I was implementing a GRU in keras, I was still a bit confused about some things, but got to a model:
modelGRU = tf.keras.models.Sequential()
modelGRU.add(layers.Bidirectional(tf.keras.layers.GRU(50, activation='tanh', input_shape=(1, 4))))
modelGRU.add(layers.Dense(99))
Then I've found out that my model does not make any sense, since I put the model parameters (which are 4 parameters like depth, angle, ..., which are the same at all times) in a single GRU. This gives me an output of dimensions 100 (50*2), and then a dense layer is used to generate the 99 outputs. These 99 outputs are a timeseries and that is why I initially taught of GRU, but of course this implementation above is not right, since my model parameters have no time or sequential information. However, this model seems to be working better than the model I have implemented once I understood everything better:
params_input = keras.Input(shape=(99,4))
aantal_units = 5
naRNN = (tf.keras.layers.GRU(aantal_units,input_shape=(99,5),return_sequences=True))(params_input)
ylist = tf.unstack(naRNN,num=99,axis=1)
ylistdense = []
for ii in range(0,99):
yy = tf.keras.layers.Dense(1,activation='linear')(ylist[ii])
ylistdense.append(yy)
conc = tf.keras.layers.concatenate(ylistdense)
model = keras.Model(inputs=params_input,outputs=conc)
Here for my input I copied 99 times the model parameters, in order to have an input of shape (99,4), put these in an GRU layer, and then for every timestep individually I make a dense layer in order to predict the outcome.
Her the architecture of my second implementation is visualized
So my question is: can a GRU be used for non sequential input? or is there something wrong with my second implementation?
Related
I want to do predictions with a LSTM model, but the dataset isn't a single file, it's composed with multiple files (for example 3 Excels).
I've already checked that if you want to deal with a time series forecasting problem you have to prepare your data like (number of samples, number of time steps, number of features) and it works well if I implement this for a single Excel.
The problem consists in training with the three Excels at the same time, in this case the input tensor for the LSTM layer has the shape: (n_files, n_samples, n_timesteps, n_features), with dim = 4. This doesn't work because LSTM layers only admits input tensors with dim = 3.
My files have the same amount of data. It's collected from a device and the data has 1 value for each minute along the duration of the experiment. All the experiments have the same duration too.
I've tried to concatenate the files in order to have 1, and choosing the batch_size as the number of samples in one Excel (because I can't mix the different experiments) but it doesn't produce a good result (at least as good as the results from predicting with 1 experiment).
def build_model():
model = keras.Sequential([
layers.Masking(mask_value = 0.0, input_shape=[1,1]),
layers.LSTM(50, return_sequences=True),
layers.Dense(1)
])
optimizer = tf.keras.optimizers.Adam(0.001)
model.compile(loss='mse',
optimizer=optimizer,
metrics=['mae','RootMeanSquaredError'])
return model
model_pred = build_model()
model_pred.fit(Xchopped_train, ychopped_train, batch_size = 252,
epochs=500, verbose=1)
Where Xchopped_train and ychopped_train are the concatenated data from the 3 Excel.
Another thing I've tried is to train the model within a loop, and changing the Excel:
for i in range(len(Xtrain)):
model_pred.fit(Xtrain[i], Ytrain[i], epochs=167, verbose=1)
Where Xtrain is (3,252,1,1) and the first index refers to the number of Excel.
And by far this is my best approach but it feels like this isn't a good solution since I don't know what's happening with the NN weights or which loss function is minimizing...
Is there a more efficient way to do this? Thanks!
I'm trying to teach myself machine learning and I have a similar question to this.
Is this correct:
For example, if I have an input matrix, where X1, X2 and X3 are three numerical features (e.g. say they are petal length, stem length, flower length, and I'm trying to label whether the sample is a particular flower species or not):
x1 x2 x3 label
5 1 2 yes
3 9 8 no
1 2 3 yes
9 9 9 no
That you take the vector of the first ROW (not column) of the table above to be inputted into the network like this:
i.e. there would be three neurons (1 for each value of the first table row), and then w1,w2 and w3 are randomly selected, then to calculate the first neuron in the next column, you do the multiplication I have described, and you add a randomly selected bias term. This gives the value of that node.
This is done for a set of nodes (i.e. each column actually will have four nodes (three + a bias), for simplicity, i removed the other three nodes from the second column), and then in the last node before the output, there is an activation function to transform the sum into a value (e.g. 0-1 for sigmoid) and that value tells you whether the classification is yes or no.
I'm sorry for how basic this is, I want to really understand the process, and I'm doing it from free resources. So therefore generally, you should select the number of nodes in your network to be a multiple of the number of features, e.g. in this case, it would make sense to write:
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.models import Dense
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(6,input_dim=3,activation='relu'))
model.add(Dense(6,input_dim=3,activation='relu'))
model.add(Dense(3,activation='softmax'))
What I don't understand is why the keras model has an activation function in each layer of the network and not just at the end, which is why I'm wondering if my understanding is correct/why I added the picture.
Edit 1: Just a note I saw that in the bias neuron, I put on the edge 'b=1', that might be confusing, I know the bias doesn't have a weight, so that was just a reminder to myself that the weight of the bias node is 1.
Several issues here apart from the question in your title, but since this is not the time & place for full tutorials, I'll limit the discussion to some of your points, taking also into account that at least one more answer already exists.
So therefore generally, you should select the number of nodes in your network to be a multiple of the number of features,
No.
The number of features is passed in the input_dim argument, which is set only for the first layer of the model; the number of inputs for every layer except the first one is simply the number of outputs of the previous one. The Keras model you have written is not valid, and it will produce an error, since for your 2nd layer you ask for input_dim=3, while the previous one has clearly 6 outputs (nodes).
Beyond this input_dim argument, there is no other relationship whatsoever between the number of data features and the number of network nodes; and since it seems you have in mind the iris data (4 features), here is a simple reproducible example of applying a Keras model to them.
What is somewhat hidden in the Keras sequential API (which you use here) is that there is in fact an implicit input layer, and the number of its nodes is the dimensionality of the input; see own answer in Keras Sequential model input layer for details.
So, the model you have drawn in your pad actually corresponds to the following Keras model written using the sequential API:
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(1,input_dim=3,activation='linear'))
where in the functional API it would be written as:
inputs = Input(shape=(3,))
outputs = Dense(1, activation='linear')(inputs)
model = Model(inputs, outputs)
and that's all, i.e. it is actually just linear regression.
I know the bias doesn't have a weight
The bias does have a weight. Again, the useful analogy is with the constant term of linear (or logistic) regression: the bias "input" itself is always 1, and its corresponding coefficient (weight) is learned through the fitting process.
why the keras model has an activation function in each layer of the network and not just at the end
I trust this has been covered sufficiently in the other answer.
I'm sorry for how basic this is, I want to really understand the process, and I'm doing it from free resources.
We all did; no excuse though to not benefit from Andrew Ng's free & excellent Machine Learning MOOC at Coursera.
It seems your question is why there is a activation function for each layer instead of just the last layer. The simple answer is, if there are no non-linear activations in the middle, no matter how deep your network is, it can be boiled down to a single linear equation. Therefore, non-linear activation is one of the big enablers that enable deep networks to be actually "deep" and learn high-level features.
Take the following example, say you have 3 layer neural network without any non-linear activations in the middle, but a final softmax layer. The weights and biases for these layers are (W1, b1), (W2, b2) and (W3, b3). Then you can write the network's final output as follows.
h1 = W1.x + b1
h2 = W2.h1 + b2
h3 = Softmax(W3.h2 + b3)
Let's do some manipulations. We'll simply replace h3 as a function of x,
h3 = Softmax(W3.(W2.(W1.x + b1) + b2) + b3)
h3 = Softmax((W3.W2.W1) x + (W3.W2.b1 + W3.b2 + b3))
In other words, h3 is in the following format.
h3 = Softmax(W.x + b)
So, without the non-linear activations, our 3-layer networks has been squashed to a single layer network. That's is why non-linear activations are important.
Imagine, you have an activation layer only in the last layer (In your case, sigmoid. It can be something else too.. say softmax). The purpose of this is to convert real values to a 0 to 1 range for a classification sort of answer. But, the activation in the inner layers (hidden layers) has a different purpose altogether. This is to introduce nonlinearity. Without the activation (say ReLu, tanh etc.), what you get is a linear function. And how many ever, hidden layers you have, you still end up with a linear function. And finally, you convert this into a nonlinear function in the last layer. This might work in some simple nonlinear problems, but will not be able to capture a complex nonlinear function.
Each hidden unit (in each layer) comprises of activation function to incorporate nonlinearity.
I have a 1D-image with 1x2048 pixels as input and 32 classes for which I have defined a layer of 32 filters with the same size of the image(1x2048) which are L1-regularized.
My image examples are one-hot encodded. However, my goal is to get a multi-hot encoded output when I sum some of these images together and feed it to the trained model.
The training goes well and it can classify each class seperately, but if I sum two image and feed it to the model it only outputs a one-hot encoded vector( although I expect a two-hot encoded vector). If I look at the kernels after training, they make sense as most of the weights are zero except the ones which define my class.
I don't understand why I get a one-hot vector output rather than multi-hot vector.
The reason I don't already sum the images and use them for training the model is that the possible making the possible combination of the images exceed my memory power.
An image of the network I have in mind
input_shape=(1,2048,1)
model = Sequential()
model.add(Conv2D(32, kernel_size=(1, 2048), strides=(1, 1),
activation='sigmoid',
input_shape=input_shape,
kernel_regularizer=keras.regularizers.l1(0.01),
kernel_constraint=keras.constraints.non_neg() ))
model.compile(loss=keras.losses.categorical_crossentropy,
optimizer=optimizer,metrics=['accuracy'])
You are using the wrong loss function
categorical_crossentropy will always return you exactly one 1-value in your vector, no matter the input. It tries to classify every instance into one (and only one) available class.
What you desire, though, is (potentially) mutliple ones in your output. Therefore, you should use binary_crossentropy instead. Also see this post.
On a side note, I would heavily advice you to really consider this twice, since - if you don't really have the case with multiple classes that often, it will maybe result in a lot of false positives. I.e., cases where you get more than one class predicted.
On another note, you might want to consider using Conv1D since your signal is 1-dimensional only.
#Azerila
The thing you are looking for is Mixup augmentation. It is implemented as follows:
def mixup(entry1,entry2):
image1,label1 = entry1
image2,label2 = entry2
alpha = [0.2]
dist = tfd.Beta(alpha, alpha)
l = dist.sample(1)[0][0]
img = l*image1+(1-l)*image2
lab = l*label1+(1-l)*label2
return img, lab
I've built an LSTM In Keras with the goal of predicting future values of a time-series from a high-dimensional, time-index input.
However, there's a unique requirement: for certain time points in the future, we know with certainty what some values of the input series will be. For example:
model = SomeLSTM()
trained_model = model.train(train_data)
known_data = [(24, {feature: 2, val: 7.0}), (25, {feature: 2, val: 8.0})]
predictions = trained_model(look_ahead=48, known_data=known_data)
Which would train the model up to time t (the end of training), and predict forward 48 time periods from time t, but substituting known_data values for feature 2 at times 24 and 25.
How exactly can I explicitly inject this into the LSTM at some time?
For reference, here's the model:
model = Sequential()
model.add(LSTM(hidden, input_shape=(look_back, num_features)))
model.add(Dropout(dropout))
model.add(Dense(look_ahead))
model.add(Activation('linear'))
This may be a result of my un-intuitive grasp of LSTMs, and I'd appreciate any clarification. I've dived into the Keras source code, and my first guess is to inject it right into the LSTM state variable, but I'm unsure how to do that at time t (or even if that is correct.)
I think a clean way of doing this is to introduce 2*look_ahead new features, where for each 0 <= i < look_ahead 2*i-th feature is an indicator whether the value of the i-th time step is known and (2*i+1)-th is the value itself (0 if not known). Accordingly, you can generate training data with these features to make your model take into account these known values.
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to do, but maybe create your own layer to go at the end that sets the data to the known values, similar to how dropout sets random values to zero. As a side note, I have had better results with pooling than dropout, so maybe try switching that out and training it. Here is a good guide on how to do it. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/keras/keras_customized_layer.htm
The general idea I am trying to realize is a seq2seq-model (taken from the translate.py-example in the models, based on the seq2seq-class). This trains well.
Furthermore I am using the hidden state of the rnn after all the encoding is done, right before decoding starts (I call it the “hidden state at end of encoding”). I use this hidden state at end of encoding to feed it into a further sub-graph which I call “prices” (see below). The training gradients of this sub-graph backprop not only through this additional sub-graph, but also back into the encoder-part of the rnn (which is what I want and need).
The plan is to add more such sub-graph to the hidden state at end of encoding, as I want to analyze the input phrases in a variety of ways.
Now during training when I evaluate and train both sub-graphs (encoder+prices AND encoder+decoder) at the same time, the net does NOT converge. However, if I train by executing the training in the following way (pseudo-code):
if global_step % 10 == 0:
execute-the-price-training_code
else:
execute-the-decoder-training_code
So I am not training both sub-graphs simultaneously. Now it does converge, but the encoder+decoder-part converges MUCH slower than if I ONLY train this part and never train the prices-sub-graph.
My question is: I should be able to train both sub-graphs simultaneously. But probably I have to rescale the gradients flowing back into the hidden state at end of encoding. Here we get the gradients from the prices sub-graph AND from the decoder-sub-graph. How should this rescaling be done. I didnt find any papers describing such an undertaking, but maybe I am searching with the wrong keywords.
Here is the training-part of the code:
This is the (almost original) training-op-preparation:
if not forward_only:
self.gradient_norms = []
self.updates = []
opt = tf.train.AdadeltaOptimizer(self.learning_rate)
for bucket_id in xrange(len(buckets)):
tf.scalar_summary("seq2seq loss", self.losses[bucket_id])
gradients = tf.gradients(self.losses[bucket_id], var_list_seq2seq)
clipped_gradients, norm = tf.clip_by_global_norm(gradients, max_gradient_norm)
self.gradient_norms.append(norm)
self.updates.append(opt.apply_gradients(zip(clipped_gradients, var_list_seq2seq), global_step=self.global_step))
Now, additionally, I am running a second sub-graph that takes the hidden state at end of encoding as input:
with tf.name_scope('prices') as scope:
#First layer
W_price_first_layer = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([num_layers*size, self.prices_hidden_layer_size], stddev=0.35), name="W_price_first_layer")
B_price_first_layer = tf.Variable(tf.zeros([self.prices_hidden_layer_size]), name="B_price_first_layer")
self.output_price_first_layer = tf.add(tf.matmul(self.hidden_state, W_price_first_layer), B_price_first_layer)
self.activation_price_first_layer = tf.nn.sigmoid(self.output_price_first_layer)
#self.activation_price_first_layer = tf.nn.Relu(self.output_price_first_layer)
#Second layer to softmax (price ranges)
W_price = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([self.prices_hidden_layer_size, self.prices_bit_size], stddev=0.35), name="W_price")
W_price_t = tf.transpose(W_price)
B_price = tf.Variable(tf.zeros([self.prices_bit_size]), name="B_price")
self.output_price_second_layer = tf.add(tf.matmul(self.activation_price_first_layer, W_price),B_price)
self.price_prediction = tf.nn.softmax(self.output_price_second_layer)
self.label_price = tf.placeholder(tf.int32, shape=[self.batch_size], name="price_label")
#Remember the prices trainables
var_list_prices = tf.get_collection(tf.GraphKeys.TRAINABLE_VARIABLES, "prices")
var_list_all = tf.trainable_variables()
#Backprop
self.loss_price = tf.nn.sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(self.output_price_second_layer, self.label_price)
self.loss_price_scalar = tf.reduce_mean(self.loss_price)
self.optimizer_price = tf.train.AdadeltaOptimizer(self.learning_rate_prices)
self.training_op_price = self.optimizer_price.minimize(self.loss_price, var_list=var_list_all)
Thx a bunch
I expect that running two optimizers simultaneously will lead to inconsistent gradient updates on the common variables, and this might be causing your training not to converge.
Instead, if you add the scalar loss from each sub-network to the "losses collection" (e.g. via tf.contrib.losses.add_loss() or tf.add_to_collection(tf.GraphKeys.LOSSES, ...), you can use tf.contrib.losses.get_total_loss() to get a single loss value that can be passed to a single standard TensorFlow tf.train.Optimizer subclass. TensorFlow will derive the appropriate back-prop computation for your split network.
The get_total_loss() method simply computes an unweighted sum of the values that have been added to the losses collection. I'm not familiar with the literature on how or if you should scale these values, but you can use any arbitrary (differentiable) TensorFlow expression to combine the losses and pass the result to a single optimizer.