.

These sweet spots are highly dependent on the input. While the exact portion of the dataset we use seems to lead to the same sweet spots, changing the number of inputs (more on this below) seems to shift the position of the sweet spots dramatically.

While we have no explanation for these “sweet spots”, they give us another clue on how to continue experimenting: once we’re done fiddling with inputs, we should run this again to confirm what the ideal network size actually is.

*Note:* the graphs above in this section actually correspond to our final,
massaged inputs; specifically with 1 bad input removed, and 2 inputs rescaled to
a logarithmic scale.

##### Improving quality of inputs

While all of our inputs are properly normalized, as is well explained in
comp.ai.neural-nets,
some of them are poorly *distributed* in the inputs range (\([0,1]\) for us.

We plot the distribution of each of the inputs of our data set; most or reasonably uniform, but two stand out:

*population*, the population of the city where property \(p\) is, is heavily biased towards larger values, as most of the properties in our inventory are in larger cities; and*lead time*, the number of days between user’s activity and their desired trip date, which is heavily skewed towards small values (as with many online activities, people seem to favour the last-minute purchases).

We rescale both inputs using a log filter, resulting in both cases in a
quasi-uniform distribution; we then re-train our group of networks. Finally, we
compare the results of this experiment (*X7* below) to the networks with the
original inputs:

The peak accuracy on the control set is indeed improved by “cleaning up” inputs.

##### Removing bad inputs

Some of the inputs in our datasets aren’t very reliable. For instance, the
*population* data is based on the Geonames, which is
often quite inaccurate, and has a *lot* of missing data. So far we’ve operated
under the assumption that the information was missing for smaller cities, hence
replaced it with zero as an approximation.

We also wonder whether the user information, and the original ranking score, are valuable inputs (in the sense that they help make predictions).

We run another series of experiments, and compare with the “base” scenario X7. Here’s an excerpt of the results:

It turns out that all these fields are indeed useful. Particularly, using the
original ranking score as an input has a large impact; we believe this to be
because it incorporates information that we did not use as inputs so far, namely
some information about host behaviour, which we know *via* other means, to
correlate to purchasing behaviour.

##### Specialising by user segment

Taking a step back, training ANNs for ranking purposes is all about specialising search results for a particular user, in a situation when it is unrealistic to segment users in groups of consistent behaviour. If that were the case, we could use other tools like decision trees to rank properties, and life would be boring.

This said, there is one dimension along which we can segment users pretty
efficiently: their locale. Here’s an apparently reasonable hypothesis: if we
train one network *per locale* (in other words, splitting our training sets by
locale), it could be easier to capture behaviour patterns. In other words,
people speaking the same language might exhibit consistency.

As it turns out, not really. The graph above shows that when restricting
training to French speakers (about 25% of the overall data), accuracy *worsens*.
In other words, knowing about the behaviour from other locales helps predict the
behaviour of the French speakers.

As a Frenchman, I wonder whether I should feel like offended by this neural net telling me I’m not a beautiful snowflake.

##### Experiment wrap-up

Overall, we ran a few tens of experiments revolving around adding, removing, or transforming inputs. The graph below shows the performance of the main ones:

Our conclusion at this point is that more data seems to imply better training results, and that networks can’t be trained on raw data. We had already filtered outliers (users making too many or too few enquired) and normalized inputs; but transforming inputs so their values are well spread gives us an extra gain.

Specialising the ANNs per segment doesn’t seem to help either.

##### Looking at the near future

Patterns of user behaviour evolve over time. Even more importantly, in an e-commerce application like ours, the segments and volume of users change over time, due to both seasonality effect and marketing tactics (for instance: changes in SEM targeting, TV advertising campaigns, etc.).

This could imply that what we’ve learned on a given month doesn’t necessarily apply in the far future. So far, we’ve trained on month \(m\) and controlled on month \(m+1\). Let’s take a look at how the predictive power of our ANNs evolve over time.

For the first week of data in the control set (just after the training month), accuracy is at its highest, and we actually manage to breach the 60% mark occasionally. It then degrades afterwards, losing roughly 0.5% per week.

##### Conclusions & next steps

Exploring the problem space to properly design a neural network is frustratingly slow, exploratory, and provides little scientific certainty. Experiments tend to be reproducible to an extent, but everything is hugely noisy. As a consequence, all of this is very imprecise; don’t take our learnings for granted, and experiment on your own data.

This being said, in *our* scenario, a few conclusions can be drawn:

- A pointwise ANN can be used as the building block of a comparator for ranking purposes, and it provides a decent proxy for a pairwise, SortNet-style ANN.
- Training an ANN to convergence takes about 15 minutes for a 250,000 entry, 19 input dataset, with 24 hidden neurons, on a modern machine (as of writing). Training time increases roughly linearly with the size of the dataset, number of inputs, or hidden layer size.
- Larger, or more complex network sizes have little bearing on pairwise accuracy but they do slow down training (linearly) and can induce instability. The cutoff seems to be around 15 hidden neurons (roughly around our input size).
- Networks with similar layouts can perform quite differently, so training should be done on several networks (for instance, ±2 neurons).
- Performance is usually improved by providing more inputs, but those inputs should be scaled to cover the input range as uniformly as possible (typically, applying a log-scale transform to some inputs).
- Predictive power degrades over time. When using this in a production setting, manually updating a comparator by re-training would not be very efficient; we should instead re-learn as regularly as possible, on rolling datasets.

After this journey into ANN handling, we feel like we have a firmer grasp on how they behave. We’re still a long way from using them in a production setting.

The next points we may want to explore include

- applying what we learned to pairwise networks, and
- experiment with stochastic learning techniques (probably a genetic algorithm) to circumvent the extremely slow learning of pairwise networks.

Time permitting, we may publish a third part in this series!

Recommended further reading: Misconceptions about neural network, and excellent introductory article by Stuart Reid.