# Machine learning study log

This is a study log of my progress in machine learning. I am trying to understand machine learning to get a better sense of AI safety (I think I understand the philosophical/strategic perspective well, having followed the output of the rationality community since around 2010/2011, but I don’t know much about ML itself or other technical details of AI development).

In parallel with learning ML, I am also reading more high level discussions about AI safety, but I won’t cover that on this page. (Not sure where I’ll cover it atm)

## Andrew Ng’s Coursera course

Began the course on 2017-10-19.

Completed the course on 2017-12-08.

I worked on the course during my after-work hours and on weekends.

The course was easy for me, because I already knew programming. I didn’t know any Octave but this wasn’t really a problem as the course covers the basics and it is easy enough to look up additional syntax.

The course doesn’t cover a lot of the math behind machine learning, which I think is another reason I felt the course was easy.

## After Ng – reinforcement learning?

After Ng’s course, I wasn’t sure what to do next. I checked out some resources on reinforcement learning (e.g Sutton & Barto) but found them rather difficult/not explained well so I stopped.

## Understanding more math

I started looking around for more resources on the theory behind machine learning.

On 2017-12-26, I created Comparison of machine learning textbooks because I got frustrated with being unable to keep all the ML books in my head (and the recommendations given in various online discussions).

2017-12-27: I got curious about probably approximately correct learning so decided to look through the textbooks on ML that covered that. I found this post which seems to be better at explaining PAC than any of the textbooks.

2017-12-28: I think I keep getting stuck on parts of textbooks that rely on results from probability, which I don’t know very well. Steps that rely on probability results look like magic to me, and I don’t like them. Even something supposedly simple like (taken from Mohri et al)

looks mysterious because I didn’t know the conversion rule from probability of the event to the expectation of the indicator of the event.

2018-01-01: studied some probability and made this
page. I think Rosenthal’s *A First Look at Rigorous Probability
Theory* was the most book here.

??: I started reading Andrew Ng’s course notes for CS229, and explored more textbooks.

(Lots of reading in AI strategy and other topics unrelated to AI safety here, so not much progress on machine learning.)

2018-01-31: started reading http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap1.html.

2018-02-01: continued reading chapter 1.

2018-02-04: finished chapter 1, starting on chapter 2
(backpropagation). Reread this post and
looked at a bunch of other explanations of backpropagation. Nielsen’s
explanation is usually clear but with backpropagation I find myself
quite confused. I think the treatment of partial derivatives as
*variables* rather than as just *functions* is a
notational convention I dislike.

2018-02-05: thought more about backpropagation, and looked back at
some explanations of the multivariable chain rule (Tao’s *Analysis
II*, Pugh’s real analysis, Folland’s *Advanced Calculus*,
David Massey’s multivariable calculus book). I remember being
unsatisfied with explanations of the chain rule several years ago, and
it *still* seems to me that the explanations are unsatisfactory.
On the other hand, writing something myself that I would be satisfied
with would take a long time and I’m not sure I could pull it off. I
think connecting the chain rule to computational graphs (something Chris
Olah and Folland do but the others don’t) is good for exposition,
especially since with neural networks you already are working with the
graph. Once you have the chain rule, you can use the graph as a
mnemonic, but is it possible to *see* the proof of the chain rule
by staring at the graph?

2018-02-06: something that confuses me about gradient descent in
neural networks is that we seem to be adjusting the weights at each
individual neuron using gradient descent, but what we really want to do
is to perform gradient descent with respect to the cost function (in
terms of all weights and biases) of the *whole* network. It’s not
intuitively clear to me why working on each neuron in isolation really
does gradient descent for the whole network. For instance, the weights
for the neurons in the earlier layers are being adjusted for the old
output, but by the time backpropagation gets to these early weights, the
weights further downstream in the network have changed! How do the
“demons” (to use Nielsen’s analogy) in the earlier layers know to adjust
even as their attempts are “thwarted” by demons in later layers?

Let’s say we have some cost function that we’re trying to minimize. What is
the type of ? It gives a cost as a
real number, so we can write . It takes as input all the weights in our network,
and each weight is a matrix, so it looks like the cost function takes
something in , where is the number
of layers, is the maximum number
of neurons in layers except the first, and is the maximum number of neurons in
layers except the last, or something like that. I say “maximum” we need
at least that much in dimension to accommodate all the weights, but
since many of those weights will take up less dimension, there will be
some sort of “blanks”; I’m not sure what these look like. (I think this
is part of why I’m not satisfied by any of the explanations of
backpropagation that I have seen, because I don’t think any of them have
mentioned these “blanks”.) (ETA2018-02-26: I think this line of thinking
if wrong. The actual dimension of the domain is the total number of
*cells* in all the weight matrices, and you can think of the cost
function as taking the individual cells as inputs rather than the
matrices.)

So will consist of coordinates .

2018-02-07: reading about lagrange multipliers and backpropagation:

- Backprop is not just the chain rule
- Evaluating ∇f(x) is as fast as f(x)
- Understanding Lagrange Multipliers
- Lagrange Multipliers without Permanent Scarring

2018-02-19: continued with chapter 3.

2018-02-20: continued with chapter 3.

2018-02-21: continued with chapter 3.

2018-02-25: continued a little with chapter 3.

2018-02-26: completed chapter 3.

I’ve been doing most of the math/thought exercises but I’ve been skipping the programming ones because they seem really straightforward. I’d rather work on an actual project than doing tiny programming stuff, since I already did a bunch of the latter in Ng’s course. With the thought exercises, it’s difficult to tell if I’m going in the right direction.

I am “skipping” chapter 4 because I actually read it some time ago (before I even began the rest of the book).

So now I’m starting with chapter 5.

Sadly, it looks like I’ve forgotten a lot of the more advanced “algebra tricks” I learned in high school. This book would have been much easier to go through about five years ago.

Finished chapter 5.

2018-02-27: starting on chapter 6.

2018-02-28: continued with chapter 6.

(I think there was one or two days in between here where I read more of chapter 6, but I forgot to record.)

2018-03-04: finished chapter 6. I didn’t do any of the exercises/problems here.

Finished appendix.

Looked through the Wikipedia page on convolutional neural network, which I probably looked at a long time ago (but it didn’t make any sense at that point).

Quickly looked at http://ufldl.stanford.edu/tutorial/supervised/ConvolutionalNeuralNetwork/.

Read http://colah.github.io/posts/2014-07-Conv-Nets-Modular/ again, which makes much more sense now that I’ve read Nielsen’s book.

Read http://colah.github.io/posts/2014-07-Understanding-Convolutions/ again.

Started reading http://www.deeplearningbook.org/contents/mlp.html.

2018-03-05: read http://rll.berkeley.edu/deeprlcourse/f17docs/lecture_1_introduction.pdf

Read chapters 1–2 of Ng’s thesis.

From page 13:

But because of the Markov property of MDPs (informally, that the future is conditionally independent of the past given the current state), to attain the optimal expected sum of rewards, it suffices to choose actions only [as] a function of the current state . [Rather than as a function of the previous and current states .]

The above isn’t intuitively obvious to me. I should spend some time later thinking about it.

Tried reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.05866.pdf; I understood some of it (especially the parts that were already covered in other places) but a lot of it was too terse for me to really understand.