I have been following this example here and I want to know how exactly this accuracy function works:
def compute_accuracy(y_true, y_pred):
'''Compute classification accuracy with a fixed threshold on distances.
'''
pred = y_pred.ravel() < 0.5
return np.mean(pred == y_true)
As far as I know the output of the network in this case is going to be the distance between two pairs. So how can we calculate the accuracy in this case? What does the "0.5" threshold refers to? Also, how can I calculate the error rate?
It seems there are some gaps in the understanding of that example which needs to be filled first:
If you study the data preparation step (i.e. create_pairs method), you would realize that the positive pairs (i.e. pairs of samples belonging to the same class) are assigned a label of 1 (i.e. positive/true) and the negative pairs (i.e. pairs of samples belonging to different classes) are assigned a label of 0 (i.e. negative/false).
Further, the Siamese network in the example is designed such that given a pair of samples as input it would predict their distance as output. By using the contrastive loss as the loss function of the model, the model is trained such that given a positive pair as input a small distance value is predicted (because they belong to the same class and therefore their distance should be low, i.e. to convey similarity) and given a negative pair as input a large distance value is predicted (because they belong to difference classes and therefore their distance should be high, i.e. to convey dissimilarity). As an exercise, try to confirm these points by considering them numerically (i.e. when y_true is 1 and when y_true is 0) using contrastive loss definition in the code.
So, the accuracy function in the example is implemented such that a fixed arbitrary threshold, i.e. 0.5, is applied on predicted distance values, i.e. y_pred (this means the author of this example has decided that distance values of less than 0.5 indicate positive pairs; you may decided to use another threshold value, but it should be a reasonable choice based on experiment/experience). Then the result would be compared with true label values, i.e. y_true:
When y_pred is lower than 0.5 (y_pred < 0.5 would be equal to True): if y_true is 1 (i.e. positive) then this means the prediction of the network is consistent with the true label (i.e. True == 1 is equal to True) and therefore the prediction for this sample is counted towards correct predictions (i.e. accuracy). However, if y_true is 0 (i.e. negative) then the prediction for this sample is not correct (i.e. True == 0 is equal to False) and therefore this would not contribute to correct predictions.
When y_pred is equal or greater than 0.5 (y_pred < 0.5 would be equal to False): Same reasoning as above applies (left as an exercise!).
(Note: don't forget that the model is trained on batches of samples. Therefore, y_pred or y_true are not a single value; rather, they are arrays of values, and all the calculations/comparisons mentioned above are applied element-wise).
Let's look at an (imaginary) numerical example on an input batch of 5 sample pairs and how the accuracy is calculated for predictions of the model on this batch:
>>> y_pred = np.array([1.5, 0.7, 0.1, 0.3, 3.2])
>>> y_true = np.array([1, 0, 0, 1, 0])
>>> pred = y_pred < 0.5
>>> pred
array([False, False, True, True, False])
>>> result = pred == y_true
>>> result
array([False, True, False, True, True])
>>> accuracy = np.mean(result)
>>> accuracy
0.6
Related
According to the pytorch doc of nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss, pos_weight is an optional argument a that takes the weight of positive examples. I don't fully understand the statement "pos_weight > 1 increases recall and pos_weight < 1 increases precision" in that page. How do you guys understand this statement?
The binary cross-entropy with logits loss (nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss, equivalent to F.binary_cross_entropy_with_logits) is a sigmoid layer (nn.Sigmoid) followed with a binary cross-entropy loss (nn.BCELoss). The general case assumes you are in a multi-label classification task i.e. a single input can be labeled with multiple classes. One common sub-case is to have a single class: the binary classification task. If you define q as your tensor of predicted classes and p the ground-truth [0,1] corresponding to the true probabilities for each class.
The explicit formulation for the binary cross-entropy would be:
z = torch.sigmoid(q)
loss = -(w_p*p*torch.log(z) + (1-p)*torch.log(1-z))
introducing the w_p, the weight associated with the true label for each class. Read this post for more details on the weighting scheme used by the BCELoss.
For a given class:
precision = TP / (TP + FP)
recall = TP / (TP + FN)
Then if w_p > 1, it increases the weight on the positive classification (classifying as true). This will tend to increase false positives (FP), thus decreasing the precision. Similarly if if w_p < 1, we are decreasing the weight on the true class which means it will tend to increase false negatives (FN), which decreases recall.
I am new babie to the Deep Learning field, and I am use log-likelihood method to compare the MSE metrics.Could anyone be able to show how to calculate the following 2 predicted output examples with 3 outputs neurons each. Thanks
yt = [ [1,0,0],[0,0,1]]
yp = [ [0.9, 0.2,0.2], [0.2,0.8,0.3] ]
MSE or Mean Squared Error is simply the expected value of the squared difference between the predicted and the ground truth labels, represented as
\text{MSE}(\hat{\theta}) = E\left[(\hat{\theta} - \theta)^2\right]
where theta is the ground truth labels and theta^hat is the predicted labels
I am not sure what are you referring to exactly, like a theoretical question or a part of code
As a Python implementation
def mean_squared_error(A, B):
return np.square(np.subtract(A,B)).mean()
yt = [[1,0,0],[0,0,1]]
yp = [[0.9, 0.2,0.2], [0.2,0.8,0.3]]
mse = mean_squared_error(yt, yp)
print(mse)
This will give a value of 0.21
If you are using one of the DL frameworks like TensorFlow, then they are already providing the function which calculates the mse loss between tensors
tf.losses.mean_squared_error
where
tf.losses.mean_squared_error(
labels,
predictions,
weights=1.0,
scope=None,
loss_collection=tf.GraphKeys.LOSSES,
reduction=Reduction.SUM_BY_NONZERO_WEIGHTS
)
Args:
labels: The ground truth output tensor, same dimensions as 'predictions'.
predictions: The predicted outputs.
weights: Optional Tensor whose rank is either 0, or the same rank as labels, and must be broadcastable to labels (i.e., all dimensions
must be either 1, or the same as the corresponding losses dimension).
scope: The scope for the operations performed in computing the loss.
loss_collection: collection to which the loss will be added.
reduction: Type of reduction to apply to loss.
Returns:
Weighted loss float Tensor. If reduction is NONE, this has the same
shape as labels; otherwise, it is scalar.
When we train neural networks, we typically use gradient descent, which relies on a continuous, differentiable real-valued cost function. The final cost function might, for example, take the mean squared error. Or put another way, gradient descent implicitly assumes the end goal is regression - to minimize a real-valued error measure.
Sometimes what we want a neural network to do is perform classification - given an input, classify it into two or more discrete categories. In this case, the end goal the user cares about is classification accuracy - the percentage of cases classified correctly.
But when we are using a neural network for classification, though our goal is classification accuracy, that is not what the neural network is trying to optimize. The neural network is still trying to optimize the real-valued cost function. Sometimes these point in the same direction, but sometimes they don't. In particular, I've been running into cases where a neural network trained to correctly minimize the cost function, has a classification accuracy worse than a simple hand-coded threshold comparison.
I've boiled this down to a minimal test case using TensorFlow. It sets up a perceptron (neural network with no hidden layers), trains it on an absolutely minimal dataset (one input variable, one binary output variable) assesses the classification accuracy of the result, then compares it to the classification accuracy of a simple hand-coded threshold comparison; the results are 60% and 80% respectively. Intuitively, this is because a single outlier with a large input value, generates a correspondingly large output value, so the way to minimize the cost function is to try extra hard to accommodate that one case, in the process misclassifying two more ordinary cases. The perceptron is correctly doing what it was told to do; it's just that this does not match what we actually want of a classifier. But the classification accuracy is not a continuous differentiable function, so we can't use it as the target for gradient descent.
How can we train a neural network so that it ends up maximizing classification accuracy?
import numpy as np
import tensorflow as tf
sess = tf.InteractiveSession()
tf.set_random_seed(1)
# Parameters
epochs = 10000
learning_rate = 0.01
# Data
train_X = [
[0],
[0],
[2],
[2],
[9],
]
train_Y = [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
]
rows = np.shape(train_X)[0]
cols = np.shape(train_X)[1]
# Inputs and outputs
X = tf.placeholder(tf.float32)
Y = tf.placeholder(tf.float32)
# Weights
W = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([cols]))
b = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([]))
# Model
pred = tf.tensordot(X, W, 1) + b
cost = tf.reduce_sum((pred-Y)**2/rows)
optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(learning_rate).minimize(cost)
tf.global_variables_initializer().run()
# Train
for epoch in range(epochs):
# Print update at successive doublings of time
if epoch&(epoch-1) == 0 or epoch == epochs-1:
print('{} {} {} {}'.format(
epoch,
cost.eval({X: train_X, Y: train_Y}),
W.eval(),
b.eval(),
))
optimizer.run({X: train_X, Y: train_Y})
# Classification accuracy of perceptron
classifications = [pred.eval({X: x}) > 0.5 for x in train_X]
correct = sum([p == y for (p, y) in zip(classifications, train_Y)])
print('{}/{} = perceptron accuracy'.format(correct, rows))
# Classification accuracy of hand-coded threshold comparison
classifications = [x[0] > 1.0 for x in train_X]
correct = sum([p == y for (p, y) in zip(classifications, train_Y)])
print('{}/{} = threshold accuracy'.format(correct, rows))
How can we train a neural network so that it ends up maximizing classification accuracy?
I'm asking for a way to get a continuous proxy function that's closer to the accuracy
To start with, the loss function used today for classification tasks in (deep) neural nets was not invented with them, but it goes back several decades, and it actually comes from the early days of logistic regression. Here is the equation for the simple case of binary classification:
The idea behind it was exactly to come up with a continuous & differentiable function, so that we would be able to exploit the (vast, and still expanding) arsenal of convex optimization for classification problems.
It is safe to say that the above loss function is the best we have so far, given the desired mathematical constraints mentioned above.
Should we consider this problem (i.e. better approximating the accuracy) solved and finished? At least in principle, no. I am old enough to remember an era when the only activation functions practically available were tanh and sigmoid; then came ReLU and gave a real boost to the field. Similarly, someone may eventually come up with a better loss function, but arguably this is going to happen in a research paper, and not as an answer to a SO question...
That said, the very fact that the current loss function comes from very elementary considerations of probability and information theory (fields that, in sharp contrast with the current field of deep learning, stand upon firm theoretical foundations) creates at least some doubt as to if a better proposal for the loss may be just around the corner.
There is another subtle point on the relation between loss and accuracy, which makes the latter something qualitatively different than the former, and is frequently lost in such discussions. Let me elaborate a little...
All the classifiers related to this discussion (i.e. neural nets, logistic regression etc) are probabilistic ones; that is, they do not return hard class memberships (0/1) but class probabilities (continuous real numbers in [0, 1]).
Limiting the discussion for simplicity to the binary case, when converting a class probability to a (hard) class membership, we are implicitly involving a threshold, usually equal to 0.5, such as if p[i] > 0.5, then class[i] = "1". Now, we can find many cases whet this naive default choice of threshold will not work (heavily imbalanced datasets are the first to come to mind), and we'll have to choose a different one. But the important point for our discussion here is that this threshold selection, while being of central importance to the accuracy, is completely external to the mathematical optimization problem of minimizing the loss, and serves as a further "insulation layer" between them, compromising the simplistic view that loss is just a proxy for accuracy (it is not). As nicely put in the answer of this Cross Validated thread:
the statistical component of your exercise ends when you output a probability for each class of your new sample. Choosing a threshold beyond which you classify a new observation as 1 vs. 0 is not part of the statistics any more. It is part of the decision component.
Enlarging somewhat an already broad discussion: Can we possibly move completely away from the (very) limiting constraint of mathematical optimization of continuous & differentiable functions? In other words, can we do away with back-propagation and gradient descend?
Well, we are actually doing so already, at least in the sub-field of reinforcement learning: 2017 was the year when new research from OpenAI on something called Evolution Strategies made headlines. And as an extra bonus, here is an ultra-fresh (Dec 2017) paper by Uber on the subject, again generating much enthusiasm in the community.
I think you are forgetting to pass your output through a simgoid. Fixed below:
import numpy as np
import tensorflow as tf
sess = tf.InteractiveSession()
tf.set_random_seed(1)
# Parameters
epochs = 10000
learning_rate = 0.01
# Data
train_X = [
[0],
[0],
[2],
[2],
[9],
]
train_Y = [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
]
rows = np.shape(train_X)[0]
cols = np.shape(train_X)[1]
# Inputs and outputs
X = tf.placeholder(tf.float32)
Y = tf.placeholder(tf.float32)
# Weights
W = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([cols]))
b = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([]))
# Model
# CHANGE HERE: Remember, you need an activation function!
pred = tf.nn.sigmoid(tf.tensordot(X, W, 1) + b)
cost = tf.reduce_sum((pred-Y)**2/rows)
optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(learning_rate).minimize(cost)
tf.global_variables_initializer().run()
# Train
for epoch in range(epochs):
# Print update at successive doublings of time
if epoch&(epoch-1) == 0 or epoch == epochs-1:
print('{} {} {} {}'.format(
epoch,
cost.eval({X: train_X, Y: train_Y}),
W.eval(),
b.eval(),
))
optimizer.run({X: train_X, Y: train_Y})
# Classification accuracy of perceptron
classifications = [pred.eval({X: x}) > 0.5 for x in train_X]
correct = sum([p == y for (p, y) in zip(classifications, train_Y)])
print('{}/{} = perceptron accuracy'.format(correct, rows))
# Classification accuracy of hand-coded threshold comparison
classifications = [x[0] > 1.0 for x in train_X]
correct = sum([p == y for (p, y) in zip(classifications, train_Y)])
print('{}/{} = threshold accuracy'.format(correct, rows))
The output:
0 0.28319069743156433 [ 0.75648874] -0.9745011329650879
1 0.28302448987960815 [ 0.75775659] -0.9742625951766968
2 0.28285878896713257 [ 0.75902224] -0.9740257859230042
4 0.28252947330474854 [ 0.76154679] -0.97355717420578
8 0.28187844157218933 [ 0.76656926] -0.9726400971412659
16 0.28060704469680786 [ 0.77650583] -0.970885694026947
32 0.27818527817726135 [ 0.79593837] -0.9676888585090637
64 0.2738055884838104 [ 0.83302218] -0.9624817967414856
128 0.26666420698165894 [ 0.90031379] -0.9562843441963196
256 0.25691407918930054 [ 1.01172411] -0.9567816257476807
512 0.2461051195859909 [ 1.17413962] -0.9872989654541016
1024 0.23519910871982574 [ 1.38549554] -1.088881492614746
2048 0.2241383194923401 [ 1.64616168] -1.298340916633606
4096 0.21433120965957642 [ 1.95981205] -1.6126530170440674
8192 0.2075471431016922 [ 2.31746769] -1.989408016204834
9999 0.20618653297424316 [ 2.42539024] -2.1028473377227783
4/5 = perceptron accuracy
4/5 = threshold accuracy
I have a multilabel classification problem, I used the following code but the validation accuracy jumps to 99% in the first epoch which is weird given the complexity of the data as the input features are 2048 extracted from inception model (pool3:0) layer and the labels are [1000],(here is the link of a file contains samples of features and label : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxI_8PO3YBPPYkp6dHlGeExpS1k/view?usp=sharing ),
is there something I am doing wrong here ??
Note: labels are sparse vector contain only 1 ~ 10 entry as 1 the rest is zeros
model.compile(optimizer='adadelta', loss='binary_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'])
The output of prediction is zeros !
What wrong I do in training the model to bother the prediction ?
#input is the features file and labels file
def generate_arrays_from_file(path ,batch_size=100):
x=np.empty([batch_size,2048])
y=np.empty([batch_size,1000])
while True:
f = open(path)
i = 1
for line in f:
# create Numpy arrays of input data
# and labels, from each line in the file
words=line.split(',')
words=map(float, words[1:])
x_= np.array(words[0:2048])
y_=words[2048:]
y_= np.array(map(int,y_))
x_=x_.reshape((1, -1))
#print np.squeeze(x_)
y_=y_.reshape((1,-1))
x[i]= x_
y[i]=y_
i += 1
if i == batch_size:
i=1
yield (x, y)
f.close()
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(units=2048, activation='sigmoid', input_dim=2048))
model.add(Dense(units=1000, activation="sigmoid",
kernel_initializer="uniform"))
model.compile(optimizer='adadelta', loss='binary_crossentropy', metrics=
['accuracy'])
model.fit_generator(generate_arrays_from_file('train.txt'),
validation_data= generate_arrays_from_file('test.txt'),
validation_steps=1000,epochs=100,steps_per_epoch=1000,
verbose=1)
I think the problem with the accuracy is that your output are sparse.
Keras computes accuracy using this formula:
K.mean(K.equal(y_true, K.round(y_pred)), axis=-1)
So, in your case, having only 1~10 non zero labels, a prediction of all 0 will yield an accuracy of 99.9% ~ 99%.
As far as the problem not learning, I think the problem is that you are using a sigmoid as last activation and using 0 or 1 as output value. This is bad practice since, in order for the sigmoid to return 0 or 1 the values it gets as input must be very large or very small, which reflects on the net having very large (in absolute value) weights. Furthermore, since in each training output there are far less 1 than 0 the network will soon get to a stationary point in which it simply outputs all zeros (the loss in this case is not very large either, should be around 0.016~0.16).
What you can do is scale your output labels so that they are between (0.2, 0.8) for example so that the weights of the net won't become too big or too small. Alternatively you can use a relu as activation function.
Did you try to use the cosine similarity as loss function?
I had the same multi-label + high dimensionality problem.
The cosine distance takes account of the orientation of the model output (prediction) and the desired output (true class) vector.
It is the normalized dot-product between two vectors.
In keras the cosine_proximity function is -1*cosine_distance. Meaning that -1 corresponds to two vectors with the same size and orientation.
Assuming after performing median frequency balancing for images used for segmentation, we have these class weights:
class_weights = {0: 0.2595,
1: 0.1826,
2: 4.5640,
3: 0.1417,
4: 0.9051,
5: 0.3826,
6: 9.6446,
7: 1.8418,
8: 0.6823,
9: 6.2478,
10: 7.3614,
11: 0.0}
The idea is to create a weight_mask such that it could be multiplied by the cross entropy output of both classes. To create this weight mask, we can broadcast the values based on the ground_truth labels or the predictions. Some mathematics in my implementation:
Both labels and logits are of shape [batch_size, height, width, num_classes]
The weight mask is of shape [batch_size, height, width, 1]
The weight mask is broadcasted to the num_classes number of channels of the multiplication between the softmax of the logit and the labels to give an output shape of [batch_size, height, width, num_classes]. In this case, num_classes is 12.
Reduce sum for each example in a batch, then perform reduce mean for all examples in one batch to get a single scalar value of loss.
In this case, should we create the weight mask based on the predictions or the ground truth?
If we build it based on the ground_truth, then it means no matter what the predicted pixel labels are, they get penalized based on the actual labels of the class, which doesn't seem to guide the training in a sensible way.
But if we build it based on the predictions, then for whatever logit predictions that are produced, if the predicted label (from taking the argmax of the logit) is dominant, then the logit values for that pixel will all be reduced by a significant amount.
--> Although this means the maximum logit will still be the maximum since all of the logits in the 12 channels will be scaled by the same value, the final softmax probability of the label predicted (which is still the same before and after scaling), will be lower than before scaling (did some simple math to estimate). --> a lower loss is predicted
But the problem is this: If a lower loss is predicted as a result of this weighting, then wouldn't it contradict the idea that predicting dominant labels should give you a greater loss?
The impression I get in total for this method is that:
For the dominant labels, they are penalized and rewarded much lesser.
For the less dominant labels, they are rewarded highly if the predictions are correct, but they're also penalized heavily for a wrong prediction.
So how does this help to tackle the issue of class-balancing? I don't quite get the logic here.
IMPLEMENTATION
Here is my current implementation for calculating the weighted cross entropy loss, although I'm not sure if it is correct.
def weighted_cross_entropy(logits, onehot_labels, class_weights):
if not logits.dtype == tf.float32:
logits = tf.cast(logits, tf.float32)
if not onehot_labels.dtype == tf.float32:
onehot_labels = tf.cast(onehot_labels, tf.float32)
#Obtain the logit label predictions and form a skeleton weight mask with the same shape as it
logit_predictions = tf.argmax(logits, -1)
weight_mask = tf.zeros_like(logit_predictions, dtype=tf.float32)
#Obtain the number of class weights to add to the weight mask
num_classes = logits.get_shape().as_list()[3]
#Form the weight mask mapping for each pixel prediction
for i in xrange(num_classes):
binary_mask = tf.equal(logit_predictions, i) #Get only the positions for class i predicted in the logits prediction
binary_mask = tf.cast(binary_mask, tf.float32) #Convert boolean to ones and zeros
class_mask = tf.multiply(binary_mask, class_weights[i]) #Multiply only the ones in the binary mask with the specific class_weight
weight_mask = tf.add(weight_mask, class_mask) #Add to the weight mask
#Multiply the logits with the scaling based on the weight mask then perform cross entropy
weight_mask = tf.expand_dims(weight_mask, 3) #Expand the fourth dimension to 1 for broadcasting
logits_scaled = tf.multiply(logits, weight_mask)
return tf.losses.softmax_cross_entropy(onehot_labels=onehot_labels, logits=logits_scaled)
Could anyone verify whether my concept of this weighted loss is correct, and whether my implementation is correct? This is my first time getting acquainted with a dataset with imbalanced class, and so I would really appreciate it if anyone could verify this.
TESTING RESULTS: After doing some tests, I found the implementation above results in a greater loss. Is this supposed to be the case? i.e. Would this make the training harder but produce a more accurate model eventually?
SIMILAR THREADS
Note that I have checked a similar thread here: How can I implement a weighted cross entropy loss in tensorflow using sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits
But it seems that TF only has a sample-wise weighting for loss but not a class-wise one.
Many thanks to all of you.
Here is my own implementation in Keras using the TensorFlow backend:
def class_weighted_pixelwise_crossentropy(target, output):
output = tf.clip_by_value(output, 10e-8, 1.-10e-8)
with open('class_weights.pickle', 'rb') as f:
weight = pickle.load(f)
return -tf.reduce_sum(target * weight * tf.log(output))
where weight is just a standard Python list with the indexes of the weights matched to those of the corresponding class in the one-hot vectors. I store the weights as a pickle file to avoid having to recalculate them. It is an adaptation of the Keras categorical_crossentropy loss function. The first line simply clips the value to make sure we never take the log of 0.
I am unsure why one would calculate the weights using the predictions rather than the ground truth; if you provide further explanation I can update my answer in response.
Edit: Play around with this numpy code to understand how this works. Also review the definition of cross entropy.
import numpy as np
weights = [1,2]
target = np.array([ [[0.0,1.0],[1.0,0.0]],
[[0.0,1.0],[1.0,0.0]]])
output = np.array([ [[0.5,0.5],[0.9,0.1]],
[[0.9,0.1],[0.4,0.6]]])
crossentropy_matrix = -np.sum(target * np.log(output), axis=-1)
crossentropy = -np.sum(target * np.log(output))