I'm using scikit-optimize (https://scikit-optimize.github.io/stable/index.html) to optimize the parameters of a computational model which is fitted to a certain dataset, everytime the optimization is ran.
My objective function look something like this:
def objective(pars):
### Compute the model
return res
There's 4 free parameters in 'pars' which is an array. However, there's also another 4 arguments in pars (8 total) which I don't want the model to optimize. I.e. I need the data in the function, but I don't want the data to be optimized.
I'll be using:
gp_minimize()
from skopt - what's the easiest way to pass untouched arguments into this? Scipy.optimize usually has the args argument which facilitates this.
Related
I'm trying to create big tensor with shape 42000x28x28, data comes as a ArrayBuffer, let's assume that I create tensor something like that:
tf.tensor4d(new Uint8Array(xsTrainBuffer), [42000 * 0.9, 28, 28, 1]).div<Tensor<Rank.R4>>(255);
The question is - how find out that tensor is already prepared and I may use it in model training, since this function doesn't return any promise, but as for me it looks a little bit weird consider this operation as synchronous one.
I believe a better approach would be the tf.data.array() function. This will create a DataSet for you that is ideal for working with large amounts of data.
While the function itself is synchronous, it does a lazy loading of the data - so immediately after you call the function, if you try to log the data, it will show empty. However, use the forEachAsync() function to log the data and you will see that it reads it correctly.
Check out this iris-fitDataset example where they use the tf.data.array() function.
Note that Dataset's have their own model functions such as fitDataset() instead of fit() so you don't have to convert the Dataset into anything else.
I have been trying to implement this paper . Basically what I want to do is sum the per client loss and compare the same with previous epoch. Then for each constituent layer of the model compare the KL divergence between the weights of the server and the client model to get the layer specific parameter updates and then doing a softmax and to decide whether an adaptive update or a normal FedAvg approach is needed.
The algorithm is as follows-
FedMed
I tried to make use of the code here to build a custom federated avg process. I got the basic understanding that there are some tf.computations and some tff.computations which are involved. I get that I need to make changes in the orchestration logic in the run_one_round function and basically manipulate the client outputs to do adaptive averaging instead of the vanilla federated averaging. The client_update tf.computation function basically returns all the values that I need i.e the weights_delta (can be used for client based model weights), model_output(which can be used to calculate the loss).
But I am not sure where exactly I should make the changes.
#tff.federated_computation(federated_server_state_type,
federated_dataset_type)
def run_one_round(server_state, federated_dataset):
server_message = tff.federated_map(server_message_fn, server_state)
server_message_at_client = tff.federated_broadcast(server_message)
client_outputs = tff.federated_map(
client_update_fn, (federated_dataset, server_message_at_client))
weight_denom = client_outputs.client_weight
# todo
# instead of using tff.federated_mean I wish to do a adaptive aggregation based on the client_outputs.weights_delta and server_state model
round_model_delta = tff.federated_mean(
client_outputs.weights_delta, weight=weight_denom)
#client_outputs.weights_delta has all the client model weights.
#client_outputs.client_weight has the number of examples per client.
#client_outputs.model_output has the output of the model per client example.
I want to make use of the server model weights using server_state object.
I want to calculate the KL divergence between the weights of server model and each client's model per layer. Then use a relative weight to aggregate the client weights instead of vanilla federated averaging.
Instead of using tff.federated_mean I wish to use a different strategy basically an adaptive one based on the algorithm above.
So I needed some suggestions on how to go about implementing this.
Basically what I want to do is :
1)Sum all the values of client losses.
2)Calculate the KL divergence per layerbasis of all the clients with server and then determine whether to use adaptive optimization or FedAvg.
Also is there a way to manipulate this value as a python value which will be helpful for debugging purposes( I tried to use tf.print but that was not helpful either). Thanks!
Simplest option: compute weights for mean on clients
If I read the algorithm above correctly, we need only compute some weights for a mean on-the-fly. tff.federated_mean accepts an optional CLIENTS-placed weight argument, so probably the simplest option here is to compute the desired weights on the clients and pass them in to the mean.
This would look something like (assuming the appropriate definitions of the variables used below, which we will comment on):
#tff.federated_computation(...)
def round_function(...):
...
# We assume there is a tff.Computation training_fn that performs training,
# and we're calling it here on the correct arguments
trained_clients = tff.federated_map(training_fn, clients_placed_arguments)
# Next we assume there is a variable in-scope server_model,
# representing the 'current global model'.
global_model_at_clients = tff.federated_broadcast(server_model)
# Here we assume a function compute_kl_divergence, which takes
# two structures of tensors and computes the KL divergence
# (as a scalar) between them. The two arguments here are clients-placed,
# so the result will be as well.
kl_div_at_clients = tff.federated_map(compute_kl_divergence,
(global_model_at_clients, trained_clients))
# Perhaps we wish to not use raw KL divergence as the weight, but rather
# some function thereof; if so, we map a postprocessing function to
# the computed divergences. The result will still be clients-placed.
mean_weight = tff.federated_map(postprocess_divergence, kl_div_at_clients)
# Now we simply use the computed weights in the mean.
return tff.federated_mean(trained_clients, weight=mean_weight)
More flexible tool: tff.federated_reduce
TFF generally encourages algorithm developers to implement whatever they can 'in the aggregation', and as such exposes some highly customizable primitives like tff.federated_reduce, which allow you to run arbitrary TensorFlow "in the stream" between clients and server. If the above reading of the desired algorithm is incorrect and something more involved is needed, or you wish to flexibly experiment with totally different notions of aggregation (something TFF encourages and is designed to support), this may be the option for you.
In TFF's heuristic typing language, tff.federated_reduce has signature:
<{T}#CLIENTS, U, (<U, T> -> U)> -> U#SERVER
Meaning, federated_reduce take a value of type T placed at the clients, a 'zero' in a reduction algebra of type U, and a function accepting a U and a T and producing a U, and applies this function 'in the stream' on the way between clients and server, producing a U placed at the server. The function (<U, T> -> U) will be applied to the partially accumulated value U, and the 'next' element in the stream T (note however that TFF does not guarantee ordering of these values), returning another partially accumulated value U. The 'zero' should represent whatever 'partially accumulated' means over the empty set in your application; this will be the starting point of the reduction.
Application to this problem
The components
Your reduction function needs access to two pieces of data: the global model state and the result of training on a given client. This maps quite nicely to the type T. In this application, we will have something like:
T = <server_model=server_model_type, trained_model=trained_model_type>
These two types are likely to be the same, but may not necessarily be so.
Your reduction function will accept the partial aggregate, your server model and your client-trained model, returning a new partial aggregate. Here we will start assuming the same reading of the algorithm as above, that of a weighted mean with particular weights. Generally, the easiest way to compute a mean is to keep two accumulators, one for numerator and one for denominator. This will affect the choice of zero and reduction function below.
Your zero should contain a structure of tensors with value 0 mapping to the weights of your model--this will be the numerator. This would be generated for you if you had an aggregation like tff.federated_sum (as TFF knows what the zero should be), but for this case you'll have to get your hands on such a tensor yourself. This shouldn't be too hard with tf.nest.map_structure and tf.zeros_like.
For the denominator, we will assume we just need a scalar. TFF and TF are much more flexible than this--you could keep a per-layer or per-parameter denominator if desired--but for simplicity we will assume that we just want to divide by a single float in the end.
Therefore our type U will be something like:
U = <numerator=server_model_type, denominator=tf.float32>
Finally we come to our reduction function. It will be more or less a different composition of the same pieces above; we will make slightly tighter assumptions about them here (in particular, that all the local functions are tff.tf_computations--a technical assumption, arguably a bug on TFF). Our reduction function will be along the lines (assuming appropriate type aliases):
#tff.tf_computation(U, T)
def reduction(partial_accumulate, next_element):
kl_div = compute_kl_divergence(
next_element.server_model, next_element.trained_model)
weight = postprocess_divergence(kl_div)
new_numerator = partial_accumulate.numerator + weight * next_element.trained_model
new_denominator = partial_accumulate.denominator + weight
return collections.OrderedDict(
numerator=new_numerator, denominator=new_denominator)
Putting them together
The basic outline of a round will be similar to the above; but we have put more computation 'in the stream', and consequently there wil be less on the clients. We assume here the same variable definitions.
#tff.federated_computation(...)
def round_function(...):
...
trained_clients = tff.federated_map(training_fn, clients_placed_arguments)
global_model_at_clients = tff.federated_broadcast(server_model)
# This zip I believe is not necessary, but it helps my mental model.
reduction_arg = tff.federated_zip(
collections.OrderedDict(server_model=global_model_at_clients,
trained_model=trained_clients))
# We assume a zero as specified above
return tff.federated_reduce(reduction_arg,
zero,
reduction)
I want to implement a new operation similar to matrix multiplication in tensorflow. For example, If there are two matrices input, W and C = Op(input,W), then, C[i,j] = tf.math.reduce_prod(input[i,:] - W[:,j]). For implementing this operation I am planning to use two "for-loops" iterating over rows & columns, however, I believe that the for-loop implementation will decrease the training performance. I tried looking into the implementation of tf.lingalg.matmul() but the function seems to call C++ binaries which are not editable. Is there any way to speed up this computation? The following is the function I have written to implement Op(input,w):
def difference(input,w):
result = tf.Variable(tf.zeros((input.shape[0],w.shape[1]),dtype=tf.float16))
for i in tf.range(0,input.shape[0]):
for j in tf.range(0,w.shape[1]):
result[i,j].assign(tf.math.reduce_prod(input[i,:] - W[:,j]))
return result
I'm trying to set up a DNN for classification and at one point I want to take the tensor product of a vector with itself. I'm using the Keras functional API at the moment but it isn't immediately clear that there is a layer that does this already.
I've been attempting to use a Lambda layer and numpy in order to try this, but it's not working.
Doing a bit of googling reveals
tf.linalg.LinearOperatorKronecker, which does not seem to work either.
Here's what I've tried:
I have a layer called part_layer whose output is a single vector (rank one tensor).
keras.layers.Lambda(lambda x_array: np.outer(x_array, x_array),) ( part_layer) )
Ideally I would want this to to take a vector of the form [1,2] and give me [[1,2],[2,4]].
But the error I'm getting suggests that the np.outer function is not recognizing its arguments:
AttributeError: 'numpy.ndarray' object has no attribute '_keras_history
Any ideas on what to try next, or if there is a simple function to use?
You can use two operations:
If you want to consider the batch size you can use the Dot function
Otherwise, you can use the the dot function
In both case the code should look like this:
dot_lambda = lambda x_array: tf.keras.layers.dot(x_array, x_array)
# dot_lambda = lambda x_array: tf.keras.layers.Dot(x_array, x_array)
keras.layers.Lambda(dot_lamda)( part_layer)
Hope this help.
Use tf.tensordot(x_array, x_array, axes=0) to achieve what you want. For example, the expression print(tf.tensordot([1,2], [1,2], axes=0)) gives the desired result: [[1,2],[2,4]].
Keras/Tensorflow needs to keep an history of operations applied to tensors to perform the optimization. Numpy has no notion of history, so using it in the middle of a layer is not allowed. tf.tensordot performs the same operation, but keeps the history.
It seems that tf.cond(cond, fn1, fn2) executes possible dependencies for both branches, so any computation we would like to perform if and only if the conditions hold have to be put into the function fn1 fn2.
However I am confused as to what fn actually is. Every variable/op in tensorflow should be a node of the computation graph, but fn is actually a python function. This leads to many questions. For example, is this function re-evaluated every time sess.run is executed? Can this function return different computation graphs each time? Can placeholders be defined in them, and if not how to avoid supplying values to placeholders we know will not be used when, for example, there is a switch variable that chooses between different inputs?
The functions passed to tf.cond are only run when the op is defined, not during graph execution. And both of them are run, exactly once as far as I can see. The functions themselves are just a way to indicate exactly which ops should have the conditional execution behavior: note the context_t.Enter()/context_t.Exit() calls surrounding each function call.
Hopefully that clarifies things. The functions are a useful way of grouping ops during graph definition. There's no function execution magic going on in the TensorFlow graph.