In a custom optimizer I would like to update weights with random values if the loss function has not decreased.
However, I can not see how to do that in the methods you can override (resource_apply_dense, resource_apply_sparse, create_slots, get_config). None of them are passed the loss function.
I have tried overriding minimize(), but that is not called in a standard training loop.
Any ideas?
If you are writing a custom optimizer, I think the easiest way to apply it is to explicitly define the layers, also. In a standard feedforward neural network, if x is the input, then h=tf.tanh(tf.matmul(x,W)+b) is an example of the first hidden layer. Similarly you can get more layers. Then W and b are variables you need to update. The training loop would look something like this:
trainable_variables=[W,b]
for i in range(1000):
optimizer.minimize(loss, trainable_variables)
but with your own optimizer instead of the one from keras.
Related
I am trying to convert my CNN written with tensorflow layers to use the keras api in tensorflow (I am using the keras api provided by TF 1.x), and am having issue writing a custom loss function, to train the model.
According to this guide, when defining a loss function it expects the arguments (y_true, y_pred)
https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/keras/train_and_evaluate#custom_losses
def basic_loss_function(y_true, y_pred):
return ...
However, in every example I have seen, y_true is somehow directly related to the model (in the simple case it is the output of the network). In my problem, this is not the case. How do implement this if my loss function depends on some training data that is unrelated to the tensors of the model?
To be concrete, here is my problem:
I am trying to learn an image embedding trained on pairs of images. My training data includes image pairs and annotations of matching points between the image pairs (image coordinates). The input feature is only the image pairs, and the network is trained in a siamese configuration.
I am able to implement this successfully with tensorflow layers and train it sucesfully with tensorflow estimators.
My current implementations builds a tf Dataset from a large database of tf Records, where the features is a dictionary containing the images and arrays of matching points. Before I could easily feed these arrays of image coordinates to the loss function, but here it is unclear how to do so.
There is a hack I often use that is to calculate the loss within the model, by means of Lambda layers. (When the loss is independent from the true data, for instance, and the model doesn't really have an output to be compared)
In a functional API model:
def loss_calc(x):
loss_input_1, loss_input_2 = x #arbirtray inputs, you choose
#according to what you gave to the Lambda layer
#here you use some external data that doesn't relate to the samples
externalData = K.constant(external_numpy_data)
#calculate the loss
return the loss
Using the outputs of the model itself (the tensor(s) that are used in your loss)
loss = Lambda(loss_calc)([model_output_1, model_output_2])
Create the model outputting the loss instead of the outputs:
model = Model(inputs, loss)
Create a dummy keras loss function for compilation:
def dummy_loss(y_true, y_pred):
return y_pred #where y_pred is the loss itself, the output of the model above
model.compile(loss = dummy_loss, ....)
Use any dummy array correctly sized regarding number of samples for training, it will be ignored:
model.fit(your_inputs, np.zeros((number_of_samples,)), ...)
Another way of doing it, is using a custom training loop.
This is much more work, though.
Although you're using TF1, you can still turn eager execution on at the very beginning of your code and do stuff like it's done in TF2. (tf.enable_eager_execution())
Follow the tutorial for custom training loops: https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/customization/custom_training_walkthrough
Here, you calculate the gradients yourself, of any result regarding whatever you want. This means you don't need to follow Keras standards of training.
Finally, you can use the approach you suggested of model.add_loss.
In this case, you calculate the loss exaclty the same way I did in the first answer. And pass this loss tensor to add_loss.
You can probably compile a model with loss=None then (not sure), because you're going to use other losses, not the standard one.
In this case, your model's output will probably be None too, and you should fit with y=None.
I have a Tensorflow 2.0 tf.keras.Sequential model. Now, my technical specification prescribes using the Levenberg-Marquardt optimizer to fit the model. Tensorflow 2.0 doesn't provide it as an optimizer out of the box, but it is available in the Tensorflow Graphics module.
tfg.math.optimizer.levenberg_marquardt.minimize function accepts residuals ( a residual is a Python callable returning a tensor) and variables (list of tensors corresponding to my model weights) as parameters.
What would be the best way to convert my model into residuals and variables?
If I understand correctly how the minimize function works, I have to provide two residuals. The first residual must call my model for every learning case and aggregate all the results into a tensor. The second residuals must return all labels as a single constant tensor. The problem is that tf.keras.Sequential.predict function returns a numpy array instead of tensor. I believe that if I convert it to a tensor, the minimizer won't be able to calculate jacobians with respect to variables.
The same problem is with variables. It doesn't seem like there's a way to extract all weights from a model into a list of tensors.
There's a major difference between tfg.math.optimizer.levenberg_marquardt.minimize and Keras optimizers from the implementation/API perspective.
Keras optimizers, such as tf.keras.optimizers.Adam consume gradients as input and updates tf.Variables.
In contrast, tfg.math.optimizer.levenberg_marquardt.minimize essentially unrolls the optimization loop in graph mode (using a tf.while_loop construct). It takes initial parameter values and produces updated parameter values, unlike Adam & co, which only apply one iteration and actually change the values of tf.Variables via assign_add.
Stepping back a bit to the theoretical big picture, Levenberg-Marquardt is not a general gradient descent-like solver for any nonlinear optimization problem (such as Adam is). It specifically addresses nonlinear least-squares optimization, so it's not a drop-in replacement for optimizers like Adam. In gradient descent, we compute the gradient of the loss with respect to the parameters. In Levenberg-Marquardt, we compute the Jacobian of the residuals with respect to the parameters. Concretely, it repeatedly solves the linearized problem Jacobian # delta_params = residuals for delta_params using tf.linalg.lstsq (which internally uses Cholesky decomposition on the Gram matrix computed from the Jacobian) and applies delta_params as the update.
Note that this lstsq operation has cubic complexity in the number of parameters, so in case of neural nets it can only be applied for fairly small ones.
Also note that Levenberg-Marquardt is usually applied as a batch algorithm, not a minibatch algorithm like SGD, though there's nothing stopping you from applying the LM iteration on different minibatches in each iteration.
I think you may only be able to get one iteration out of tfg's LM algorithm, through something like
from tensorflow_graphics.math.optimizer.levenberg_marquardt import minimize as lm_minimize
for input_batch, target_batch in dataset:
def residual_fn(trainable_params):
# do not use trainable params, it will still be at its initial value, since we only do one iteration of Levenberg Marquardt each time.
return model(input_batch) - target_batch
new_objective_value, new_params = lm_minimize(residual_fn, model.trainable_variables, max_iter=1)
for var, new_param in zip(model.trainable_variables, new_params):
var.assign(new_param)
In contrast, I believe the following naive method will not work where we assign model parameters before computing the residuals:
from tensorflow_graphics.math.optimizer.levenberg_marquardt import minimize as lm_minimize
dataset_iterator = ...
def residual_fn(params):
input_batch, target_batch = next(dataset_iterator)
for var, param in zip(model.trainable_variables, params):
var.assign(param)
return model(input_batch) - target_batch
final_objective, final_params = lm_minimize(residual_fn, model.trainable_variables, max_iter=10000)
for var, final_param in zip(model.trainable_variables, final_params):
var.assign(final_param)
The main conceptual problem is that residual_fn's output has no gradients wrt its input params, since this dependency goes through a tf.assign. But it might even fail before that due to using constructs that are disallowed in graph mode.
Overall I believe it's best to write your own LM optimizer that works on tf.Variables, since tfg.math.optimizer.levenberg_marquardt.minimize has a very different API that is not really suited for optimizing Keras model parameters since you can't directly compute model(input, parameters) - target_value without a tf.assign.
I have a setup like this:
model = keras.Model(input,[output1,output2])
My loss function is only a function of output1. How do I tell Keras to ignore output2 for the purposes of computing loss? The best I have come up with is to generate a bogus loss function which always returns 0.0:
model.compile(optimizer=..., loss=[realLossFunction, zeroLossFunction])
I can live with this, but I have to see the statistics and progress of this loss function all over the place and would like to know if there is a more elegant way.
You could just avoid putting this output in the model, and then reusing the weights (or sharing them with the functional API) to add the additional output to the full model.
But using a zero loss is also fine.
my problem is the following:
I am working on an object detection problem and would like to use dropout during test time to obtain a distribution of outputs. The object detection network consists of a training model and a prediction model, which wraps around the training model. I would like to perform several stochastic forward passes using the training model and combine these e.g. by averaging the predictions in the prediction wrapper. Is there a way of doing this in a keras model instead of requiring an intermediate processing step using numpy?
Note that this question is not about how to enable dropout during test time
def prediction_wrapper(model):
# Example code.
# Arguments
# model: the training model
regression = model.outputs[0]
classification = model.outputs[1]
predictions = # TODO: perform several stochastic forward passes (dropout during train and test time) here
avg_predictions = # TODO: combine predictions here, e.g. by computing the mean
outputs = # TODO: do some processing on avg_predictions
return keras.models.Model(inputs=model.inputs, outputs=outputs, name=name)
I use keras with a tensorflow backend.
I appreciate any help!
The way I understand, you're trying to average the weight updates for a single sample while Dropout is enabled. Since dropout is random, you would get different weight updates for the same sample.
If this understanding is correct, then you could create a batch by duplicating the same sample. Here I am assuming that the Dropout is different for each sample in a batch. Since, backpropagation averages the weight updates anyway, you would get your desired behavior.
If that does not work, then you could write a custom loss function and train with a batch-size of one. You could update a global counter inside your custom loss function and return non-zero loss only when you've averaged them the way you want it. I don't know if this would work, it's just an idea.
Is it possible to know the weight matrix of a fully trained Neural Network with multiple hidden layers. More specifically, Can we check and store these values for every training iteration.
The tf.train.Saver class provides methods to save and restore models. The tf.saved_model.simple_save function is an easy way to build a saved model suitable for serving.
See Official Documentation Here.
On each iteration you are passing a train_op to sess.run asking it to compute that right? Something like this:
sess.run([train_op], feed_dict={...})
You could also ask it to return other values, such as the cost and accuracy tensors using something like this:
_, result_cost, result_accuracy = sess.run([train_op, cost, accuracy], feed_dict={...})
If that all makes sense, then accessing the weight matrix is no more complicated. You just need a reference to the weight matrix tensor (keep it around when you create it or look up the tensor by name):
weight_matrix, _ = sess.run([weight_tensor, train_op], feed_dict={...})
Notice that you can request the value of any tensor (variable, or operation) along with your training. You can also just call sess.run and ask for that particular value:
weight_matrix = sess.run([weight_tensor])