This may sound like a naive question, but i am quite new on this. Let's say I use the Google pre-trained word2vector model (https://github.com/dav/word2vec) to train a classification model. I save my classification model. Now I load back the classification model into memory for testing new instances. Do I need to load the Google word2vector model again? Or is it only used for training my model?
It depends on how your corpuses and test examples are structured and pre-processed.
You are probably using the pre-trained word-vectors to turn text into numerical features. At first, text examples are vectorized to train the classifier. Later, other (test/production) text examples will be vectorized in the same, and presented to get the classifier to get its judgements.
So you will need to use the same text-to-vectors process for test/production text examples as was used during training. Perhaps you've done that in a separate earlier bulk step, in which case you already have the features in the vector form the classifier uses. But often your classifier pipeline will itself take raw text, and vectorize it – in which case it will need the same pre-trained (word)->(vector) mappings available at test time as were available during training.
Related
I am trying to understand how a GAN is trained. I believe understand the Adversarial training process. What I can't seem to find information on is this: do GANs use class labels in the training process? My current understanding says no - because the discriminator is simply trying to discriminate between real or fake images, while the generator is trying to create real image (but not images of any specific class.)
If this is the case, then how do researchers propose to use the discriminator network for classification tasks? the network would only be able to perform two way classification between real or fake images. The generator network would also be difficult to use, seeing as we don't know what setting of the input vector 'Z' will result in the required generated image.
It completely depends on the network you are trying to build. If you are talking specifically about the basic GAN, then you are correct. Class labels are not needed as the discriminator network is only classifying real/fake images. There is a conditional variant of the GAN (cGAN) where you do make use of the class labels in both the generator and the discriminator. This allows you to produce examples for a specific class with the generator and classify them with the discriminator (along with the real/fake classification)
From the reading that I have done, the discriminator network is just used as a tool for training the generator, and the generator is the main network of concern. Why would you use the discriminator that you used to train the GAN for classification when you could just use a ResNet or VGG net for your classification tasks. These networks would work better anyway. You are right however that using the original GAN could cause difficulty because of the mode collapse and constantly producing the same image. That is why the conditional variant was introduced.
Hope this clears things up!
Do GANs use class labels in the training process?
The author suspected GANs doesn't require labels. This is correct. The discriminator is trained to classify real and fake images. Since we know which images are real and which are generated by the generator, we do not need labels to train the discriminator. The generator is trained to fool the discriminator, which also doesn't require labels.
This is one of the most attractive benefits of GANs [1]. Usually, we refer to methods that do not require labels as unsupervised learning. That said, if we had labels, maybe we could train a GAN that uses the labels to improve performance. This idea underlies the follow-up work by [2] who introduced the conditional GAN.
If this is the case, then how do researchers propose to use the discriminator network for classification tasks?
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The purpose of the discriminator is NOT to act as a classifier on real data. The purpose of the discriminator is to "tell the generator how to improve its fakes". This is done by using the discriminator as a loss function, which we can backpropagate gradients through if it is a neural network. After training, we usually discard the discriminator.
The generator network would also be difficult to use, seeing as we don't know what setting of the input vector 'Z' will result in the required generated image.
It seems the underlying reason for posting the question lies here. The input vector 'Z' is chosen such that it follows some distribution, typically a normal distribution. But then what happens if we take 'Z', a random vector with normally distributed entries, and computes 'G(Z)'? We get a new vector which follows a very complicated distribution that depends on G. The entire idea of GANs is to change G such that this new complicated distribution is close to the distribution of our data. This idea is formalized with f-Divergences in [3].
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1784
[3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00709
Let's suppose I would like to classify motorbikes by model.
there are couple of hundreds models of motorbikes I'm interested in.
I do have tens, sometimes hundreds of pictures of each motorbike model.
Can you please point me to the practical example that demonstrates how to train model on your data and then use it to classify images? It needs to be a deep learning model, not simple logistic regression.
I'm not sure about it, but it seems like I can't use pre-trained neural net because it has been trained on wide range of objects like cat, human, cars etc. They may be not too good at distinguishing the motorbike nuances I'm interested in.
I found couple of such examples (tensorflow has one), but sadly, all of them were using pre-trained model. None of it had example how to train it on your own dataset.
In cases like yours you either use transfer learning or fine tuning. If you have more then thousand images of motorbikes I would use fine tuning and if you have less transfer learning.
Fine tuning is using a pre trained model and using a different classifier part. Then the new classifier part maybe the last 1-2 layers of the trained model are trained to your dataset.
Transfer learning means using a pre trained model and letting it output features for an input image. Now you use a new classifier based on those features. Maybe a SVM or a logistic regression.
An example for this can be seen here: https://github.com/cpra/dlvc2016/blob/master/lectures/lecture10.pdf. slide 33.
This paper Quick, Draw! Doodle Recognition from a kaggle challenge may be similar enough to what you are doing. The code is on github. You may need some data augmentation if you only have a few hundred images for each category.
What you want is pretty EZ. Follow the darknet YOLO implementation
Instruction: https://pjreddie.com/darknet/yolo/
Code https://github.com/pjreddie/darknet
Training YOLO on COCO
You can train YOLO from scratch if you want to play with different training regimes, hyper-parameters, or datasets. Here's how to get it working on the COCO dataset.
Get The COCO Data
To train YOLO you will need all of the COCO data and labels. The script scripts/get_coco_dataset.sh will do this for you. Figure out where you want to put the COCO data and download it, for example:
cp scripts/get_coco_dataset.sh data
cd data
bash get_coco_dataset.sh
Add your data inside and make sure it is same as testing samples.
Now you should have all the data and the labels generated for Darknet.
Then call training script with the pre-trained weight.
Keep in mind that only training on your motorcycle may not result in good estimation. There would be biased result coming out, I red it somewhere b4.
The rest is all inside the link. Good luck
"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.
I've been studying neural networks for a bit and recently learned about the dropout training algorithm. There are excellent papers out there to understand how it works, including the ones from the authors.
So I built a neural network with dropout training (it was fairly easy) but I'm a bit confused about how to perform model selection. From what I understand, looks like dropout is a method to be used when training the final model obtained through model selection.
As for the test part, papers always talk about using the complete network with halved weights, but they do not mention how to use it in the training/validation part (at least the ones I read).
I was thinking about using the network without dropout for the model selection part. Say that makes me find that the net performs well with N neurons. Then, for the final training (the one I use to train the network for the test part) I use 2N neurons with dropout probability p=0.5. That assures me to have exactly N neurons active on average, thus using the network at the right capacity most of the time.
Is this a correct approach?
By the way, I'm aware of the fact that dropout might not be the best choice with small datasets. The project I'm working on has academic purposes, so it's not really needed that I use the best model for the data, as long as I stick with machine learning good practices.
First of all, model selection and the training of a particular model are completely different issues. For model selection, you would usually need a data set that is completely independent of both training set used to build the model and test set used to estimate its performance. So if you're doing for example a cross-validation, you would need an inner cross-validation (to train the models and estimate the performance in general) and an outer cross-validation to do the model selection.
To see why, consider the following thought experiment (shamelessly stolen from this paper). You have a model that makes a completely random prediction. It has a number of parameters that you can set, but have no effect. If you're trying different parameter settings long enough, you'll eventually get a model that has a better performance than all the others simply because you're sampling from a random distribution. If you're using the same data for all of these models, this is the model you will choose. If you have a separate test set, it will quickly tell you that there is no real effect because the performance of this parameter setting that achieves good results during the model-building phase is not better on the separate set.
Now, back to neural networks with dropout. You didn't refer to any particular paper; I'm assuming that you mean Srivastava et. al. "Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting". I'm not an expert on the subject, but the method to me seems to be similar to what's used in random forests or bagging to mitigate the flaws an individual learner may exhibit by applying it repeatedly in slightly different contexts. If I understood the method correctly, essentially what you end up with is an average over several possible models, very similar to random forests.
This is a way to make an individual model better, but not for model selection. The dropout is a way of adjusting the learned weights for a single neural network model.
To do model selection on this, you would need to train and test neural networks with different parameters and then evaluate those on completely different sets of data, as described in the paper I've referenced above.
So we are running a multinomial naive bayes classification algorithm on a set of 15k tweets. We first break up each tweet into a vector of word features based on Weka's StringToWordVector function. We then save the results to a new arff file to user as our training set. We repeat this process with another set of 5k tweets and re-evaluate the test set using the same model derived from our training set.
What we would like to do is to output each sentence that weka classified in the test set along with its classification... We can see the general information (Precision, recall, f-score) of the performance and accuracy of the algorithm but we cannot see the individual sentences that were classified by weka, based on our classifier... Is there anyway to do this?
Another problem is that ultimately our professor will give us 20k more tweets and expect us to classify this new document. We are not sure how to do this however as:
All of the data we have been working with has been classified manually, both the training and test sets...
however the data we will be getting from the professor will be UNclassified... How can we
reevaluate our model on the unclassified data if Weka requires that the attribute information must
be the same as the set used to form the model and the test set we are evaluating against?
Thanks for any help!
The easiest way to acomplish these tasks is using a FilteredClassifier. This kind of classifier integrates a Filter and a Classifier, so you can connect a StringToWordVector filter with the classifier you prefer (J48, NaiveBayes, whatever), and you will be always keeping the original training set (unprocessed text), and applying the classifier to new tweets (unprocessed) by using the vocabular derived by the StringToWordVector filter.
You can see how to do this in the command line in "Command Line Functions for Text Mining in WEKA" and via a program in "A Simple Text Classifier in Java with WEKA".