Artificial Neural Network Lect4 : Single Layer Perceptron Classifiers

CS407 Neural Computation
Lecture 4:
Single Layer Perceptron (SLP)
Classifiers
Lecturer: A/Prof. M. Bennamoun

Outline
What’s a SLP and what’s classification?
Limitation of a single perceptron.
Foundations of classification and Bayes Decision making theory
Discriminant functions, linear machine and minimum distance
classification
Training and classification using the Discrete perceptron
Single-Layer Continuous perceptron Networks for linearly
separable classifications
Appendix A: Unconstrained optimization techniques
Appendix B: Perceptron Convergence proof
Suggested reading and references

What is a perceptron and what is
a Single Layer Perceptron (SLP)?

Perceptron
The simplest form of a neural network
consists of a single neuron with adjustable
synaptic weights and bias
performs pattern classification with only two
classes
perceptron convergence theorem :
– Patterns (vectors) are drawn from two
linearly separable classes
– During training, the perceptron algorithm
converges and positions the decision
surface in the form of hyperplane between
two classes by adjusting synaptic weights

What is a perceptron?
wk1
x1
wk2
x2
wkm
xm
...
...
Σ
Bias
bk
ϕ(.)
vk
Input
signal
Synaptic
weights
Summing
junction
Activation
function
bxwv kj
m
j
kjk
+= ∑=1
)(vy kk
ϕ=
)()( ⋅=⋅ signϕ
Discrete Perceptron:
Output
yk
shapeS −=⋅)(ϕ
Continous Perceptron:

Activation Function of a perceptron
vi
+1
-1
vi
+1
Signum Function
(sign)
shapesv −=)(ϕ
Continous Perceptron:
)()( ⋅=⋅ signϕ
Discrete Perceptron:

SLP Architecture
Single layer perceptron
Input layer Output layer

Where are we heading? Different
Non-Linearly Separable Problems
http://www.zsolutions.com/light.htm
Structure
Types of
Decision Regions
Exclusive-OR
Problem
Classes with
Meshed regions
Most General
Region Shapes
Single-Layer
Two-Layer
Three-Layer
Half Plane
Bounded By
Hyperplane
Convex Open
Or
Closed Regions
Arbitrary
(Complexity
Limited by No.
of Nodes)
A
AB
B
A
AB
B
A
AB
B
B
A
B
A
B
A

Implementing Logic Gates with
Perceptrons http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jxb/NN/l3.pdf
We can use the perceptron to implement the basic logic gates (AND, OR
and NOT).
All we need to do is find the appropriate connection weights and neuron
thresholds to produce the right outputs for each set of inputs.
We saw how we can construct simple networks that perform NOT, AND,
and OR.
It is then a well known result from logic that we can construct any logical
function from these three operations.
The resulting networks, however, will usually have a much more complex
architecture than a simple Perceptron.
We generally want to avoid decomposing complex problems into simple
logic gates, by finding the weights and thresholds that work directly in a
Perceptron architecture.

Implementation of Logical NOT, AND, and OR
In each case we have inputs ini and outputs out, and need to determine
the weights and thresholds. It is easy to find solutions by inspection:

The Need to Find Weights Analytically
Constructing simple networks by hand is one thing. But what about
harder problems? For example, what about:
How long do we keep looking for a solution? We need to be able to
calculate appropriate parameters rather than looking for solutions by trial
and error.
Each training pattern produces a linear inequality for the output in terms
of the inputs and the network parameters. These can be used to compute
the weights and thresholds.

Finding Weights Analytically for the AND Network
We have two weights w1 and w2 and the threshold θ, and for each
training pattern we need to satisfy
So the training data lead to four inequalities:
It is easy to see that there are an infinite number of solutions. Similarly,
there are an infinite number of solutions for the NOT and OR networks.

Limitations of Simple Perceptrons
We can follow the same procedure for the XOR network:
Clearly the second and third inequalities are incompatible with the
fourth, so there is in fact no solution. We need more complex networks,
e.g. that combine together many simple networks, or use different
activation/thresholding/transfer functions.
It then becomes much more difficult to determine all the weights and
thresholds by hand.
These weights instead are adapted using learning rules. Hence, need to
consider learning rules (see previous lecture), and more complex
architectures.

E.g. Decision Surface of a Perceptron
+
+-
-
x1
x2
Non-Linearly separable
• Perceptron is able to represent some useful functions
• But functions that are not linearly separable (e.g. XOR)
are not representable
+
+
+
+ -
-
-
-
x2
Linearly separable
x1

Classification ? http://140.122.185.120
Pattern classification/recognition
- Assign the input data (a physical object, event, or phenomenon)
to one of the pre-specified classes (categories)
The block diagram of the recognition and classification system

Classification: an example
• Automate the process of sorting incoming fish on
a conveyor belt according to species (Salmon or
Sea bass).
Set up a camera
Take some sample images
Note the physical differences between the two types
of fish
Length
Lightness
Width
No. & shape of fins ( “sanfirim”)
Position of the mouth
http://webcourse.technion.ac.il/236607/Winter2002-2003/en/ho.htm
Duda & Hart, Chapter 1

Classification: an example…
• Cost of misclassification: depends on application
Is it better to misclassify salmon as bass or vice versa?
Put salmon in a can of bass loose profit
Put bass in a can of salmon loose customer
There is a cost associated with our decision.
Make a decision to minimize a given cost.
• Feature Extraction:
Problem & Domain dependent
Requires knowledge of the domain
A good feature extractor would make the job of the
classifier trivial.
⇒
⇒

Bayesian Decision Theory
http://webcourse.technion.ac.il/236607/Winter2002-2003/en/ho.html
Duda & Hart, Chapter 2
Bayesian decision theory is a fundamental statistical approach
to the problem of pattern classification.
Decision making when all the probabilistic
information is known.
For given probabilities the decision is optimal.
When new information is added, it is assimilated in
optimal fashion for improvement of decisions.

Bayesian Decision Theory …
Fish Example:
Each fish is in one of 2 states: sea bass or salmon
Let ω denote the state of nature
ω = ω1 for sea bass
ω = ω2 for salmon

The State of nature is unpredictable ω is a
variable that must be described probabilistically.
If the catch produced as much salmon as sea bass
the next fish is equally likely to be sea bass or
salmon.
Define
P(ω1 ) : a priori probability that the next fish is sea bass
P(ω2 ): a priori probability that the next fish is salmon.
⇒

If other types of fish are irrelevant:
P( ω1 ) + P( ω2 ) = 1.
Prior probabilities reflect our prior
knowledge (e.g. time of year, fishing area, …)
Simple decision Rule:
Make a decision without seeing the fish.
Decide w1 if P( ω1 ) > P( ω2 ); ω2 otherwise.
OK if deciding for one fish
If several fish, all assigned to same class.

Bayesian Decision Theory ...
In general, we will have some features and
more information.
Feature: lightness measurement = x
Different fish yield different lightness readings
(x is a random variable)

Bayesian Decision Theory ….
Define
p(x|ω1) = Class Conditional Probability Density
Probability density function for x given that the
state of nature is ω1
The difference between p(x|ω1 ) and p(x|ω2 ) describes the
difference in lightness between sea bass and salmon.

Class conditioned probability density: p(x|ω)
Hypothetical class-conditional probability
Density functions are normalized (area under each curve is 1.0)

Suppose that we know
The prior probabilities P(ω1 ) and P(ω2 ),
The conditional densities and
Measure lightness of a fish = x.
What is the category of the fish ?
1( | )p x ω 2( | )p x ω
( | )jp xω
Bayesian Decision Theory ...

Bayes Formula
Given
– Prior probabilities P(ωj)
– Conditional probabilities p(x| ωj)
Measurement of particular item
– Feature value x
Bayes formula:
(from )
where
so
)(
)()|(
)(
xp
Pxp
xP
jj
j
ωω
ω =
∑=
i
ii Pxpxp )()|()( ωω
∑ =
i
i xP 1)|(ω
)()|()()|(),( xpxPPxpxp jjjj ωωωω ==
Likelihood Prior
Posterior
Evidence
∗
=

Bayes' formula ...
• p(x|ωj ) is called the likelihood of ωj with
respect to x.
(the ωj category for which p(x|ωj ) is large is more
"likely" to be the true category)
•p(x) is the evidence
how frequently we will measure a pattern with
feature value x.
Scale factor that guarantees that the posterior
probabilities sum to 1.

Posterior Probability
Posterior probabilities for the particular priors P(ω1)=2/3 and P(ω2)=1/3.
At every x the posteriors sum to 1.

Bayes' Decision Rule
(Minimizes the probability of error)
ω1 : if P(ω1|x) > P(ω2|x) i.e.
ω2 : otherwise
or
ω1 : if P ( x |ω1) P(ω1) > P(x|ω2) P(ω2)
ω2 : otherwise
and
P(Error|x) = min [P(ω1|x) , P(ω2|x)]
)()( 21
2
1
xPxP ωω
ω
ω
<
>
Likelihood ratio
)(
)(
)|(
)|(
)()|()()|(
2
1
2
1
2211
2
1
2
1
ω
ω
ω
ω
ωωωω
ω
ω
ω
ω
P
P
xp
xp
PxpPxp
<
>
⇔
<
>
Threshold

Decision Boundaries
Classification as division of feature space into
non-overlapping regions
Boundaries between these regions are known
as decision surfaces or decision
boundaries
kk
R
toassignedxXx
thatsuchXX
ω↔∈
,,1 K

Optimum decision boundaries
Criterion:
– minimize miss-classification
– Maximize correct-classification
)()(
yprobabilitposteriormaximum
..
)()()()(
xPxPkj
ei
PxpPxp
kjifXxClassify
jk
jjkk
k
ωω
ωωωω
>≠∀
>
≠∀∈
2
)()(
),()(
1
1
=
∈=
∈=
∑
∑
=
=
RHere
PXxP
XxPcorrectP
R
k
kkk
R
k
kk
ωω
ω

Discriminant functions
Discriminant functions determine
classification by comparison of their values:
Optimum classification: based on posterior
probability
Any monotone function g may be applied
without changing the decision boundaries
)()( xgxgkj
ifXxClassify
jk
k
>≠∀
∈
))(ln()(..
))(()(
xPxgge
xPgxg
kk
kk
ω
ω
=
=
)( xP kω

The Two-Category Case
Use 2 discriminant functions g1 and g2, and assigning x to ω1 if
g1>g2.
Alternative: define a single discriminant function g(x) = g1(x) -
g2(x), decide ω1 if g(x)>0, otherwise decide ω2.
Two category case
1 2
1 1
2 2
( ) ( | ) ( | )
( | ) ( )
( ) ln ln
( | ) ( )
g P P
p P
g
p P
ω ω
ω ω
ω ω
= −
= +
x x x
x
x
x

Summary
Bayes approach:
– Estimate class-conditioned probability density
– Combine with prior class probability
– Determine posterior class probability
– Derive decision boundaries
Alternate approach implemented by NN
– Estimate posterior probability directly
– i.e. determine decision boundaries directly

Discriminant Functions http://140.122.185.120
Determine the membership in a category by the
classifier based on the comparison of R discriminant
functions g1(x), g2(x),…, gR(x)
– When x is within the region Xk if gk(x) has the largest
value
Do not mix between n = dim of each I/P vector (dim of feature space); P= # of I/P
vectors; and R= # of classes.

Linear Machine and Minimum Distance
Classification
• Find the linear-form discriminant function for two class
classification when the class prototypes are known
• Example 3.1: Select the decision hyperplane that
contains the midpoint of the line segment connecting
center point of two classes

Classification… (dichotomizer)
•The dichotomizer’s discriminant function g(x):
t

Classification…(multiclass classification)
•The linear-form discriminant functions for multiclass
classification
– There are up to R(R-1)/2 decision hyperplanes for R
pairwise separable classes
(i.e. next to or touching another)

Classification… (multiclass classification)
•Linear machine or minimum-distance classifier
– Assume the class prototypes are known for all
classes
• Euclidean distance between input pattern x and the
center of class i, Xi:
t

Classification… (multiclass classification)

Classification…
Note: to find S12 we need to compute (g1-g2)
P1, P2, P3 are the centres of gravity of the prototype points, we need to design a minimum distance classifier. Using
the formulas from the previous slide, we get wi

Classification…
•If R linear discriminant functions exist for a set of
patterns such that
( ) ( )
ji,..., R,j,..., R,,i
i,gg ji
≠==
∈>
,2121
Classfor xxx
•The classes are linearly separable.

Classification… Example:

Classification… Example…

Classification…
•Examples 3.1 and 3.2 have shown that the coefficients
(weights) of the linear discriminant functions can be
determined if the a priori information about the sets of
patterns and their class membership is known
•In the next section (Discrete perceptron) we will
examine neural networks that derive their weights during
the learning cycle.

Classification…
•The example of linearly non-separable patterns

Classification…
Input space (x)
Image space (o)
)1sgn( 211 ++= xxo

Classification…
)1sgn( 211 ++= xxo
)1sgn( 212 +−−= xxo
-1111
11-11
111-1
1-1-1-1
o2o1x2x1
These 2 inputs map
to the same point
(1,1) in the image
space

Discrete Perceptron Training Algorithm
• So far, we have shown that coefficients of linear
discriminant functions called weights can be
determined based on a priori information about sets of
patterns and their class membership.
•In what follows, we will begin to examine neural
network classifiers that derive their weights during the
learning cycle.
•The sample pattern vectors x1, x2, …, xp, called the
training sequence, are presented to the machine along
with the correct response.

- Geometrical Representations http://140.122.185.120
Zurada, Chapter 3
(Intersects the origin
point w=0)
5 prototype patterns in this case: y1, y2, …y5
If dim of augmented pattern vector is > 3, our power of visualization are no longer of assistance. In this case,
the only recourse is to use the analytical approach.

- Geometrical Representations…
•Devise an analytic approach based on the geometrical
representations
– E.g. the decision surface for the training pattern y1
If y1 in
Class 1:
y1 in Class 2
( ) 11 yyww =∇ t
1
1
yww c+=′
y1 in Class 1
If y1 in
Class 2:
1
1
yww c−=′
c (>0) is the correction
increment (is two times the
learning constant ρ
introduced before)
Weight
Space
Weight
Space
c controls the
size of adjustment
Gradient
(the direction of
steepest increase)
(see previous slide)
(correction in negative gradient direction)

Note 2: c is not constant and depends on the current training pattern as expressed by eq. Above.
Note 1: p=distance so >0
pc t
t
== y
yy
yw
y
1

•For fixed correction rule: c=constant, the correction of
weights is always the same fixed portion of the current
training vector
– The weight can be initialised at any value
•For dynamic correction rule: c depends on the distance
from the weight (i.e. the weight vector) to the decision
surface in the weight space. Hence
– The initial weight should be different from 0.
(if w1=0, then cy =0 and w’=w1+cy=0, therefore no possible adjustments).
Current input
pattern
Current weight

•Dynamic correction rule: Using the value of c from previous slide as
a reference, we devise an adjustment technique which depends on
the length w2-w1
Νote: λ is the ratio of the distance
between the old weight vector w1
and the new w2, to the distance
from w1 to the pattern hyperplane
λ=2: Symmetrical reflection w.r.t decision plane
λ=0: No weight adjustment

•Example:
2class:1,2,5.0
1class:1,3,1
4242
3131
−==−=−=
====
ddxx
ddxx
•The augmented input vectors are:





−
=





=




−
=





=
1
2
1
3
,
1
5.0
,
1
1
4321 yyyy
•The decision lines wtyi=0, for i=1, 2, 3, 4 are sketched
on the augmented weight space as follows:

[ ]t
75.15.2and1cFor 1
−== w
•Using the weight training with each step can
be summarized as follows:
yww c±='
kk
kt
k
k
d
c
yyww )]sgn([
2
−=∆
•We obtain the following outputs and weight updates:
•Step 1: Pattern y1 is input





−
=+=
=−
−=













−=
75.2
5.1
2
1
1
1
]75.15.2[sgn
112
11
1
yww
od
o






 −
=−=
−=−
=












−
−=
75.1
1
2
1
1
5.0
]75.25.1[sgn
223
22
2
yww
od
o






=+=
=−
−=













−=
75.2
2
2
1
1
3
]75.11[sgn
334
33
3
yww
od
o

• Since we have no evidence of correct classification of
weight w4 the training set consisting of an ordered
sequence of patterns y1 ,y2 and y3 needs to be recycled.
We thus have y4= y1 , y5= y2, etc (the superscript is used
to denote the following training step number).
•Step 4, 5: w6 = w5 = w4 (no misclassification, thus no
weight adjustments).
•You can check that the adjustment following in steps 6
through 10 are as follows:
[ ]
[ ]t
t
75.03
75.15.2
11
78910
7
=
===
=
w
wwww
w
w11 is in solution area.

Continuous Perceptron Training Algorithm
http://140.122.185.120
Zurada, Chapter 3
•Replace the TLU (Threshold Logic Unit) with the
sigmoid activation function for two reasons:
– Gain finer control over the training procedure
– Facilitate the differential characteristics to enable
computation of the error gradient
(of current
error function)
The factor ½ does not affect the location of
the error minimum

Continuous Perceptron Training Algorithm…
•The new weights is obtained by moving in the direction
of the negative gradient along the multidimensional error
surface
By definition of the steepest descent concept,
each elementary move should be
perpendicular to the current error contour.

•Define the error as the squared difference between the
desired output and the actual output
1,...,2,1
)(
havewe,Since +==
∂
∂
= niy
w
net
net i
i
t
yw
Training rule of
continous perceptron
(equivalent to delta
training rule)

Same as previous example (of discrete perceptron) but with a
continuous activation function and using the delta rule.
Same training pattern set as
discrete perceptron example

2
1
)exp(1
2
2
1












−
−+
−= k
k
k
net
dE
λ
[ ]
2
21
1 1
)(exp1
2
1
2
1
)(












−
+−+
−=
ww
E
λ
w
formfollowingthetoexpressionthissimplifiestermsthereducingand1=λ
[ ]2
21
1
)exp(1
2
)(
ww
E
++
=w
similarly
[ ]2
21
2
)5.0exp(1
2
)(
ww
E
−+
=w
[ ]2
21
3
)3exp(1
2
)(
ww
E
++
=w
[ ]2
21
4
)2exp(1
2
)(
ww
E
−+
=w
These error surfaces are as shown on the previous slide.

minimum

Multi-category Single layer Perceptron nets
•Treat the last fixed component of input pattern vector as
the neuron activation threshold…. T=wn+1
yn+1= -1 (irrelevant wheter it
is equal to +1 or –1)

Multi-category Single layer Perceptron nets…
• R-category linear classifier using R discrete bipolar
perceptrons
– Goal: The i-th TLU response of +1 is indicative of
class i and all other TLU respond with -1

•Example 3.5
t
1)1,-(-1,
beshould
Indecision regions = regions
where no class membership of
an input pattern can be
uniquely determined based on
the response of the classifier
(patterns in shaded areas are
not assigned any reasonable
classification. E.g. point Q for
which o=[1 1 –1]t => indecisive
response). However no
patterns such as Q have been
used for training in the
example.

[ ] [ ]tt
131and210 1
3
1
2 −=−= ww[ ]t
021and1cFor 1
1 −== w
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] *1
1
2
10
131sgn
1
1
2
10
210sgn
1
1
2
10
021sgn
=




















−
−
−=




















−
−
=




















−
− Since the
only
incorrect
response is
provided
by TLU3,
we have









−
=










−
−










−
=
=
=
0
1
9
1
2
10
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
w
ww
ww

[ ]
[ ]
[ ] 1
1
5
2
019sgn
1
1
5
2
210sgn
*1
1
5
2
021sgn
−=




















−
−−
=




















−
−−
=




















−
−−
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
5
2
0
2
1
ww
ww
w
=
=









−
=










−
−−










=

3
3
4
3
3
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
4
ww
ww
w
=
=










−=
One can
verify that
the only
adjusted
weights
from now
on are those
of TLU1
( )
( )
( ) 1sgn
1sgn
*1sgn
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
=
−=
=
yw
yw
yw
t
t
t
• During the second cycle:










−=










=
=
4
2
7
3
3
2
7
1
6
1
4
1
5
1
w
w
ww










=
=
5
3
5
9
1
7
1
8
1
w
ww

•R-category linear classifier using R continuous bipolar
perceptrons

Comparison between Perceptron and
Bayes’ Classifier
Perceptron operates on the promise that the patterns to be
classified are linear separable (otherwise the training algorithm will
oscillate), while Bayes classifier can work on nonseparable
patterns
Bayes classifier minimizes the probability of misclassification
which is independent of the underlying distribution
Bayes classifier is a linear classifier on the assumption of
Gaussianity
The perceptron is non-parametric, while Bayes classifier is
parametric (its derivation is contingent on the assumption of the
underlying distributions)
The perceptron is adaptive and simple to implement
the Bayes’ classifier could be made adaptive but at the expense of
increased storage and more complex computations

APPENDIX A
Unconstrained Optimization
Techniques

Unconstrained Optimization Techniques
http://ai.kaist.ac.kr/~jkim/cs679/
Haykin, Chapter 3
Cost function E(ww)
– continuously differentiable
– a measure of how to choose ww of an adaptive
filtering algorithm so that it behaves in an optimum
manner
we want to find an optimal solution ww* that minimize
E(ww)
– local iterative descent :
starting with an initial guess denoted by ww(0),
generate a sequence of weight vectors ww(1), ww(2),
…, such that the cost function E(ww) is reduced at
each iteration of the algorithm, as shown by
E(ww(n+1)) < E(ww(n))
– Steepest Descent, Newton’s, Gauss-Newton’s
methods
0*)( =∇ wE
r

Method of Steepest Descent
Here the successive adjustments applied to ww
are in the direction of steepest descent, that
is, in a direction opposite to the grad(E(ww))
ww(n+1) = ww(n) - a gg(n)
a : small positive constant called step size or
learning-rate parameter.
gg(n) : grad(E(ww))
The method of steepest descent converges to
the optimal solution w*w* slowly
The learning rate parameter a has a profound
influence on its convergence behavior
– overdamped, underdamped, or even
unstable(diverges)

Newton’s Method
Using a second-order Taylor series expansion of the
cost function around the point ww(n)
∆E(ww(n)) = E(ww(n+1)) - E(ww(n))
~ ggT(n) ∆ww(n) + 1/2 ∆wwT(n) HH(n) ∆ww(n)
where ∆ww(n) = ww(n+1) - ww(n) ,
HH(n) : Hessian matrix of E(n)
We want ∆ww**(n) that minimize ∆E(ww(n)) so
differentiate ∆E(ww(n)) with respect to ∆ww(n) :
gg(n) + HH(n) ∆ww**(n) = 0
so,
∆ww**(n) = -HH--11(n) gg(n)

Newton’s Method…
Finally,
ww(n+1) = ww(n) + ∆ww(n)
= ww(n) - HH--11(n) gg(n)
Newton’s method converges quickly
asymptotically and does not exhibit the
zigzagging behavior
the Hessian HH(n) has to be a positive definite
matrix for all n

Gauss-Newton Method
The Gauss-Newton method is applicable to a
cost function
Because the error signal e(i) is a function of ww,
we linearize the dependence of e(i) on ww by
writing
Equivalently, by using matrix notation we may
write
∑=
=
n
i
iewE
1
2
)(
2
1
)(
r
))((
)(
)(),('
)(
nww
w
ie
iewie
T
nww
rr
r
r
rr
−





∂
∂
+=
=
))()(()(),(' nwwnJnewne
rrrrr
−+=

Gauss-Newton Method…
where JJ(n) is the n-by-m Jacobian matrix of
ee(n) (see bottom of this slide)
We want updated weight vector ww(n+1)
defined by
simple algebraic calculation tells…
Now differentiate this expression with respect
to ww and set the result to 0, we obtain






=+
2
),('
2
1
minarg)1( wnenw
w
rrr
r
))()(()())((
2
1
))()(()()(
2
1
),('
2
1 22
nwwnJnJnwwnwwnJnenewne TTT rrrrrrrrrr
−−+−+=






















∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
=
M
M
M
w
ne
w
ne
w
ne
w
ke
w
ke
w
ke
w
e
w
e
w
e
J
)()()(
)()()(
)1()1()1(
1
1
1
LL
MLMLM
LL
MLMLM
LL
α
α
α

Gauss-Newton Method…
0))()(()()()( =−+ nwwnJnJnenJ TT rrr
Thus we get
To guard against the possibility that the matrix
product JJT(n)JJ(n) is singular, the customary practice
is
where is a small positive constant.
This modification effect is progressively reduced as
the number of iterations, n, is increased.
δ
)()())()(()()1( 1
nenJnJnJnwnw TT rrr −
−=+
)()())()(()()1( 1
nenJInJnJnwnw TT rrr −
+−=+ δ

Linear Least-Squares Filter
The single neuron around which it is built is linear
The cost function consists of the sum of error
squares
Using and the error
vector is
Differentiating with respect to
correspondingly,
From Gauss-Newton method, (eq. 3.22)
)()()( iiiy T
wx= )()()( iyidie −=
)()()()( nnnn wXde −=
)(nw
)()( nn T
Xe −=∇
)()( nn XJ −=
)()()()())()(()1( 1
nnnnnnn TT
dXdXXXw +−
==+

LMS Algorithm
Based on the use of instantaneous values for
cost function :
Differentiating with respect to ,
The error signal in LMS algorithm :
hence,
so,
)(
2
1
)( 2
neE =w
w
ww
w
∂
∂
=
∂
∂ )(
)(
)( ne
ne
E
)()()()( nnndne T
wx−=
)(
)(
)(
n
n
ne
x
w
−=
∂
∂
)()(
)(
)(
nen
n
E
x
w
w
−=
∂
∂

LMS Algorithm …
Using as an estimate for the gradient
vector,
Using this for the gradient vector of steepest
descent method, LMS algorithm as follows :
– : learning-rate parameter
The inverse of is a measure of the
memory of the LMS algorithm
– When is small, the adaptive process
progress slowly, more of the past data are
remembered and a more accurate filtering
action’
)(
)(
n
E
w
w
∂
∂
)()()(ˆ nenn xg −=
)()()(ˆ)1(ˆ nennn xww η+=+
η
η
η

LMS Characteristics
LMS algorithm produces an estimate of the
weight vector
– Sacrifice a distinctive feature
• Steepest descent algorithm : follows a
well-defined trajectory
• LMS algorithm : follows a random
trajectory
– Number of iterations goes infinity,
performs a random walk
But importantly, LMS algorithm does not
require knowledge of the statistics of the
environment
)(nw
)(ˆ nw
)(ˆ nw

Convergence Consideration
Two distinct quantities, and determine
the convergence
– the user supplies , and the selection of
is important for the LMS algorithm to
converge
Convergence of the mean
as
– This is not a practical value
Convergence in the mean square
Convergence condition for LMS algorithm in the
mean square
η )(nx
)(nxη
[ ] 0)(ˆ ww →nE ∞→n
[ ] ∞→→ nneE asconstant)(2
inputssensortheofvaluessquare-meanofsum
2
0 <<η

APPENDIX B
Perceptron Convergence Proof

Perceptron Convergence Proof Haykin, Chapter 3
Consider the following perceptron:
)()(
)()()(
0
nn
nxnwnv
T
m
i
ii
xw=
= ∑=
1Cclasstobelongingorinput vecteveryfor0 xxw >T
2Cclasstobelongingorinput vecteveryfor0 xxw ≤T

Perceptron Convergence Proof…
The algorithm for the weight adjustment for the
perceptron
– if x(n) is correctly classified no adjustments to w
– otherwise
– learning rate parameter controls adjustment
applied to weight vector
1Cclasstobelongs)(and0)(if)()1( nnnn T
xxwww >=+
2Cclasstobelongs)(and0)(if)()1( nnnn T
xxwww ≤=+
Cclasstobelongs)(and0)(if)()()()1( nnnnnn T
xxwxww >−=+ η
Cclasstobelongs)(and0)(if)()()()1( nnnnnn T
xxwxww ≤+=+ η
)(nη
2
1

For 0w == )0(and1)(nη
Suppose the perceptron incorrectly classifies the vectors
such that),...2(),1( xx
1Ctobelonging(n)for)()()1(
1sinceBut
)()()()1(:thatso0)(
xxww
xwwxw
nnn
nnnnnT
+=+
⇒=
+=+≤
η
η
)1B()(...)2()1()1(
)1(findy weiterativel,(0)Since
nn
n
xxxw
w0w
+++=+
+=
Since the classes C1 and C2 are assumed to be linearly
separable, there exists a solution w0 for which wTx(n)>0 for
the vectors x(1), …x(n) belonging to the subset H1(subset of
training vectors that belong to class C1).

)2()(min 0
)( 1
BnT
Hn
xw
x ∈
=α
For a fixed solution w0, we may then define a positive number
α as
)(...)2()1()1(
impliesabove(B1)equationHence
T
0
T
0
T
0
T
0 nn xwxwxwww +++=+
Using equation B2 above, (since each term is greater or equal
than α), we have
αnn ≥+ )1(T
0 ww
Now we use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality:
0for
).(
or).(
2
2
2
2
222
≠≥
≤
b
b
ba
a
baba

This implies that:
)3()1( 2
0
22
2
B
n
n
w
w
α
≥+
Now let’s follow another development route (notice index k)
1H(k)and1for)()()1( ∈=+=+ xxww , ..., nkkkk
By taking the squared Euclidean norm of both sides, we get:
)()(2)()()1(
222
kkkkk T
xwxww ++=+
But under the assumption the the perceptron incorrectly
classifies an input vector x(k) belonging to the subset H1, we
have :henceand0)()( <kkT
xw
222
)()()1( kkk xww +≤+

Or equivalently,
nkkkk ,...1;)()()1(
222
=≤−+ xww
Adding these inequalities for k=1,…n, and invoking the initial
condition w(0)=0, we get the following inequality:
)4()()1(
1
22
Bnkn
n
k
β≤≤+ ∑=
xw
Where β is a positive number defined by;
∑=
∈
=
n
k
Hk
k
1
2
)(
)(max
1
x
x
β
Eq. B4 states that the squared Euclidean norm of w(n+1)
grows at most linearly with the number of iterations n.

The second result of B4 is clearly in conflict with Eq. B3.
•Indeed, we can state that n cannot be larger than some
value nmax for which Eq. B3 and B4 are both satisfied with
the equality sign. That is nmax is the solution of the eq.
•Solving for nmax given a solution w0, we find that
We have thus proved that for η(n)=1 for all n, and for w(0)=0,
given that a sol’ vector w0 exists, the rule for adapting the
synaptic weights of the perceptron must terminate after at most
nmax iterations.
β
α
max2
0
22
max
n
n
=
w
2
2
0
max
α
β w
=n

Suggested Reading.
S. Haykin, “Neural Networks”, Prentice-Hall, 1999,
chapter 3.
L. Fausett, “Fundamentals of Neural Networks”,
Prentice-Hall, 1994, Chapter 2.
R. O. Duda, P.E. Hart, and D.G. Stork, “Pattern
Classification”, 2nd edition, Wiley 2001. Appendix A4,
chapter 2, and chapter 5.
J.M. Zurada, “Introduction to Artificial Neural Systems”,
West Publishing Company, 1992, chapter 3.

References:
These lecture notes were based on the references of the
previous slide, and the following references
1. Berlin Chen Lecture notes: Normal University, Taipei,
Taiwan, ROC. http://140.122.185.120
2. Ehud Rivlin, IIT:
http://webcourse.technion.ac.il/236607/Winter2002-
2003/en/ho.html
3. Jin Hyung Kim, KAIST Computer Science Dept., CS679
Neural Network lecture notes
http://ai.kaist.ac.kr/~jkim/cs679/detail.htm
4. Dr John A. Bullinaria, Course Material, Introduction to
Neural Networks,
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jxb/inn.html

Artificial Neural Network Lect4 : Single Layer Perceptron Classifiers

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Artificial Neural Network Lect4 : Single Layer Perceptron Classifiers

Recently uploaded

In this document

Artificial Neural Network Lect4 : Single Layer Perceptron Classifiers