search for: backpropag

I want to create a neural network, and then everytime it receives new data, instead of creating a new nnet, i want to use a backpropagation algorithm to adjust the weights in the already created nn. I'm using nnet package, I know that nn$wts gives the weights, but I cant find out which weights belong to which conections so I could implement the backpropagation algorithm myself. But if anyone knows some function to do this, i...

...affinitiy for %R0. The current solver does not use an "RN" rule as such (certainly nothing comparable to what was discussed in the 2002 Scholz/Eckstein paper). We have a heuristic rule for selecting nodes for reduction, but we do not propagate costs from heuristically reduced nodes until backpropagation. In fact, it seems even worse than this; if RN is used, then all neighbors are disconnected. So during backpropagation, unless I'm missing something, it seems we will only ever consider the node cost, never adding in any edge cost. I think you're right, but just to be precise: In the...

...g min(row/column i of edge A <--> B) but you can do better by adding B's cost vector to the row/column before computing the minimum. This way you also consider B's affinitiy for %R0. In fact, it seems even worse than this; if RN is used, then all neighbors are disconnected. So during backpropagation, unless I'm missing something, it seems we will only ever consider the node cost, never adding in any edge cost. On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 at 19:04 James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Sebastien, > > > I think one idea to improve the situation is to consider t...

...2 and r3. This becomes even more pronounced when I teach PBQP about how best to use registers to allow LDM/STM formation; the codegen is perfect apart from those two moves that just won't go. I've discovered that the underlying problem is that line (1) is reduced after line (2). During the backpropagation phase (1) is allocated r2 which means (2) cannot, as they interfere. Interestingly they're both reduced by rule RN and as the spill cost is the same between them (and they're both conservatively allocatable), it's pure luck which gets allocated first. I have a patch to account for...

...ed from the "neural" package to the "nnet" package and I've noticed that the training is orders of magnitude faster, and the results are way more accurate. This leads me to wonder, what training algorithm is "nnet" using? Is it a modification on the standard backpropagation? Or a completely different algorithm? I'm trying to account for the speed differences between neural and nnet, and the documentation on the nnet package is rather sparse on what training algorithm is used (either that, or I'm getting blind and missed it totally). Any help woul...

Hi to all, I planned to do project in gsoc... For OCR ( Optimal Character Recoganisation ) ... That is ,,, If we scanning one full text page from book, it will open into open office as word format. so that we can edit the page from scanned text page... I planned to convert scanned letters to words for Tamil, English Languages... I will try to support few more languages

Buenas, He estado leyendo publicaciones sobre las redes neuronales ( y el deep learning) pero no consigo entender el tipo de operaciones que se hacen en cada una de las capas de las redes neuronales. Necesito alguna explicacion más para tontos. ¿Alguien entiende bien lo que hace una red neuronal? Por ejemplo, un randomForest hace el ensamble por boostrap de árbole sde clasificación. Un SVM crea

Does anyone know of any SOM library for R? or any stand alone freeware? A search from google returns SOM_PAK 3.1 developed at Helsinki University of Technology. Is there newer version? Jun -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or

...:attemptTrivialCoalescing almost succeeded; it got as far as testing if the source register R0 is contained in the destination regclass (P). It isn't, so the move stayed in. The problem is that the source register is allocated before coalescing is attempted. The destination regclass does not backpropagate and so doesn't influence the allocation class. PBQP doesn't even attempt to remove a move unless source and destination regclasses are identical. > Right now the x86 target code has to explicitly spell out where > such copies are needed. It isn't a lot of trouble because the...

...t succeeded; it > got > as far as testing if the source register R0 is contained in the > destination regclass (P). It isn't, so the move stayed in. > > The problem is that the source register is allocated before coalescing > is attempted. The destination regclass does not backpropagate and > so doesn't influence the allocation class. The coalescer has the capability to coalesce cross register class copies. It's not quite done. Try -join-cross-class-copies. > > PBQP doesn't even attempt to remove a move unless source and > destination > regclass...

...2 and r3. This becomes even more pronounced when I teach PBQP about how best to use registers to allow LDM/STM formation; the codegen is perfect apart from those two moves that just won't go. I've discovered that the underlying problem is that line (1) is reduced after line (2). During the backpropagation phase (1) is allocated r2 which means (2) cannot, as they interfere. Interestingly they're both reduced by rule RN and as the spill cost is the same between them (and they're both conservatively allocatable), it's pure luck which gets allocated first. I have a patch to account for...

...ng RN (unsafe) to 0 safe = { }, unsafe = { 0 6 4 7 8 } Node 0 is pushed to the reduction stack and all of its edges are removed, including (0,4), throwing away the restriction that 4 must not be stored in a register. Node 4 is later reduced via R2, then assigned the cheaper register option during backpropagation. This eliminates all finite cost options for Node 5. This is our problem. In the PIC16 case where there are only two options, spill or register, I believe it should be possible to have RN preserve the constraints when it reduces a node. This is not possible when 3 or more options are present...

...afe = { 0 6 4 7 8 } > > Node 0 is pushed to the reduction stack and all of its edges are > removed, including (0,4), throwing away the restriction that 4 must > not be stored in a register. > > Node 4 is later reduced via R2, then assigned the cheaper register > option during backpropagation. This eliminates all finite cost options > for Node 5. This is our problem. > > In the PIC16 case where there are only two options, spill or register, > I believe it should be possible to have RN preserve the constraints > when it reduces a node. This is not possible when 3 or...

...ts 10 -> 9 NId 2(%vreg4, GPR64common) moved to conservatively-allocatables. ... Popped NId 2(%vreg4, GPR64common) , all edge costs added: 2.002748e+01 inf inf inf inf inf inf inf inf inf inf ** selection: 0 llc: ../include/llvm/CodeGen/PBQP/ReductionRules.h:214: llvm::PBQP::Solution llvm::PBQP::backpropagate(GraphT&, StackT, llvm::PBQP::NodeSet&) [with GraphT = llvm::PBQP::Gra ph<llvm::PBQP::RegAlloc::RegAllocSolverImpl>; StackT = std::vector<unsigned int>; llvm::PBQP::NodeSet = std::set<unsigned int>]: Assertion `PushedAsConservativelyAllocatabl eNodes.find(NId) == PushedA...

On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a backend for the Blackfin processor from Analog > Devices. I > just started so I still have a lot to learn about the code > generator. So > far, I can compile test/CodeGen/Generic/BasicInstrs.ll correctly, but > that is about it. > > The Blackfin 32-bit registers divide naturally

Hi Lang, > Hmm. Let me make sure I'm reading this right. The constraints are that: > a) All four operands have distinct registers. > b) The first two are in a consecutive pair (second > first) > c) The second two are in a consecutive pair (fourth > third) Constraints b & c are OK, but a is too strict : "mpra %R0, %R1, %R0, %R1" is OK. But I though, may be

Hi Lang, I'm surprised about the fact that you omit R1/R2 reductions in some cases. Can you give a more detailed description of the bug (e.g. a PBQP dump)? Best regards, Sebastian Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Sachin, llvm-dev, > > I've just committed a new PBQP solver which, among other things, > should take care of this bug. > > Please let me know how it works out for you.

...ed to conservatively-allocatables. > > ... > > Popped NId 2(%vreg4, GPR64common) , all edge costs added: > > 2.002748e+01 inf inf inf inf inf inf inf inf inf inf ** selection: 0 > > llc: ../include/llvm/CodeGen/PBQP/ReductionRules.h:214: > llvm::PBQP::Solution llvm::PBQP::backpropagate(GraphT&, StackT, > llvm::PBQP::NodeSet&) [with GraphT = llvm::PBQP::Gra > > ph<llvm::PBQP::RegAlloc::RegAllocSolverImpl>; StackT = > std::vector<unsigned int>; llvm::PBQP::NodeSet = std::set<unsigned int>]: > Assertion `PushedAsConservativelyAllocatabl &g...

> A node should never be put into the conservatively allocatable list if there is a chance of it spilling. I can understand why the logic of NodeMetadata::isConservativelyAllocatable is necessary for the node to be allocatable, but I have not been able to convince myself this is sufficient, especially when the node degree > available registers. Cheers, Arnaud From:

Hi Sachin, llvm-dev, I've just committed a new PBQP solver which, among other things, should take care of this bug. Please let me know how it works out for you. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > Yes. Bernhard Scholz and I have just discussed a fix for this. I hope to > commit it in the next few days. I