Afrikaans
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bemba
Bengali
Bihari
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Catalan
Cebuano
Cherokee
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Ewe
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Ga
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Indonesian
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Kinyarwanda
Kirundi
Kongo
Korean
Krio (Sierra Leone)
Kurdish
Kurdish (Soranรฎ)
Kyrgyz
Laothian
Latin
Latvian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Lozi
Luganda
Luo
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mauritian Creole
Moldavian
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Montenegrin
Nepali
Nigerian Pidgin
Northern Sotho
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Oromo
Pashto
Polish
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Quechua
Romanian
Romansh
Runyakitara
Russian
Samoan
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Setswana
Seychellois Creole
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish
Spanish (Latin American)
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Tatar
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tonga
Tshiluba
Tumbuka
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Uighur
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Wolof
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu
In the last video, you saw one visualization of
the cost function J of w or J of w, b.
Let's look at some further
richer visualizations so that you can get
an even better intuition
about what the cost function is doing.
Here is what we've seen so far.
There's the model, the model's parameters w and b,
the cost function J of w and b,
as well as the goal of linear regression,
which is to minimize the cost function J of w
and b over parameters w and b.
In the last video,
we had temporarily set b to
zero in order to simplify the visualizations.
Now, let's go back to the original model with
both parameters w and b
without setting b to be equal to 0.
Same as last time,
we want to get a visual understanding
of the model function, f of x,
shown here on the left,
and how it relates to the cost function J of w,
b, shown here on the right.
Here's a training set of house sizes and prices.
Let's say you pick one possible function
of x, like this one.
Here, I've set w to 0.06 and b to
50. f of x is 0.06 times x plus 50.
Note that this is not
a particularly good model for this training set,
is actually a pretty bad model.
It seems to consistently underestimate housing prices.
Given these values for w and b let's look at what
the cost function J of w and b may look like.
Recall what we saw last time was when you had only w,
because we temporarily set b to zero to simplify things,
but then we had come up with a plot of the cost function
that look like this as a function of w only.
When we had only one parameter, w,
the cost function had this U-shaped curve,
shaped a bit like a soup bowl.
That sounds delicious.
Now, in this housing price example
that we have on this slide,
we have two parameters, w and b.
The plots becomes a little more complex.
It turns out that the cost function
also has a similar shape like a soup bowl,
except in three dimensions instead of two.
In fact, depending on your training set,
the cost function will look something like this.
To me, this looks like a soup bowl,
maybe because I'm a little bit hungry,
or maybe to you it looks like
a curved dinner plate or a hammock.
Actually that sounds relaxing too,
and there's your coconut drink.
Maybe when you're done with this course,
you should treat yourself to
vacation and relax in a hammock like this.
What you see here is a 3D-surface plot
where the axes are labeled w and b.
As you vary w and b,
which are the two parameters of the model,
you get different values for
the cost function J of w, and b.
This is a lot like the U-shaped curve
you saw in the last video,
except instead of having
one parameter w as input for the j,
you now have two parameters,
w and b as inputs into
this soup bowl or this hammock-shaped function
J. I just want to point out that any single point on
this surface represents some particular choice
of w and b.
For example, if w was minus 10 and b was minus 15,
then the height of the surface
above this point is the value of
j when w is minus 10 and b is minus 15.
Now, in order to look even more
closely at specific points,
there's another way of plotting
the cost function J
that would be useful for visualization,
which is, rather than using these 3D-surface plots,
I like to take this exact same function
J. I'm not changing
the function J at all and
plot it using something called a contour plot.
If you've ever seen a topographical map
showing how high different mountains are,
the contours in a topographical map are basically
horizontal slices of the landscape of say, a mountain.
This image is of Mount Fuji in Japan.
I still remember my family visiting
Mount Fuji when I was a teenager.
It's beautiful sights.
If you fly directly above the mountain,
that's what this contour map looks like.
It shows all the points,
they're at the same height for different heights.
At the bottom of this slide is a 3D-surface plot of
the cost function J.
I know it doesn't look very bowl-shaped,
but it is actually a bowl just very stretched out,
which is why it looks like that.
In an optional lab,
that is shortly to follow,
you will be able to see this in 3D and spin around
the surface yourself and it'll look
more obviously bowl-shaped there.
Next, here on the upper right is a contour plot of
this exact same cost function
as that shown at the bottom.
The two axes on this contour plots are b,
on the vertical axis,
and w on the horizontal axis.
What each of these ovals,
also called ellipses,
shows, is the center points on
the 3D surface which are at the exact same height.
In other words, the set of points which have
the same value for the cost function J.
To get the contour plots,
you take the 3D surface at the bottom and you
use a knife to slice it horizontally.
You take horizontal slices of
that 3D surface and get all the points,
they're at the same height.
Therefore, each horizontal slice ends up being shown
as one of these ellipses or one of these ovals.
Concretely, if you take that point,
and that point, and that point,
all of these three points have
the same value for the cost function J,
even though they have different values for w and b.
In the figure on the upper left,
you see also that these three points
correspond to different functions,
f, all three of which are actually pretty
bad for predicting housing prices in this case.
Now, the bottom of the bowl,
where the cost function J is at a minimum,
is this point right here,
at the center of this concentric ovals.
If you haven't seen contour plots much before,
I'd like you to imagine, if you will,
that you are flying high up above
the bowl in an airplane or in a rocket ship,
and you're looking straight down at it.
That is as if you set
your computer monitor flat on your desk
facing up and the bowl shape
is coming directly out of your screen,
rising above you desk.
Imagine that the bowl shape grows out of
your computer screen lying flat like that,
so that each of these ovals have
the same height above your screen and
the minimum of the bowl is right
down there in the center of the smallest oval.
It turns out that the contour plots are
a convenient way to visualize the 3D cost function J,
but in a way, there's plotted in just 2D.
In this video, you saw how
the 3D bowl-shaped surface plot
can also be visualized as a contour plot.
Using this visualization too,
in the next video,
let's visualize some specific choices
of w and b in the linear regression model
so that you can see how these different choices
affect the straight line you're fitting to the data.
Let's go on to the next video.
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.