I wrote a program which contains an algorithm called distributed randomized gradient descent (DRGD). There are some internal variables in the algorithm which are used to calculate the step lengths. The training algorithms should be much complex than DRGD, so there should be more internal variables. If we preserve these variables, we can pause training and test the model; then, we will resume the training again.
It is possible to save the states of the trainer and resume training by calling the .save_states() and .load_states() functions on the Trainer class during a training with MXNet Gluon.
Here is an example:
trainer = gluon.Trainer(net.collect_params(), 'adam')
trainer.save_states('training.states')
trainer.load_states('training.states')
If you want to store some data across multiple devices (GPUs or machines) you can use KVStore. Here is the tutorial on how to use it.
Please note, that KVStore is considered to be quite an advanced feature, and should be used with care.
I am not sure, but it could be that what you call a "Trainer" in MXNet world may actually be called an "Optimizer". So, please consider reading this API page as well.
Related
I have trained a neural network and an XGBoost model for the same problem, now I am confused that how should I stack them. Should I just pass the output of the neural network as a parameter to the XGBoost model, or should I take the weighting of their results seperately ? Which would be better ?
This question cannot be clearly answered. I would suggest to check both possibilities and chose the one, that worked best.
Using the output of one model as input to the other model
I guess, you know, what you have to do to use the output of the NN as input to XGBoost. You should just take some time, about how you handle the test and train data (see below). Use the "probabilities" rather than the binary labels for that. Of course, you could also try it vice-versa, so that the NN gets the output of the XGBoost model as an additional input.
Using a Votingclassifier
The other possibility is to use a VotingClassifier using soft-voting. You can use VotingClassifier(voting='soft') for that (to be precise sklearn.ensemble.VotingClassifier). You could also play around with the weights here.
Difference
The big difference is, that with the first possibility the XGBoost model might learn, in what areas the NN is weak and in which it is strong, while with the VotingClassifier the outputs of both models are equally weighted for all samples and it relies on the assumption that the model output a "probability" not so close to 0 / 1 if they are not so confident about the prediciton of the specific input record. But this assumption might not be always true.
Handling of the Train/Testdata
In both cases, you need to think about, how you should handle the train/test data. The train/test data should ideally be split the same way for both models. Otherwise you might introduce some kind of data-leakage problem.
For the VotingClassifier this is no problem, because it can be used as a regular skearn model class. For the first method (output of model 1 is one feature of model 2), you should make sure, you do the train-test-split (or the cross-validation) with exactly the same records. If you don't do that, you would run the risk to validate the output of your second model on a record which was in the training set of model 1 (except for the additonal feature of course) and this clearly could cause a data-leakage problem which results in a score that appears to be better than how the model would actually perform on unseen productive data.
If I have to make only a/some prediction(s), do I need to re-train my NN every time? Or I can, pardon me if this is silly, "save" the training and only do the test?
Currently I'm using Pycharm, but I've seen that with other IDEs, like Spyder, you can execute selected lines of code, in that case how does the NN keeps the training without the need to re-train?
Sorry if those question are too naive.
No, you don't need to re-train your NN every time. Just save your model parameters into a file and load to make new predictions.
Are you using any machine learning framework like Tensorflow or Keras? In Keras is very easy to implement this, there are two methods, first you can save model during training using the Callbacks and second, are possible to use your_model_name.save('file_name.h5') and then load with load_model('file_name.h5) to do some predictions. Use your_model_name.prediction(x).
By the way, there is a nice guide to how you can properly save the full model architecture or model weights.
EDIT: For both methods you can use load_model, is very simple!
How train_on_batch() is different from fit()? What are the cases when we should use train_on_batch()?
For this question, it's a simple answer from the primary author:
With fit_generator, you can use a generator for the validation data as
well. In general, I would recommend using fit_generator, but using
train_on_batch works fine too. These methods only exist for the sake of
convenience in different use cases, there is no "correct" method.
train_on_batch allows you to expressly update weights based on a collection of samples you provide, without regard to any fixed batch size. You would use this in cases when that is what you want: to train on an explicit collection of samples. You could use that approach to maintain your own iteration over multiple batches of a traditional training set but allowing fit or fit_generator to iterate batches for you is likely simpler.
One case when it might be nice to use train_on_batch is for updating a pre-trained model on a single new batch of samples. Suppose you've already trained and deployed a model, and sometime later you've received a new set of training samples previously never used. You could use train_on_batch to directly update the existing model only on those samples. Other methods can do this too, but it is rather explicit to use train_on_batch for this case.
Apart from special cases like this (either where you have some pedagogical reason to maintain your own cursor across different training batches, or else for some type of semi-online training update on a special batch), it is probably better to just always use fit (for data that fits in memory) or fit_generator (for streaming batches of data as a generator).
train_on_batch() gives you greater control of the state of the LSTM, for example, when using a stateful LSTM and controlling calls to model.reset_states() is needed. You may have multi-series data and need to reset the state after each series, which you can do with train_on_batch(), but if you used .fit() then the network would be trained on all the series of data without resetting the state. There's no right or wrong, it depends on what data you're using, and how you want the network to behave.
Train_on_batch will also see a performance increase over fit and fit generator if youre using large datasets and don't have easily serializable data (like high rank numpy arrays), to write to tfrecords.
In this case you can save the arrays as numpy files and load up smaller subsets of them (traina.npy, trainb.npy etc) in memory, when the whole set won't fit in memory. You can then use tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices and then using train_on_batch with your subdataset, then loading up another dataset and calling train on batch again, etc, now you've trained on your entire set and can control exactly how much and what of your dataset trains your model. You can then define your own epochs, batch sizes, etc with simple loops and functions to grab from your dataset.
Indeed #nbro answer helps, just to add few more scenarios, lets say you are training some seq to seq model or a large network with one or more encoders. We can create custom training loops using train_on_batch and use a part of our data to validate on the encoder directly without using callbacks. Writing callbacks for a complex validation process could be difficult. There are several cases where we wish to train on batch.
Regards,
Karthick
From Keras - Model training APIs:
fit: Trains the model for a fixed number of epochs (iterations on a dataset).
train_on_batch: Runs a single gradient update on a single batch of data.
We can use it in GAN when we update the discriminator and generator using a batch of our training data set at a time. I saw Jason Brownlee used train_on_batch in on his tutorials (How to Develop a 1D Generative Adversarial Network From Scratch in Keras)
Tip for quick search: Type Control+F and type in the search box the term that you want to search (train_on_batch, for example).
"Weka: training and test set are not compatible" can be solved using batch filtering but at the time of training a model I don't have test.arff. My problem caused in the command "stringToWord vector" (on CLI).
So my question is, can Caret package(R) or Scikit learn (Python) provides any alternative for this one.
Note:
1. Functionality provided by "stringToWord vector" is a must requirement.
2. I don't want to retrain my model while testing because it takes lot of time.
Given the requirements you mentioned, you can use Weka's Filtered Classifier option during training and testing. I am not re-iterating what I have recorded as a video cast here and here.
But the basic idea is not to use the StringToWord vector as a direct filter rather to use it as a filtering option in the FilteredClassifier option. The model you generate will be just once. And then you can apply the model directly on your unlabelled data without retraining them or without applying StringToWord vector again on the unlabelled data. FilteredClassifier will take care of these concerns for you.
In a particular application I was in need of machine learning (I know the things I studied in my undergraduate course). I used Support Vector Machines and got the problem solved. Its working fine.
Now I need to improve the system. Problems here are
I get additional training examples every week. Right now the system starts training freshly with updated examples (old examples + new examples). I want to make it incremental learning. Using previous knowledge (instead of previous examples) with new examples to get new model (knowledge)
Right my training examples has 3 classes. So, every training example is fitted into one of these 3 classes. I want functionality of "Unknown" class. Anything that doesn't fit these 3 classes must be marked as "unknown". But I can't treat "Unknown" as a new class and provide examples for this too.
Assuming, the "unknown" class is implemented. When class is "unknown" the user of the application inputs the what he thinks the class might be. Now, I need to incorporate the user input into the learning. I've no idea about how to do this too. Would it make any difference if the user inputs a new class (i.e.. a class that is not already in the training set)?
Do I need to choose a new algorithm or Support Vector Machines can do this?
PS: I'm using libsvm implementation for SVM.
I just wrote my Answer using the same organization as your Question (1., 2., 3).
Can SVMs do this--i.e., incremental learning? Multi-Layer Perceptrons of course can--because the subsequent training instances don't affect the basic network architecture, they'll just cause adjustment in the values of the weight matrices. But SVMs? It seems to me that (in theory) one additional training instance could change the selection of the support vectors. But again, i don't know.
I think you can solve this problem quite easily by configuring LIBSVM in one-against-many--i.e., as a one-class classifier. SVMs are one-class classifiers; application of an SVM for multi-class means that it has been coded to perform multiple, step-wise one-against-many classifications, but again the algorithm is trained (and tested) one class at a time. If you do this, then what's left after step-wise execution against the test set, is "unknown"--in other words, whatever data is not classified after performing multiple, sequential one-class classifications, is by definition in that 'unknown' class.
Why not make the user's guess a feature (i.e., just another dependent variable)? The only other option is to make it the class label itself, and you don't want that. So you would, for instance, add a column to your data matrix "user class guess", and just populate it with some value most likely to have no effect for those data points not in the 'unknown' category and therefore for which the user will not offer a guess--this value could be '0' or '1', but really it depends on how you have your data scaled and normalized).
Your first item will likely be the most difficult, since there are essentially no good incremental SVM implementations in existence.
A few months ago, I also researched online or incremental SVM algorithms. Unfortunately, the current state of implementations is quite sparse. All I found was a Matlab example, OnlineSVR (a thesis project only implementing regression support), and SVMHeavy (only binary class support).
I haven't used any of them personally. They all appear to be at the "research toy" stage. I couldn't even get SVMHeavy to compile.
For now, you can probably get away with doing periodic batch training to incorporate updates. I also use LibSVM, and it's quite fast, so it sould be a good substitute until a proper incremental version is implemented.
I also don't think SVM's can model the concept of an "unknown" sample by default. They typically work as a series of boolean classifiers, so a sample ends up as positively being classified as something, even if that sample is drastically different from anything seen previously. A possible workaround would be to model the ranges of your features, and randomly generate samples that exist outside of these ranges, and then add these to your training set.
For example, if you have an attribute called "color", which has a minimum value of 4 and a maximum value of 123, then you could add these to your training set
[({'color':3},'unknown'),({'color':125},'unknown')]
to give your SVM an idea of what an "unknown" color means.
There are algorithms to train an SVM incrementally, but I don't think libSVM implements this. I think you should consider whether you really need this feature. I see no problem with your current approach, unless the training process is really too slow. If it is, could you retrain in batches (i.e. after every 100 new examples)?
You can get libSVM to produce probabilities of class membership. I think this can be done for multiclass classification, but I'm not entirely sure about that. You will need to decide some threshold at which the classification is not certain enough and then output 'Unknown'. I suppose something like setting a threshold on the difference between the most likely and second most likely class would achieve this.
I think libSVM scales to any number of new classes. The accuracy of your model may well suffer by adding new classes, however.
Even though this question is probably out of date, I feel obliged to give some additional thoughts.
Since your first question has been answered by others (there is no production-ready SVM which implements incremental learning, even though it is possible), I will skip it. ;)
Adding 'Unknown' as a class is not a good idea. Depending on it's use, the reasons are different.
If you are using the 'Unknown' class as a tag for "this instance has not been classified, but belongs to one of the known classes", then your SVM is in deep trouble. The reason is, that libsvm builds several binary classifiers and combines them. So if you have three classes - let's say A, B and C - the SVM builds the first binary classifier by splitting the training examples into "classified as A" and "any other class". The latter will obviously contain all examples from the 'Unknown' class. When trying to build a hyperplane, examples in 'Unknown' (which really belong to the class 'A') will probably cause the SVM to build a hyperplane with a very small margin and will poorly recognizes future instances of A, i.e. it's generalization performance will diminish. That's due to the fact, that the SVM will try to build a hyperplane which separates most instances of A (those officially labeled as 'A') onto one side of the hyperplane and some instances (those officially labeled as 'Unknown') on the other side .
Another problem occurs if you are using the 'Unknown' class to store all examples, whose class is not yet known to the SVM. For example, the SVM knows the classes A, B and C, but you recently got example data for two new classes D and E. Since these examples are not classified and the new classes not known to the SVM, you may want to temporarily store them in 'Unknown'. In that case the 'Unknown' class may cause trouble, since it possibly contains examples with enormous variation in the values of it's features. That will make it very hard to create good separating hyperplanes and therefore the resulting classifier will poorly recognize new instances of D or E as 'Unknown'. Probably the classification of new instances belonging to A, B or C will be hindered as well.
To sum up: Introducing an 'Unknown' class which contains examples of known classes or examples of several new classes will result in a poor classifier. I think it's best to ignore all unclassified instances when training the classifier.
I would recommend, that you solve this issue outside the classification algorithm. I was asked for this feature myself and implemented a single webpage, which shows an image of the object in question and a button for each known class. If the object in question belongs to a class which is not known yet, the user can fill out another form to add a new class. If he goes back to the classification page, another button for that class will magically appear. After the instances have been classified, they can be used for training the classifier. (I used a database to store the known classes and reference which example belongs to which class. I implemented an export function to make the data SVM-ready.)