I was recently going through the tensorflow pix2pix tutorial and after playing with it a bit I unexpectedly realized that there is a major difference between the predictions of a tf.keras.Model (In this case the Generator() from the tutorial) where one of the prediction use the training flag to true and the other to false.
Here is the code to demonstrate the issue:
# ...Tutorial steps where I load the model instead of creating a new one...
checkpoint.restore(tf.train.latest_checkpoint(checkpoint_dir))
for example_input, example_target in test_dataset.take(1):
train_res1 = generate_images(generator, example_input, example_target) # Function definition as per tutorial expect that I return the 'Predicted Image'
train_res2 = generate_images(generator, example_input, example_target) # Now considering training is true (will alter the model), a small RGB difference is expected
notrain_res2 = generate_images2(generator, example_input, example_target) # Identical to 'generate_images' except that 'training=false', should be identical or similar to last one.
r_avg = np.average(train_res1[:,:, 0])
g_avg = np.average(train_res1[:,:, 1])
b_avg = np.average(train_res1[:,:, 2])
print(f"Training flag true iteration#1 = R average: {r_avg}, G average: {g_avg}, B average: {b_avg}")
r_avg = np.average(train_res2[:,:, 0])
g_avg = np.average(train_res2[:,:, 1])
b_avg = np.average(train_res2[:,:, 2])
print(f"Training flag true iteration#2 = R average: {r_avg}, G average: {g_avg}, B average: {b_avg}")
r_avg = np.average(notrain_res2[:,:, 0])
g_avg = np.average(notrain_res2[:,:, 1])
b_avg = np.average(notrain_res2[:,:, 2])
print(f"Training flag false = R average: {r_avg}, G average: {g_avg}, B average: {b_avg}")
Just to avoid any confusion, here is the code of generate_images2 which is identical to generate_images from tutorial except that 'training=False' and I return the prediction:
def generate_images2(model, test_input, tar):
prediction = model(test_input, training=False)
plt.figure(figsize=(15, 15))
display_list = [test_input[0], tar[0], prediction[0]]
title = ['Input Image', 'Ground Truth', 'Predicted Image']
for i in range(3):
plt.subplot(1, 3, i+1)
plt.title(title[i], color = "w")
# Getting the pixel values in the [0, 1] range to plot.
plt.imshow(display_list[i] * 0.5 + 0.5)
plt.axis('off')
plt.show()
return display_list[2]
Here you can vizualize my concerns with the training flag.
As expected there are minor differences between the RGB values of iteration#1 and iteration#2 with training flag = True. This is expected due to training model alterations.
However when training flag = False, I would expect the RGB values to be similar or identical to the iteration#2 with training flag = True but if you look at the door in the yellow and red circle s the RGB values are clearly different.
The result is pretty much always better with training=True
Question: Why tf.keras.Model training flag significantly alters the prediction result?
Here's an answer from the Tensorflow repo:
https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/36936
There are some things that only happen during training, for example dropout is used. If training=False then dropout layers are ignored (see https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/keras/layers/Dropout)
Related
Suppose we want to minimize the following equation using gradient descent:
min f(alpha * v + (1-alpha)*w) with v and w the model weights and alpha the weight, between 0 and 1, for the sum resulting in the combined model v_bar or ū (here referred to as m).
alpha = tf.Variable(0.01, name='Alpha', constraint=lambda t: tf.clip_by_value(t, 0, 1))
w_weights = tff.learning.ModelWeights.from_model(w)
v_weights = tff.learning.ModelWeights.from_model(v)
m_weights = tff.learning.ModelWeights.from_model(m)
m_weights_trainable = tf.nest.map_structure(lambda v, w: alpha*v + (tf.constant(1.0) - alpha)*w, v_weights.trainable, w_weights.trainable)
tf.nest.map_structure(lambda v, t: v.assign(t), m_weights.trainable, m_weights_trainable)
In the paper of Adaptive Personalized Federated Learning, formula with update step for alpha suggests updating alpha based on the gradients of model m applied on a minibatch. I tried it with the watch or without, but it always leads to No gradients provided for any variable
with tf.GradientTape(watch_accessed_variables=False) as tape:
tape.watch([alpha])
outputs_m = m.forward_pass(batch)
grad = tape.gradient(outputs_m.loss, alpha)
optimizer.apply_gradients(zip([grad], [alpha]))
Some more information about the initialization of the models:
The m.forward_pass(batch) is the default implementation from tff.learning.Model (found here) by creating a model with tff.learning.from_keras_model and a tf.keras.Sequential model.
def model_fn():
keras_model = create_keras_model()
return tff.learning.from_keras_model(
keras_model,
input_spec = element_spec,
loss = tf.keras.losses.MeanSquaredError(),
metrics = [tf.keras.metrics.MeanSquaredError(),
tf.keras.metrics.MeanAbsoluteError()],
)
w = model_fn()
v = model_fn()
m = model_fn()
Some more experimenting as suggested below by Zachary Garrett:
It seems that whenever this weighted sum is calculated, and the new weights for the model are assigned, then it loses track of the previous trainable variables of both summed models. Again, it leads to the No gradients provided for any variable whenever optimizer.apply_gradients(zip([grad], [alpha])) is called. All gradients seem to be None.
with tf.GradientTape() as tape:
alpha = tf.Variable(0.01, name='Alpha', constraint=lambda t: tf.clip_by_value(t, 0, 1))
m_weights_t = tf.nest.map_structure(lambda w, v: tf.math.scalar_mul(alpha, v, name=None) + tf.math.scalar_mul(tf.constant(1.0) - alpha, w, name=None),
w.trainable,
v.trainable)
m_weights = tff.learning.ModelWeights.from_model(m)
tf.nest.map_structure(lambda v, t: v.assign(t), m_weights.trainable,
m_weights_trainable)
outputs_m = m.forward_pass(batch)
grad = tape.gradient(outputs_m.loss, alpha)
optimizer.apply_gradients(zip([grad], [alpha]))
Another edit:
I think I have a strategy to get it working, but it is bad practice as manually setting trainable_weights or _trainable_weights does not work. Any tips on improving this?
def do_weighted_combination():
def _mapper(target_layer, v_layer, w_layer):
target_layer.kernel = v_layer.kernel * alpha + w_layer.kernel * (1-alpha)
target_layer.bias = v_layer.bias * alpha + w_layer.bias * (1-alpha)
tf.nest.map_structure(_mapper, m.layers, v.layers, w.layers)
with tf.GradientTape(persistent=True) as tape:
do_weighted_combination()
predictions = m(x_data)
loss = m.compiled_loss(y_data, predictions)
g1 = tape.gradient(loss, v.trainable_weights) # Not None
g2 = tape.gradient(loss, alpha) # Not None
For TensorFlow auto-differentiation using tf.GradientTape, operations must occur within the tf.GradientTape Python context manager so that TensorFlow can "see" them.
Possibly what is happening here is that alpha is used outside/before the tape context, when setting the model variables. Then when m.forwad_pass is called TensorFlow doesn't see any access to alpha and thus can't compute a gradient for it (instead returning None).
Moving the
alpha*v + (tf.constant(1.0) - alpha)*w, v_weights.trainable, w_weights.trainable
logic inside the tf.GradientTape context manager (possibly inside m.forward_pass) may be a solution.
I am trying to implement a custom loss function in Tensorflow 2.4 using the Keras backend.
The loss function is a ranking loss; I found the following paper with a somewhat log-likelihood loss: Chen et al. Single-Image Depth Perception in the Wild.
Similarly, I wanted to sample some (in this case 50) points from an image to compare the relative order between ground-truth and predicted depth maps using the NYU-Depth dataset. Being a fan of Numpy, I started working with that but came to the following exception:
ValueError: No gradients provided for any variable: [...]
I have learned that this is caused by the arguments not being filled when calling the loss function but instead, a C function is compiled which is then used later. So while I know the dimensions of my tensors (4, 480, 640, 1), I cannot work with the data as wanted and have to use the keras.backend functions on top so that in the end (if I understood correctly), there is supposed to be a path between the input tensors from the TF graph and the output tensor, which has to provide a gradient.
So my question now is: Is this a feasible loss function within keras?
I have already tried a few ideas and different approaches with different variations of my original code, which was something like:
def ranking_loss_function(y_true, y_pred):
# Chen et al. loss
y_true_np = K.eval(y_true)
y_pred_np = K.eval(y_pred)
if y_true_np.shape[0] != None:
num_sample_points = 50
total_samples = num_sample_points ** 2
err_list = [0 for x in range(y_true_np.shape[0])]
for i in range(y_true_np.shape[0]):
sample_points = create_random_samples(y_true, y_pred, num_sample_points)
for x1, y1 in sample_points:
for x2, y2 in sample_points:
if y_true[i][x1][y1] > y_true[i][x2][y2]:
#image_relation_true = 1
err_list[i] += np.log(1 + np.exp(-1 * y_pred[i][x1][y1] + y_pred[i][x2][y2]))
elif y_true[i][x1][y1] < y_true[i][x2][y2]:
#image_relation_true = -1
err_list[i] += np.log(1 + np.exp(y_pred[i][x1][y1] - y_pred[i][x2][y2]))
else:
#image_relation_true = 0
err_list[i] += np.square(y_pred[i][x1][y1] - y_pred[i][x2][y2])
err_list = np.divide(err_list, total_samples)
return K.constant(err_list)
As you can probably tell, the main idea was to first create the sample points and then based on the existing relation between them in y_true/y_pred continue with the corresponding computation from the cited paper.
Can anyone help me and provide some more helpful information or tips on how to correctly implement this loss using keras.backend functions? Trying to include the ordinal relation information really confused me compared to standard regression losses.
EDIT: Just in case this causes confusion: create_random_samples() just creates 50 random sample points (x, y) coordinate pairs based on the shape[1] and shape[2] of y_true (image width and height)
EDIT(2): After finding this variation on GitHub, I have tried out a variation using only TF functions to retrieve data from the tensors and compute the output. The adjusted and probably more correct version still throws the same exception though:
def ranking_loss_function(y_true, y_pred):
#In the Wild ranking loss
y_true_np = K.eval(y_true)
y_pred_np = K.eval(y_pred)
if y_true_np.shape[0] != None:
num_sample_points = 50
total_samples = num_sample_points ** 2
bs = y_true_np.shape[0]
w = y_true_np.shape[1]
h = y_true_np.shape[2]
total_samples = total_samples * bs
num_pairs = tf.constant([total_samples], dtype=tf.float32)
output = tf.Variable(0.0)
for i in range(bs):
sample_points = create_random_samples(y_true, y_pred, num_sample_points)
for x1, y1 in sample_points:
for x2, y2 in sample_points:
y_true_sq = tf.squeeze(y_true)
y_pred_sq = tf.squeeze(y_pred)
d1_t = tf.slice(y_true_sq, [i, x1, y1], [1, 1, 1])
d2_t = tf.slice(y_true_sq, [i, x2, y2], [1, 1, 1])
d1_p = tf.slice(y_pred_sq, [i, x1, y1], [1, 1, 1])
d2_p = tf.slice(y_pred_sq, [i, x2, y2], [1, 1, 1])
d1_t_sq = tf.squeeze(d1_t)
d2_t_sq = tf.squeeze(d2_t)
d1_p_sq = tf.squeeze(d1_p)
d2_p_sq = tf.squeeze(d2_p)
if d1_t_sq > d2_t_sq:
# --> Image relation = 1
output.assign_add(tf.math.log(1 + tf.math.exp(-1 * d1_p_sq + d2_p_sq)))
elif d1_t_sq < d2_t_sq:
# --> Image relation = -1
output.assign_add(tf.math.log(1 + tf.math.exp(d1_p_sq - d2_p_sq)))
else:
output.assign_add(tf.math.square(d1_p_sq - d2_p_sq))
return output/num_pairs
EDIT(3): This is the code for create_random_samples():
(FYI: Because it was weird to get the shape from y_true in this case, I first proceeded to hard-code it here as I know it for the dataset which I am currently using.)
def create_random_samples(y_true, y_pred, num_points=50):
y_true_shape = (4, 480, 640, 1)
y_pred_shape = (4, 480, 640, 1)
if y_true_shape[0] != None:
num_samples = num_points
population = [(x, y) for x in range(y_true_shape[1]) for y in range(y_true_shape[2])]
sample_points = random.sample(population, num_samples)
return sample_points
I have an equation that describes a curve in two dimensions. This equation has 5 variables. How do I discover the values of them with keras/tensorflow for a set of data? Is it possible? Someone know a tutorial of something similar?
I generated some data to train the network that has the format:
sample => [150, 66, 2] 150 sets with 66*2 with the data something like "time" x "acceleration"
targets => [150, 5] 150 sets with 5 variable numbers.
Obs: I know the range of the variables. I know too, that 150 sets of data are too few sample, but I need, after the code work, to train a new network with experimental data, and this is limited too. Visually, the curve is simple, it has a descendent linear part at the beggining and at the end it gets down "like an exponential".
My code is as follows:
def build_model():
model = models.Sequential()
model.add(layers.Dense(512, activation='relu', input_shape=(66*2,)))
model.add(layers.Dense(5, activation='softmax'))
model.compile(optimizer='rmsprop',
loss='categorical_crossentropy',
metrics=['mae'])
return model
def smooth_curve(points, factor=0.9):
[...]
return smoothed_points
#load the generated data
train_data = np.load('samples00.npy')
test_data = np.load('samples00.npy')
train_targets = np.load('labels00.npy')
test_targets = np.load('labels00.npy')
#normalizing the data
mean = train_data.mean()
train_data -= mean
std = train_data.std()
train_data /= std
test_data -= mean
test_data /= std
#k-fold validation:
k = 3
num_val_samples = len(train_data)//k
num_epochs = 100
all_mae_histories = []
for i in range(k):
val_data = train_data[i * num_val_samples: (i + 1) * num_val_samples]
val_targets = train_targets[i * num_val_samples: (i + 1) * num_val_samples]
partial_train_data = np.concatenate(
[train_data[:i * num_val_samples],
train_data[(i + 1) * num_val_samples:]],
axis=0)
partial_train_targets = np.concatenate(
[train_targets[:i * num_val_samples],
train_targets[(i + 1) * num_val_samples:]],
axis=0)
model = build_model()
#reshape the data to get the format (100, 66*2)
partial_train_data = partial_train_data.reshape(100, 66 * 2)
val_data = val_data.reshape(50, 66 * 2)
history = model.fit(partial_train_data,
partial_train_targets,
validation_data = (val_data, val_targets),
epochs = num_epochs,
batch_size = 1,
verbose = 1)
mae_history = history.history['val_mean_absolute_error']
all_mae_histories.append(mae_history)
average_mae_history = [
np.mean([x[i] for x in all_mae_histories]) for i in range(num_epochs)]
smooth_mae_history = smooth_curve(average_mae_history[10:])
plt.plot(range(1, len(smooth_mae_history) + 1), smooth_mae_history)
plt.xlabel('Epochs')
plt.ylabel('Validation MAE')
plt.show()
Obviously as it is, I need to get the best accuracy possible, but I am getting an "median absolute error(MAE)" like 96%, and this is inaceptable.
I see some basic bugs in this methodology. Your final layer of the network has a softmax layer. This would mean it would output 5 values, which sum to 1, and behave as a probability distribution. What you actually want to predict is true numbers, or rather floating point values (under some fixed precision arithmetic).
If you have a range, then probably using a sigmoid and rescaling the final layer would to match the range (just multiply with the max value) would help you. By default sigmoid would ensure you get 5 numbers between 0 and 1.
The other thing should be to remove the cross entropy loss and use a loss like RMS, so that you predict your numbers well. You could also used 1D convolutions instead of using Fully connected layers.
There has been some work here: https://julialang.org/blog/2017/10/gsoc-NeuralNetDiffEq which tries to solve DEs and might be relevant to your work.
I am trying to train an autoencoder NN (3 layers - 2 visible, 1 hidden) using numpy and scipy for the MNIST digits images dataset. The implementation is based on the notation given here Below is my code:
def autoencoder_cost_and_grad(theta, visible_size, hidden_size, lambda_, data):
"""
The input theta is a 1-dimensional array because scipy.optimize.minimize expects
the parameters being optimized to be a 1d array.
First convert theta from a 1d array to the (W1, W2, b1, b2)
matrix/vector format, so that this follows the notation convention of the
lecture notes and tutorial.
You must compute the:
cost : scalar representing the overall cost J(theta)
grad : array representing the corresponding gradient of each element of theta
"""
training_size = data.shape[1]
# unroll theta to get (W1,W2,b1,b2) #
W1 = theta[0:hidden_size*visible_size]
W1 = W1.reshape(hidden_size,visible_size)
W2 = theta[hidden_size*visible_size:2*hidden_size*visible_size]
W2 = W2.reshape(visible_size,hidden_size)
b1 = theta[2*hidden_size*visible_size:2*hidden_size*visible_size + hidden_size]
b2 = theta[2*hidden_size*visible_size + hidden_size: 2*hidden_size*visible_size + hidden_size + visible_size]
#feedforward pass
a_l1 = data
z_l2 = W1.dot(a_l1) + numpy.tile(b1,(training_size,1)).T
a_l2 = sigmoid(z_l2)
z_l3 = W2.dot(a_l2) + numpy.tile(b2,(training_size,1)).T
a_l3 = sigmoid(z_l3)
#backprop
delta_l3 = numpy.multiply(-(data-a_l3),numpy.multiply(a_l3,1-a_l3))
delta_l2 = numpy.multiply(W2.T.dot(delta_l3),
numpy.multiply(a_l2, 1 - a_l2))
b2_derivative = numpy.sum(delta_l3,axis=1)/training_size
b1_derivative = numpy.sum(delta_l2,axis=1)/training_size
W2_derivative = numpy.dot(delta_l3,a_l2.T)/training_size + lambda_*W2
#print(W2_derivative.shape)
W1_derivative = numpy.dot(delta_l2,a_l1.T)/training_size + lambda_*W1
W1_derivative = W1_derivative.reshape(hidden_size*visible_size)
W2_derivative = W2_derivative.reshape(visible_size*hidden_size)
b1_derivative = b1_derivative.reshape(hidden_size)
b2_derivative = b2_derivative.reshape(visible_size)
grad = numpy.concatenate((W1_derivative,W2_derivative,b1_derivative,b2_derivative))
cost = 0.5*numpy.sum((data-a_l3)**2)/training_size + 0.5*lambda_*(numpy.sum(W1**2) + numpy.sum(W2**2))
return cost,grad
I have also implemented a function to estimate the numerical gradient and verify the correctness of my implementation (below).
def compute_gradient_numerical_estimate(J, theta, epsilon=0.0001):
"""
:param J: a loss (cost) function that computes the real-valued loss given parameters and data
:param theta: array of parameters
:param epsilon: amount to vary each parameter in order to estimate
the gradient by numerical difference
:return: array of numerical gradient estimate
"""
gradient = numpy.zeros(theta.shape)
eps_vector = numpy.zeros(theta.shape)
for i in range(0,theta.size):
eps_vector[i] = epsilon
cost1,grad1 = J(theta+eps_vector)
cost2,grad2 = J(theta-eps_vector)
gradient[i] = (cost1 - cost2)/(2*epsilon)
eps_vector[i] = 0
return gradient
The norm of the difference between the numerical estimate and the one computed by the function is around 6.87165125021e-09 which seems to be acceptable. My main problem seems to be to get the gradient descent algorithm "L-BGFGS-B" working using the scipy.optimize.minimize function as below:
# theta is the 1-D array of(W1,W2,b1,b2)
J = lambda x: utils.autoencoder_cost_and_grad(theta, visible_size, hidden_size, lambda_, patches_train)
options_ = {'maxiter': 4000, 'disp': False}
result = scipy.optimize.minimize(J, theta, method='L-BFGS-B', jac=True, options=options_)
I get the below output from this:
scipy.optimize.minimize() details:
fun: 90.802022224079778
hess_inv: <16474x16474 LbfgsInvHessProduct with dtype=float64>
jac: array([ -6.83667742e-06, -2.74886002e-06, -3.23531941e-06, ...,
1.22425735e-01, 1.23425062e-01, 1.28091250e-01])
message: b'ABNORMAL_TERMINATION_IN_LNSRCH'
nfev: 21
nit: 0
status: 2
success: False
x: array([-0.06836677, -0.0274886 , -0.03235319, ..., 0. ,
0. , 0. ])
Now, this post seems to indicate that the error could mean that the gradient function implementation could be wrong? But my numerical gradient estimate seems to confirm that my implementation is correct. I have tried varying the initial weights by using a uniform distribution as specified here but the problem still persists. Is there anything wrong with my backprop implementation?
Turns out the issue was a syntax error (very silly) with this line:
J = lambda x: utils.autoencoder_cost_and_grad(theta, visible_size, hidden_size, lambda_, patches_train)
I don't even have the lambda parameter x in the function declaration. So the theta array wasn't even being passed whenever J was being invoked.
This fixed it:
J = lambda x: utils.autoencoder_cost_and_grad(x, visible_size, hidden_size, lambda_, patches_train)
For the reinforcement learning one usually applies forward pass of the neural network for each step of the episode in order to calculate policy. Afterwards one could calculate parameter gradients using backpropagation. Simplified implementation of my network looks like this:
class AC_Network(object):
def __init__(self, s_size, a_size, scope, trainer, parameters_net):
with tf.variable_scope(scope):
self.is_training = tf.placeholder(shape=[], dtype=tf.bool)
self.inputs = tf.placeholder(shape=[None, s_size], dtype=tf.float32)
# (...)
layer = slim.fully_connected(self.inputs,
layer_size,
activation_fn=tf.nn.relu,
biases_initializer=None)
layer = tf.contrib.layers.dropout(inputs=layer, keep_prob=parameters_net["dropout_keep_prob"],
is_training=self.is_training)
self.policy = slim.fully_connected(layer, a_size,
activation_fn=tf.nn.softmax,
biases_initializer=None)
self.actions = tf.placeholder(shape=[None], dtype=tf.int32)
self.advantages = tf.placeholder(shape=[None], dtype=tf.float32)
actions_onehot = tf.one_hot(self.actions, a_size, dtype=tf.float32)
responsible_outputs = tf.reduce_sum(self.policy * actions_onehot, [1])
self.policy_loss = - policy_loss_multiplier * tf.reduce_mean(tf.log(responsible_outputs) * self.advantages)
local_vars = tf.get_collection(tf.GraphKeys.TRAINABLE_VARIABLES, scope)
self.gradients = tf.gradients(self.policy_loss, local_vars)
Now during training I will fist rollout the episode by consecutive forward passes (again, simplified version):
s = self.local_env.reset() # list of input variables for the first step
while done == False:
a_dist = sess.run([self.policy],
feed_dict = {self.local_AC.inputs: [s],
self.is_training: True})
a = np.argmax(a_dist)
s, r, done, extra_stat = self.local_env.step(a)
# (...)
and in the end I will calculate gradients by backward pass:
p_l, grad = sess.run([self.policy_loss,
self.gradients],
feed_dict={self.inputs: np.vstack(comb_observations),
self.is_training: True,
self.actions: np.hstack(comb_actions),})
(please note that I could have made a mistake somewhere above trying to remove as much as possible of the original code irrelevant to the issue in question)
So finally the question: Is there a way of ensuring that all the consecutive calls to the sess.run() will generate the same dropout structure? Ideally I would like to have exactly the same dropout structure within each episode and only change it between episodes. Things seem to work well as they are but I continue to wonder.