Related
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.
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.
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]
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))
I can't understand why dropout works like this in tensorflow. The blog of CS231n says that, "dropout is implemented by only keeping a neuron active with some probability p (a hyperparameter), or setting it to zero otherwise." Also you can see this from picture(Taken from the same site)
From tensorflow site, With probability keep_prob, outputs the input element scaled up by 1 / keep_prob, otherwise outputs 0.
Now, why the input element is scaled up by 1/keep_prob? Why not keep the input element as it is with probability and not scale it with 1/keep_prob?
This scaling enables the same network to be used for training (with keep_prob < 1.0) and evaluation (with keep_prob == 1.0). From the Dropout paper:
The idea is to use a single neural net at test time without dropout. The weights of this network are scaled-down versions of the trained weights. If a unit is retained with probability p during training, the outgoing weights of that unit are multiplied by p at test time as shown in Figure 2.
Rather than adding ops to scale down the weights by keep_prob at test time, the TensorFlow implementation adds an op to scale up the weights by 1. / keep_prob at training time. The effect on performance is negligible, and the code is simpler (because we use the same graph and treat keep_prob as a tf.placeholder() that is fed a different value depending on whether we are training or evaluating the network).
Let's say the network had n neurons and we applied dropout rate 1/2
Training phase, we would be left with n/2 neurons. So if you were expecting output x with all the neurons, now you will get on x/2. So for every batch, the network weights are trained according to this x/2
Testing/Inference/Validation phase, we dont apply any dropout so the output is x. So, in this case, the output would be with x and not x/2, which would give you the incorrect result. So what you can do is scale it to x/2 during testing.
Rather than the above scaling specific to Testing phase. What Tensorflow's dropout layer does is that whether it is with dropout or without (Training or testing), it scales the output so that the sum is constant.
Here is a quick experiment to disperse any remaining confusion.
Statistically the weights of a NN-layer follow a distribution that is usually close to normal (but not necessarily), but even in the case when trying to sample a perfect normal distribution in practice, there are always computational errors.
Then consider the following experiment:
DIM = 1_000_000 # set our dims for weights and input
x = np.ones((DIM,1)) # our input vector
#x = np.random.rand(DIM,1)*2-1.0 # or could also be a more realistic normalized input
probs = [1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3] # define dropout probs
W = np.random.normal(size=(DIM,1)) # sample normally distributed weights
print("W-mean = ", W.mean()) # note the mean is not perfect --> sampling error!
# DO THE DRILL
h = defaultdict(list)
for i in range(1000):
for p in probs:
M = np.random.rand(DIM,1)
M = (M < p).astype(int)
Wp = W * M
a = np.dot(Wp.T, x)
h[str(p)].append(a)
for k,v in h.items():
print("For drop-out prob %r the average linear activation is %r (unscaled) and %r (scaled)" % (k, np.mean(v), np.mean(v)/float(k)))
Sample output:
x-mean = 1.0
W-mean = -0.001003985674840264
For drop-out prob '1.0' the average linear activation is -1003.985674840258 (unscaled) and -1003.985674840258 (scaled)
For drop-out prob '0.7' the average linear activation is -700.6128015029908 (unscaled) and -1000.8754307185584 (scaled)
For drop-out prob '0.5' the average linear activation is -512.1602655283492 (unscaled) and -1024.3205310566984 (scaled)
For drop-out prob '0.3' the average linear activation is -303.21194422742315 (unscaled) and -1010.7064807580772 (scaled)
Notice that the unscaled activations diminish due to the statistically imperfect normal distribution.
Can you spot an obvious correlation between the W-mean and the average linear activation means?
If you keep reading in cs231n, the difference between dropout and inverted dropout is explained.
In a network with no dropout, the activations in layer L will be aL. The weights of next layer (L+1) will be learned in such a manner that it receives aL and produces output accordingly. But with a network containing dropout (with keep_prob = p), the weights of L+1 will be learned in such a manner that it receives p*aL and produces output accordingly. Why p*aL? Because the Expected value, E(aL), will be probability_of_keeping(aL)*aL + probability_of_not_keeping(aL)*0 which will be equal to p*aL + (1-p)*0 = p*aL. In the same network, during testing time there will be no dropout. Hence the layer L+1 will receive aL simply. But its weights were trained to expect p*aL as input. Therefore, during testing time you will have to multiply the activations with p. But instead of doing this, you can multiply the activations with 1/p during training only. This is called inverted dropout.
Since we want to leave the forward pass at test time untouched (and tweak our network just during training), tf.nn.dropout directly implements inverted dropout, scaling the values.