Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!unmvax!deimos!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!kbesrl From: kbesrl@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets Subject: back-prop NNs and `SAS' regression! Message-ID: <220700005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 18 Dec 89 05:29:00 GMT Lines: 38 Nf-ID: #N:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:220700005:000:1634 Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!kbesrl Dec 17 23:29:00 1989 I have been experimenting with back-prop neural nets for the past few months. I find that they are only as good as polynomial regression. Actually, I ran a back-prop neural net on some continuous mapping problems and found that they achieved the same performance as the `SAS' statistical package. I am wondering whether this is true of other neural models. If so, how can one defend the use of neural nets as opposed to statistical regression. If someone can give me pointers to any papers that discuss these aspects, it would be appreciated. I also request NN-experts to e-mail their comments. I have these additional questions regarding the use of back-prop NNs. (I have to mention here that I have been using small 3-layer networks (5 nodes X {1 to 20 nodes} X 5 nodes) for learning continuous mappings.) 1. Is there a substantial benefit from using partial connections as opposed to fully-connected NNs? If so, in what situations is it advisable? 2. I found through experimentation that the number of hidden layers did not matter much; it is the total number of hidden nodes that mattered. 3. Is there a rule-of-thumb that sets a limit on the number of hidden nodes based on the number of examples/inputs/outputs? I find that for the best predictive accuracy (on unseen examples), the number of connections is approximately equal to the number of examples. Is this in general true? I'd appreciate any responses at sudha@kbesrl.me.uiuc.edu sudhakar y. reddy mechanical and industrial engineering university of illinois at urbana-champaign urbana, il 61801