I'm doing a AlexNet fine tuning for face detection following this: link
The only difference with the link is that I am using another dataset (facescrub and some images from imagenet as negative examples).
I noticed the accuracy increasing too fast, in 50 iterations it goes from 0.308 to 0.967 and when it is about 0.999 I stop the training and use the model using the same python script as the above link.
I use for testing an image from the dataset and the result is nowhere near good, test image result. As you can see the box in the faces is too big (and the dataset images are tightly cropped), not to mention the box not containing a face.
My solver and train_val files are exactly the same, only difference is batch sizes and max iter size.
The reason was that my dataset has way more face examples than non-face examples. I tried the same setup with the same number of positive and negative examples and now the accuracy increases slower.
Related
Im currently working on a classification project but I'm in doubt about how I should start off.
Goal
Accurately classifying pictures of size 80*80 (so 6400 pixels) in the correct class (binary).
Setting
5260 training samples, 600 test samples
Question
As there are more pixels than samples, it seems logic to me to 'drop' most of the pixels and only look at the important ones before I even start working out a classification method (like SVM, KNN etc.).
Say the training data consists of X_train (predictors) and Y_train (outcomes). So far, I've tried looking at the SelectKBest() method from sklearn for feature extraction. But what would be the best way to use this method and to know how many k's I've actually got to select?
It could also be the case that I'm completely on the wrong track here, so correct me if I'm wrong or suggest an other approach to this if possible.
You are suggesting to reduce the dimension of your feature space. That is a method of regularization to reduce overfitting. You haven't mentioned overfitting is an issue so I would test that first. Here are some things I would try:
Use transfer learning. Take a pretrained network for image recognition tasks and fine tune it to your dataset. Search for transfer learning and you'll find many resources.
Train a convolutional neural network on your dataset. CNNs are the go-to method for machine learning on images. Check for overfitting.
If you want to reduce the dimensionality of your dataset, resize the image. Going from 80x80 => 40x40 will reduce the number of pixels by 4x, assuming your task doesn't depend on fine details of the image you should maintain classification performance.
There are other things you may want to consider but I would need to know more about your problem and its requirements.
I trained a CNN (on tensorflow) for digit recognition using MNIST dataset.
Accuracy on test set was close to 98%.
I wanted to predict the digits using data which I created myself and the results were bad.
What I did to the images written by me?
I segmented out each digit and converted to grayscale and resized the image into 28x28 and fed to the model.
How come that I get such low accuracy on my data set where as such high accuracy on test set?
Are there other modifications that i'm supposed to make to the images?
EDIT:
Here is the link to the images and some examples:
Excluding bugs and obvious errors, my guess would be that your problem is that you are capturing your hand written digits in a way that is too different from your training set.
When capturing your data you should try to mimic as much as possible the process used to create the MNIST dataset:
From the oficial MNIST dataset website:
The original black and white (bilevel) images from NIST were size
normalized to fit in a 20x20 pixel box while preserving their aspect
ratio. The resulting images contain grey levels as a result of the
anti-aliasing technique used by the normalization algorithm. the
images were centered in a 28x28 image by computing the center of mass
of the pixels, and translating the image so as to position this point
at the center of the 28x28 field.
If your data has a different processing in the training and test phases then your model is not able to generalize from the train data to the test data.
So I have two advices for you:
Try to capture and process your digit images so that they look as similar as possible to the MNIST dataset;
Add some of your examples to your training data to allow your model to train on images similar to the ones you are classifying;
For those still have a hard time with the poor quality of CNN based models for MNIST:
https://github.com/christiansoe/mnist_draw_test
Normalization was the key.
I am testing printed digits (0-9) on a Convolutional Neural Network. It is giving 99+ % accuracy on the MNIST Dataset, but when I tried it using fonts installed on computer (Ariel, Calibri, Cambria, Cambria math, Times New Roman) and trained the images generated by fonts (104 images per font(Total 25 fonts - 4 images per font(little difference)) the training error rate does not go below 80%, i.e. 20% accuracy. Why?
Here is "2" number Images sample -
I resized every image 28 x 28.
Here is more detail :-
Training data size = 28 x 28 images.
Network parameters - As LeNet5
Architecture of Network -
Input Layer -28x28
| Convolutional Layer - (Relu Activation);
| Pooling Layer - (Tanh Activation)
| Convolutional Layer - (Relu Activation)
| Local Layer(120 neurons) - (Relu)
| Fully Connected (Softmax Activation, 10 outputs)
This works, giving 99+% accuracy on MNIST. Why is so bad with computer-generated fonts? A CNN can handle lot of variance in data.
I see two likely problems:
Preprocessing: MNIST is not only 28px x 28px, but also:
The original black and white (bilevel) images from NIST were size normalized to fit in a 20x20 pixel box while preserving their aspect ratio. The resulting images contain grey levels as a result of the anti-aliasing technique used by the normalization algorithm. the images were centered in a 28x28 image by computing the center of mass of the pixels, and translating the image so as to position this point at the center of the 28x28 field.
Source: MNIST website
Overfitting:
MNIST has 60,000 training examples and 10,000 test examples. How many do you have?
Did you try dropout (see paper)?
Did you try dataset augmentation techniques? (e.g. slightly shifting the image, probably changing the aspect ratio a bit, you could also add noise - however, I don't think those will help)
Did you try smaller networks? (And how big are your filters / how many filters do you have?)
Remarks
Interesting idea! Did you try simply applying the trained MNIST network on your data? What are the results?
It may be an overfitting problem. It could happen when your network is too complex for the problem to resolve.
Check this article: http://es.mathworks.com/help/nnet/ug/improve-neural-network-generalization-and-avoid-overfitting.html
It definitely looks like an issue of overfitting. I see that you have two convolution layers, two max pooling layers and two fully connected. But how many weights total? You only have 96 examples per class, which is certainly smaller than the number of weights you have in your CNN. Remember that you want at least 5 times more instances in your training set than weights in your CNN.
You have two solutions to improve your CNN:
Shake each instance in the training set. You each number about 1 pixel around. It will already multiply your training set by 9.
Use a transformer layer. It will add an elastic deformation to each number at each epoch. It will strengthen a lot the learning by artificially increase your training set. Moreover, it will make it much more effective to predict other fonts.
I have input (r,c) in range (0, 1] as the coordinate of a pixel of an image and its color 1 or 2 only.
I have about 6,400 pixels.
My attempt of fitting X=(r,c) and y=color was a failure the accuracy won't go higher than 70%.
Here's the image:
The first is the actual image, the 2nd is the image I use to train on, it has only 2 colors. The last is the image that the neural network generated with about 500 weights training with 50 iterations. Input Layer is 2, one hidden layer of size 100, and the output layer is 2. (for binary classification like this, I may need only one output layer but I am just preparing for multi-class classification)
The classifier failed to fit the training set, why is that? I tried generating high polynomial terms of those 2 features but it doesn't help. I tried using Gaussian kernel and random 20-100 landmarks on the picture to add more features, also got similar output. I tried using logistic regressions, doesn't help.
Please help me increase the accuracy.
Here's the input:input.txt (you can load it into Octave the variable is coordinate (r,c features) and idx (color)
You can try plotting it first to make sure that you understand the input then try training on it and tell me if you get better result.
Your problem is hard to model. You are trying to fit function from R^2 to R, which has lots of complexity - lots of "spikes", lots of discontinuous regions (pixels that are completely separated from the rest). This is not an easy problem, and not usefull one.. In order to overfit your network to such setting you will need plenty of hidden units. Thus, what are the options to do so?
General things that are missing in the question, and are important
Your output variable should be {0, 1} if you are fitting your network through cross entropy cost (log likelihood), which you should use for classification.
50 iteraions (if you are talking about some mini-batch iteraions) is orders of magnitude to small, unless you mean 50 epochs (iterations over whole training set).
Actual things, that will probably need to be done (at least one of the below):
I assume that you are using ReLU activations (or Tanh, hard to say looking at the output) - you can instead use RBF activations, and increase number of hidden neurons to ~5000,
If you do not want to go with RBFs, then you will need 1-2 additional hidden layers to fit function of this complexity. Try architecture of type 100-100-100 instaed.
If the above fails - increase number of hidden units, that's all you need - enough capacity.
In general: neural networks are not designed for working with low dimensional datasets. This is nice example from the web, that you can learn pix-pos to color mapping, but it is completely artificial and seems to actually harm people intuitions.
I am trying to tune the hyper parameter i.e batch size in CNN.I have a computer of corei7,RAM 12GB and i am training a CNN network with CIFAR-10 dataset which can be found in this blog.Now At first what i have read and learnt about batch size in machine learning:
let's first suppose that we're doing online learning, i.e. that we're
using a minibatch size of 1. The obvious worry about online learning
is that using minibatches which contain just a single training
example will cause significant errors in our estimate of the gradient.
In fact, though, the errors turn out to not be such a problem. The
reason is that the individual gradient estimates don't need to be
superaccurate. All we need is an estimate accurate enough that our
cost function tends to keep decreasing. It's as though you are trying
to get to the North Magnetic Pole, but have a wonky compass that's
10-20 degrees off each time you look at it. Provided you stop to
check the compass frequently, and the compass gets the direction right
on average, you'll end up at the North Magnetic Pole just
fine.
Based on this argument, it sounds as though we should use online
learning. In fact, the situation turns out to be more complicated than
that.As we know we can use matrix techniques to compute the gradient
update for all examples in a minibatch simultaneously, rather than
looping over them. Depending on the details of our hardware and linear
algebra library this can make it quite a bit faster to compute the
gradient estimate for a minibatch of (for example) size 100 , rather
than computing the minibatch gradient estimate by looping over the
100 training examples separately. It might take (say) only 50 times as
long, rather than 100 times as long.Now, at first it seems as though
this doesn't help us that much.
With our minibatch of size 100 the learning rule for the weights
looks like:
where the sum is over training examples in the minibatch. This is
versus for online learning.
Even if it only takes 50 times as long to do the minibatch update, it
still seems likely to be better to do online learning, because we'd be
updating so much more frequently. Suppose, however, that in the
minibatch case we increase the learning rate by a factor 100, so the
update rule becomes
That's a lot like doing separate instances of online learning with a
learning rate of η. But it only takes 50 times as long as doing a
single instance of online learning. Still, it seems distinctly
possible that using the larger minibatch would speed things up.
Now i tried with MNIST digit dataset and ran a sample program and set the batch size 1 at first.I noted down the training time needed for the full dataset.Then i increased the batch size and i noticed that it became faster.
But in case of training with this code and github link changing the batch size doesn't decrease the training time.It remained same if i use 30 or 128 or 64.They are saying that they got 92% accuracy.After two or three epoch they have got above 40% accuracy.But when i ran the code in my computer without changing anything other than the batch size i got worse result after 10 epoch like only 28% and test accuracy stuck there in the next epochs.Then i thought since they have used batch size of 128 i need to use that.Then i used the same but it became more worse only give 11% after 10 epoch and stuck in there.Why is that??
Neural networks learn by gradient descent an error function in the weight space which is parametrized by the training examples. This means the variables are the weights of the neural network. The function is "generic" and becomes specific when you use training examples. The "correct" way would be to use all training examples to make the specific function. This is called "batch gradient descent" and is usually not done for two reasons:
It might not fit in your RAM (usually GPU, as for neural networks you get a huge boost when you use the GPU).
It is actually not necessary to use all examples.
In machine learning problems, you usually have several thousands of training examples. But the error surface might look similar when you only look at a few (e.g. 64, 128 or 256) examples.
Think of it as a photo: To get an idea of what the photo is about, you usually don't need a 2500x1800px resolution. A 256x256px image will give you a good idea what the photo is about. However, you miss details.
So imagine gradient descent to be a walk on the error surface: You start on one point and you want to find the lowest point. To do so, you walk down. Then you check your height again, check in which direction it goes down and make a "step" (of which the size is determined by the learning rate and a couple of other factors) in that direction. When you have mini-batch training instead of batch-training, you walk down on a different error surface. In the low-resolution error surface. It might actually go up in the "real" error surface. But overall, you will go in the right direction. And you can make single steps much faster!
Now, what happens when you make the resolution lower (the batch size smaller)?
Right, your image of what the error surface looks like gets less accurate. How much this affects you depends on factors like:
Your hardware/implementation
Dataset: How complex is the error surface and how good it is approximated by only a small portion?
Learning: How exactly are you learning (momentum? newbob? rprop?)
I'd like to add to what's been already said here that larger batch size is not always good for generalization. I've seen these cases myself, when an increase in batch size hurt validation accuracy, particularly for CNN working with CIFAR-10 dataset.
From "On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minima":
The stochastic gradient descent (SGD) method and its variants are
algorithms of choice for many Deep Learning tasks. These methods
operate in a small-batch regime wherein a fraction of the training
data, say 32–512 data points, is sampled to compute an approximation
to the gradient. It has been observed in practice that when using a
larger batch there is a degradation in the quality of the model, as
measured by its ability to generalize. We investigate the cause for
this generalization drop in the large-batch regime and present
numerical evidence that supports the view that large-batch methods
tend to converge to sharp minimizers of the training and testing
functions—and as is well known, sharp minima lead to poorer
generalization. In contrast, small-batch methods consistently converge
to flat minimizers, and our experiments support a commonly held view
that this is due to the inherent noise in the gradient estimation. We
discuss several strategies to attempt to help large-batch methods
eliminate this generalization gap.
Bottom-line: you should tune the batch size, just like any other hyperparameter, to find an optimal value.
The 2018 opinion retweeted by Yann LeCun is the paper Revisiting Small Batch Training For Deep Neural Networks, Dominic Masters and Carlo Luschi suggesting a good generic maximum batch size is:
32
With some interplay with choice of learning rate.
The earlier 2016 paper On Large-batch Training For Deep Learning: Generalization Gap And Sharp Minima gives some reason for not using big batches, which I paraphrase badly, as big batches are likely to get stuck in local (“sharp”) minima, small batches not.