Our code is still not working. It output all 1 or 0.5. It does not matter hidden nodes are 4 or 3. I am debugging.
-0.4163972 -0.033518642 -0.06692931
-0.17339796 -0.47729293 0.15944296
-0.07559389 -0.49864313 0.3634023
0.09183085 0.42440486 -0.4376967
0.13798869 -0.020184219 0.41971022
0.36927378 0.22170097 -0.041680336
0.16361624 0.37312233 -0.42396492
-0.01616332 0.13210028 0.38027304
-0.29213065 0.3297658 0.022142708
-0.4882153 -0.4857897 0.27206308
-0.047113717 -0.26938063 0.39040202
-0.096156746 0.31632102 0.3547479
-0.40610617 0.01463002 -0.08343649
...
There are three columns. each column mean the weight between an input node and one of hidden nodes. First column is the weight between input node and the first hidden node, second column is weight between the input node and second hidden node, etc.
I don't know what it mean. Do you think the negative values of weights are incorrect? or not?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Brounstein
<tbro...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
So, I'm not sure I follow. Is the code working accurately? Also, the three hidden nodes was sort of arbitrary; if we have time let's try this with more or less hidden nodes to see if we can get a better solution.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:50 PM, dhye
<dh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
The label for the result of files in the test folder are correct.On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:28 PM, dhye
<dh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
The result shows all 0.5, while I run the test. I use all the train files in the Male and Female and use 3 hidden nodes.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Thomas Brounstein
<tbro...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
Did we label it with 100% accuracy?