Related
I created a randomly generated(using numpy, between range 30 and 60) Data of about 12000 points (to
generate an artificial time-series data for more than a year in Time).
Now I am trying to fit that data points in an LSTM model and forecast
based upon that.
The LSTM model i applied,(here data is a single series so n_features = 1, and steps-in and out are for sequence-generation function for time-series, i took both equal to 5. Also the for the activation functions i tried all with both relu, both tanh and 1st tanh & 2nd relu (as shown here))
X, y = split_sequences(data, n_steps_in, n_steps_out)
n_features = X.shape[2]
model = Sequential()
model.add(LSTM(200, activation='tanh', input_shape=(n_steps_in,
n_features)))
model.add(RepeatVector(n_steps_out))
model.add(LSTM(200, activation='relu', return_sequences=True))
model.add(TimeDistributed(Dense(n_features)))
opt = keras.optimizers.Adam(learning_rate=0.05)
model.compile(optimizer=opt, loss='mse')
model.fit(X, y, epochs= n, batch_size=10, verbose=1,
workers=4, use_multiprocessing = True, initial_epoch = 0)
I also tried smoothening of the data-points as they are randomly
distributed (in the predefined boundaries).
and then applied the model on the smoothed data, but still i am getting similar results.
for e.g., In this image showing both the smoothed-training data and the forecasted-prediction from the model
plt.plot(Training_data, 'g')
plt.plot(Pred_Forecasts,'r')
Every time the models are giving straight lines in prediction.
and which is obvious since it is a set of random numbers so model tends to get to a mean value between the upper and lower limits of the data, but still is there any way to generate a somewhat real looking model.
P.S-1 - I have also tried applying different models like prophet, sarima, arima.
But i think i need to find a way to increase the Variance of the prediction, which i am unable to find.
PS-2 - Sorry for the long question i am new to deep-learning so i tried to explain more.
I'm currently working on building an LSTM model to forecast time-series data using PyTorch. I used lag features to pass the previous n steps as inputs to train the network. I split the data into three sets, i.e., train-validation-test split, and used the first two to train the model. My validation function takes the data from the validation data set and calculates the predicted valued by passing it to the LSTM model using DataLoaders and TensorDataset classes. Initially, I've got pretty good results with R2 values in the region of 0.85-0.95.
However, I have an uneasy feeling about whether this validation function is also suitable for testing my model's performance. Because the function now takes the actual X values, i.e., time-lag features, from the DataLoader to predict y^ values, i.e., predicted target values, instead of using the predicted y^ values as features in the next prediction. This situation seems far from reality where the model has no clue of the real values of the previous time steps, especially if you forecast time-series data for longer time periods, say 3-6 months.
I'm currently a bit puzzled about tackling this issue and defining a function to predict future values relying on the model's values rather than the actual values in the test set. I have the following function predict, which makes a one-step prediction, but I haven't really figured out how to predict the whole test dataset using DataLoader.
def predict(self, x):
# convert row to data
x = x.to(device)
# make prediction
yhat = self.model(x)
# retrieve numpy array
yhat = yhat.to(device).detach().numpy()
return yhat
You can find how I split and load my datasets, my constructor for the LSTM model, and the validation function below. If you need more information, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.
Splitting and Loading Datasets
def create_tensor_datasets(X_train_arr, X_val_arr, X_test_arr, y_train_arr, y_val_arr, y_test_arr):
train_features = torch.Tensor(X_train_arr)
train_targets = torch.Tensor(y_train_arr)
val_features = torch.Tensor(X_val_arr)
val_targets = torch.Tensor(y_val_arr)
test_features = torch.Tensor(X_test_arr)
test_targets = torch.Tensor(y_test_arr)
train = TensorDataset(train_features, train_targets)
val = TensorDataset(val_features, val_targets)
test = TensorDataset(test_features, test_targets)
return train, val, test
def load_tensor_datasets(train, val, test, batch_size=64, shuffle=False, drop_last=True):
train_loader = DataLoader(train, batch_size=batch_size, shuffle=shuffle, drop_last=drop_last)
val_loader = DataLoader(val, batch_size=batch_size, shuffle=shuffle, drop_last=drop_last)
test_loader = DataLoader(test, batch_size=batch_size, shuffle=shuffle, drop_last=drop_last)
return train_loader, val_loader, test_loader
Class LSTM
class LSTMModel(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, input_dim, hidden_dim, layer_dim, output_dim, dropout_prob):
super(LSTMModel, self).__init__()
self.hidden_dim = hidden_dim
self.layer_dim = layer_dim
self.lstm = nn.LSTM(
input_dim, hidden_dim, layer_dim, batch_first=True, dropout=dropout_prob
)
self.fc = nn.Linear(hidden_dim, output_dim)
def forward(self, x, future=False):
h0 = torch.zeros(self.layer_dim, x.size(0), self.hidden_dim).requires_grad_()
c0 = torch.zeros(self.layer_dim, x.size(0), self.hidden_dim).requires_grad_()
out, (hn, cn) = self.lstm(x, (h0.detach(), c0.detach()))
out = out[:, -1, :]
out = self.fc(out)
return out
Validation (defined within a trainer class)
def validation(self, val_loader, batch_size, n_features):
with torch.no_grad():
predictions = []
values = []
for x_val, y_val in val_loader:
x_val = x_val.view([batch_size, -1, n_features]).to(device)
y_val = y_val.to(device)
self.model.eval()
yhat = self.model(x_val)
predictions.append(yhat.cpu().detach().numpy())
values.append(y_val.cpu().detach().numpy())
return predictions, values
I've finally found a way to forecast values based on predicted values from the earlier observations. As expected, the predictions were rather accurate in the short-term, slightly becoming worse in the long term. It is not so surprising that the future predictions digress over time, as they no longer depend on the actual values. Reflecting on my results and the discussions I had on the topic, here are my take-aways:
In real-life cases, the real values can be retrieved and fed into the model at each step of the prediction -be it weekly, daily, or hourly- so that the next step can be predicted with the actual values from the previous step. So, testing the performance based on the actual values from the test set may somewhat reflect the real performance of the model that is maintained regularly.
However, for predicting future values in the long term, forecasting, if you will, you need to make either multiple one-step predictions or multi-step predictions that span over the time period you wish to forecast.
Making multiple one-step predictions based on the values predicted the model yields plausible results in the short term. As the forecasting period increases, the predictions become less accurate and therefore less fit for the purpose of forecasting.
To make multiple one-step predictions and update the input after each prediction, we have to work our way through the dataset one by one, as if we are going through a for-loop over the test set. Not surprisingly, this makes us lose all the computational advantages that matrix operations and mini-batch training provide us.
An alternative could be predicting sequences of values, instead of predicting the next value only, say using RNNs with multi-dimensional output with many-to-many or seq-to-seq structure. They are likely to be more difficult to train and less flexible to make predictions for different time periods. An encoder-decoder structure may prove useful for solving this, though I have not implemented it by myself.
You can find the code for my function that forecasts the next n_steps based on the last row of the dataset X (time-lag features) and y (target value). To iterate over each row in my dataset, I would set batch_size to 1 and n_features to the number of lagged observations.
def forecast(self, X, y, batch_size=1, n_features=1, n_steps=100):
predictions = []
X = torch.roll(X, shifts=1, dims=2)
X[..., -1, 0] = y.item(0)
with torch.no_grad():
self.model.eval()
for _ in range(n_steps):
X = X.view([batch_size, -1, n_features]).to(device)
yhat = self.model(X)
yhat = yhat.to(device).detach().numpy()
X = torch.roll(X, shifts=1, dims=2)
X[..., -1, 0] = yhat.item(0)
predictions.append(yhat)
return predictions
The following line shifts values in the second dimension of the tensor by one so that a tensor [[[x1, x2, x3, ... , xn ]]] becomes [[[xn, x1, x2, ... , x(n-1)]]].
X = torch.roll(X, shifts=1, dims=2)
And, the line below selects the first element from the last dimension of the 3d tensor and sets that item to the predicted value stored in the NumPy ndarray (yhat), [[xn+1]]. Then, the new input tensor becomes [[[x(n+1), x1, x2, ... , x(n-1)]]]
X[..., -1, 0] = yhat.item(0)
Recently, I've decided to put together the things I had learned and the things I would have liked to know earlier. If you'd like to have a look, you can find the links down below. I hope you'll find it useful. Feel free to comment or reach out to me if you agree or disagree with any of the remarks I made above.
Building RNN, LSTM, and GRU for time series using PyTorch
Predicting future values with RNN, LSTM, and GRU using PyTorch
I implement a neural net in keras, with the following structure:
model = Sequential([... layers ...])
model.compile(optimizer=..., loss=...)
hist=model.fit(x=X,y=Y, validation_split=0.1, epochs=100)
Is there a way to extract from either model or hist the train and validation sets? That is, I want to know which indices in X and Y were used for training and which were used for validation.
Keras splits the dataset at
split_at = int(x[0].shape * (1-validation_split))
into the train and validation part. So if you have n samples, the first int(n*(1-validation_split)) samples will be the training sample, the remainder is the validation set.
If you want to have more control, you can split the dataset yourself and pass the validation dataset with the parameter validation_data:
model.fit(train_x, train_y, …, validation_data=(validation_x, validation_y))
I'm implementing a Multilayer Perceptron in Keras and using scikit-learn to perform cross-validation. For this, I was inspired by the code found in the issue Cross Validation in Keras
from sklearn.cross_validation import StratifiedKFold
def load_data():
# load your data using this function
def create model():
# create your model using this function
def train_and_evaluate__model(model, data[train], labels[train], data[test], labels[test)):
# fit and evaluate here.
if __name__ == "__main__":
X, Y = load_model()
kFold = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=10)
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
In my studies on neural networks, I learned that the knowledge representation of the neural network is in the synaptic weights and during the network tracing process, the weights that are updated to thereby reduce the network error rate and improve its performance. (In my case, I'm using Supervised Learning)
For better training and assessment of neural network performance, a common method of being used is cross-validation that returns partitions of the data set for training and evaluation of the model.
My doubt is...
In this code snippet:
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
We define, train and evaluate a new neural net for each of the generated partitions?
If my goal is to fine-tune the network for the entire dataset, why is it not correct to define a single neural network and train it with the generated partitions?
That is, why is this piece of code like this?
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
and not so?
model = None
model = create_model()
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
Is my understanding of how the code works wrong? Or my theory?
If my goal is to fine-tune the network for the entire dataset
It is not clear what you mean by "fine-tune", or even what exactly is your purpose for performing cross-validation (CV); in general, CV serves one of the following purposes:
Model selection (choose the values of hyperparameters)
Model assessment
Since you don't define any search grid for hyperparameter selection in your code, it would seem that you are using CV in order to get the expected performance of your model (error, accuracy etc).
Anyway, for whatever reason you are using CV, the first snippet is the correct one; your second snippet
model = None
model = create_model()
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
will train your model sequentially over the different partitions (i.e. train on partition #1, then continue training on partition #2 etc), which essentially is just training on your whole data set, and it is certainly not cross-validation...
That said, a final step after the CV which is often only implied (and frequently missed by beginners) is that, after you are satisfied with your chosen hyperparameters and/or model performance as given by your CV procedure, you go back and train again your model, this time with the entire available data.
You can use wrappers of the Scikit-Learn API with Keras models.
Given inputs x and y, here's an example of repeated 5-fold cross-validation:
from sklearn.model_selection import RepeatedKFold, cross_val_score
from tensorflow.keras.models import *
from tensorflow.keras.layers import *
from tensorflow.keras.wrappers.scikit_learn import KerasRegressor
def buildmodel():
model= Sequential([
Dense(10, activation="relu"),
Dense(5, activation="relu"),
Dense(1)
])
model.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='mse', metrics=['mse'])
return(model)
estimator= KerasRegressor(build_fn=buildmodel, epochs=100, batch_size=10, verbose=0)
kfold= RepeatedKFold(n_splits=5, n_repeats=100)
results= cross_val_score(estimator, x, y, cv=kfold, n_jobs=2) # 2 cpus
results.mean() # Mean MSE
I think many of your questions will be answered if you read about nested cross-validation. This is a good way to "fine tune" the hyper parameters of your model. There's a thread here:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/65128/nested-cross-validation-for-model-selection
The biggest issue to be aware of is "peeking" or circular logic. Essentially - you want to make sure that none of data used to assess model accuracy is seen during training.
One example where this might be problematic is if you are running something like PCA or ICA for feature extraction. If doing something like this, you must be sure to run PCA on your training set, and then apply the transformation matrix from the training set to the test set.
The main idea of testing your model performance is to perform the following steps:
Train a model on a training set.
Evaluate your model on a data not used during training process in order to simulate a new data arrival.
So basically - the data you should finally test your model should mimic the first data portion you'll get from your client/application to apply your model on.
So that's why cross-validation is so powerful - it makes every data point in your whole dataset to be used as a simulation of new data.
And now - to answer your question - every cross-validation should follow the following pattern:
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y
model = training_procedure(train, ...)
score = evaluation_procedure(model, test, ...)
because after all, you'll first train your model and then use it on a new data. In your second approach - you cannot treat it as a mimicry of a training process because e.g. in second fold your model would have information kept from the first fold - which is not equivalent to your training procedure.
Of course - you could apply a training procedure which uses 10 folds of consecutive training in order to finetune network. But this is not cross-validation then - you'll need to evaluate this procedure using some kind of schema above.
The commented out functions make this a little less obvious, but the idea is to keep track of your model performance as you iterate through your folds and at the end provide either those lower level performance metrics or an averaged global performance. For example:
The train_evaluate function ideally would output some accuracy score for each split, which could be combined at the end.
def train_evaluate(model, x_train, y_train, x_test, y_test):
model.fit(x_train, y_train)
return model.score(x_test, y_test)
X, Y = load_model()
kFold = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=10)
scores = np.zeros(10)
idx = 0
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = create_model()
scores[idx] = train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
idx += 1
print(scores)
print(scores.mean())
So yes you do want to create a new model for each fold as the purpose of this exercise is to determine how your model as it is designed performs on all segments of the data, not just one particular segment that may or may not allow the model to perform well.
This type of approach becomes particularly powerful when applied along with a grid search over hyperparameters. In this approach you train a model with varying hyperparameters using the cross validation splits and keep track of the performance on splits and overall. In the end you will be able to get a much better idea of which hyperparameters allow the model to perform best. For a much more in depth explanation see sklearn Model Selection and pay particular attention to the sections of Cross Validation and Grid Search.
I would like to code with Keras a neural network that acts both as an autoencoder AND a classifier for semi-supervised learning. Take for example this dataset where there is a few labeled images and a lot of unlabeled images: https://cs.stanford.edu/~acoates/stl10/
Some papers listed here achieved that, or very similar things, successfully.
To sum up: if the model would have the same input data shape and the same "encoding" convolutional layers, but would split into two heads (fork-style), so there is a classification head and a decoding head, in a way that the unsupervised autoencoder will contribute to a good learning for the classification head.
With TensorFlow there would be no problem doing that as we have full control over the computational graph.
But with Keras, things are more high-level and I feel that all the calls to ".fit" must always provide all the data at once (so it would force me to tie together the classification head and the autoencoding head into one time-step).
One way in keras to almost do that would be with something that goes like this:
input = Input(shape=(32, 32, 3))
cnn_feature_map = sequential_cnn_trunk(input)
classification_predictions = Dense(10, activation='sigmoid')(cnn_feature_map)
autoencoded_predictions = decode_cnn_head_sequential(cnn_feature_map)
model = Model(inputs=[input], outputs=[classification_predictions, ])
model.compile(optimizer='rmsprop',
loss='binary_crossentropy',
metrics=['accuracy'])
model.fit([images], [labels, images], epochs=10)
However, I think and I fear that if I just want to fit things in that way it will fail and ask for the missing head:
for epoch in range(10):
# classifications step
model.fit([images], [labels, None], epochs=1)
# "semi-unsupervised" autoencoding step
model.fit([images], [None, images], epochs=1)
# note: ".train_on_batch" could probably be used rather than ".fit" to avoid doing a whole epoch each time.
How should one implement that behavior with Keras? And could the training be done jointly without having to split the two calls to the ".fit" function?
Sometimes when you don't have a label you can pass zero vector instead of one hot encoded vector. It should not change your result because zero vector doesn't have any error signal with categorical cross entropy loss.
My custom to_categorical function looks like this:
def tricky_to_categorical(y, translator_dict):
encoded = np.zeros((y.shape[0], len(translator_dict)))
for i in range(y.shape[0]):
if y[i] in translator_dict:
encoded[i][translator_dict[y[i]]] = 1
return encoded
When y contains labels, and translator_dict is a python dictionary witch contains labels and its unique keys like this:
{'unisex':2, 'female': 1, 'male': 0}
If an UNK label can't be found in this dictinary then its encoded label will be a zero vector
If you use this trick you also have to modify your accuracy function to see real accuracy numbers. you have to filter out all zero vectors from our metrics
def tricky_accuracy(y_true, y_pred):
mask = K.not_equal(K.sum(y_true, axis=-1), K.constant(0)) # zero vector mask
y_true = tf.boolean_mask(y_true, mask)
y_pred = tf.boolean_mask(y_pred, mask)
return K.cast(K.equal(K.argmax(y_true, axis=-1), K.argmax(y_pred, axis=-1)), K.floatx())
note: You have to use larger batches (e.g. 32) in order to prevent zero matrix update, because It can make your accuracy metrics crazy, I don't know why
Alternative solution
Use Pseudo Labeling :)
you can train jointly, you have to pass an array insted of single label.
I used fit_generator, e.g.
model.fit_generator(
batch_generator(),
steps_per_epoch=len(dataset) / batch_size,
epochs=epochs)
def batch_generator():
batch_x = np.empty((batch_size, img_height, img_width, 3))
gender_label_batch = np.empty((batch_size, len(gender_dict)))
category_label_batch = np.empty((batch_size, len(category_dict)))
while True:
i = 0
for idx in np.random.choice(len(dataset), batch_size):
image_id = dataset[idx][0]
batch_x[i] = load_and_convert_image(image_id)
gender_label_batch[i] = gender_labels[idx]
category_label_batch[i] = category_labels[idx]
i += 1
yield batch_x, [gender_label_batch, category_label_batch]