I'm porting a bunch of code from tf.estimator.Estimator API to tf.keras using tf.data.Datasets and I'm hoping to stay as close to the provided compile/fit as possible. I'm being frustrated by compile's loss and metrics args.
Essentially, I'd like to use a loss function which uses multiple outputs and labels in a non-additive way, i.e. I want to provide
def custom_loss(all_labels, model_outputs):
"""
Args:
all_labels: all labels in the dataset, as a single tensor, tuple or dict
model_outputs: all outputs of model as a single tensor, tuple or dict
Returns:
single loss tensor to be averaged.
""""
...
I can't provide this to compile because as far as I'm aware it only supports weighted sums of per-output/label losses, and makes assumptions about the shape of each label based on the the corresponding model output. I can't create it separately and use model.add_loss because I never have explicit access to a labels tensor if I want to let model.fit handle dataset iteration. I've considered flattening/concatenating all outputs and labels together, but then I can't monitor multiple metrics.
I can write my own training loop using model.train_on_batch, but that forces me to replicate behaviour already implemented in fit such as dataset iteration, callbacks, validation, distribution strategies etc.
As an example, I'd like to replicate the following estimator.
def model_fn(features, labels, mode):
outputs = get_outputs(features) # dict
loss = custom_loss(labels, outputs)
train_op = tf.train.AdamOptimizer(1e-3).minimize(loss)
eval_metrics_op = {
'a_mean': tf.metrics.mean(outputs['a'])
}
return tf.estimator.EstimatorSpec(
loss=loss, train_op=train_op, mode=mode, eval_metric_ops=eval_metric_ops)
estimator = tf.estimator.Estimator(model_fn=model_fn)
estimator.train(dataset_fn)
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 am currently trying to build a deep learning model with three different loss functions in Keras. The first loss function is the typical mean squared error loss. The other two loss functions are the ones I built myself, which finds the difference between a calculation made from the input image and the output image (this code is a simplified version of what I'm doing).
def p_autoencoder_loss(yTrue,yPred):
def loss(yTrue, y_Pred):
return K.mean(K.square(yTrue - yPred), axis=-1)
def a(image):
return K.mean(K.sin(image))
def b(image):
return K.sqrt(K.cos(image))
a_pred = a(yPred)
a_true = a(yTrue)
b_pred = b(yPred)
b_true = b(yTrue)
empirical_loss = (loss(yTrue, yPred))
a_loss = K.mean(K.square(a_true - a_pred))
b_loss = K.mean(K.square(b_true - b_pred))
final_loss = K.mean(empirical_loss + a_loss + b_loss)
return final_loss
However, when I train with this loss function, it is simply not converging well. What I want to try is to minimize the three loss functions separately, not together by adding them into one loss function.
I essentially want to do the second option here Tensorflow: Multiple loss functions vs Multiple training ops but in Keras form. I also want the loss functions to be independent from each other. Is there a simple way to do this?
You could have 3 outputs in your keras model, each with your specified loss, and then keras has support for weighting these losses. It will also then generate a final combined loss for you in the output, but it will be optimising to reduce all three losses. Be wary with this though as depending on your data/problem/losses you might find it stalls slightly or is slow if you have losses fighting each other. This however requires use of the functional API. I'm unsure as to whether this actually implements separate optimiser instances, however I think this is as close you will get in pure Keras that i'm aware of without having to start writing more complex TF training regimes.
For example:
loss_out1 = layers.Dense(1, activation='sigmoid', name='loss1')(x)
loss_out2 = layers.Dense(1, activation='sigmoid', name='loss2')(x)
loss_out3 = layers.Dense(1, activation='sigmoid', name='loss3')(x)
model = keras.Model(inputs=[input],
outputs=[loss1, loss2, loss3])
model.compile(optimizer=keras.optimizers.RMSprop(1e-3),
loss=['binary_crossentropy', 'categorical_crossentropy', 'custom_loss1'],
loss_weights=[1., 1., 1.])
This should compile a model with 3 outputs at the end from (x) which would be above. When you compile you set the outputs as a list as well as set the losses and loss weights as a list. Note that when you fit() that you'll need to supply your target outputs three times as a list too e.g. [y, y, y] as your model now has three outputs.
I'm not a Keras expert, but it's pretty high-level and i'm not aware of another way using pure Keras. Hopefully someone can come correct me with a better solution!
Since there is only one output, few things that can be done:
1.Monitor the individual loss components to see how they vary.
def a_loss(y_true, y_pred):
a_pred = a(yPred)
a_true = a(yTrue)
return K.mean(K.square(a_true - a_pred))
model.compile(....metrics=[...a_loss,b_loss])
2.Weight the loss components where lambda_a & lambda_b are hyperparameters.
final_loss = K.mean(empirical_loss + lambda_a * a_loss + lambda_b * b_loss)
Use a different loss function like SSIM.
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/image/ssim
I am trying to create a custom tensorflow tf.Estimator. In the model_fn passed to the tf.Estimator, I am importing the Inception_V3 module from Tensorflow Hub.
Problem: After fine-tuning the model (using tf.Estimator.train), the results obtained using tf.Estimator.predict are not as good as expected based on tf.Estimator.evaluate (This is for a regression problem.)
I am new to Tensorflow and Tensorflow Hub, so I could be making lots of rookie mistakes.
When I run tf.Estimator.evaluate() on my validation data, the reported loss is in the same ball park as the loss after tf.Estimator.train() was used to train the model. The problem comes in when I try to use tf.Estimator.predict() on the same validation data.
tf.Estimator.predict() returns predictions which I then use to calculate the same loss metric (mean_squared_error) which is computed by tf.Estimator.evaluate(). I am using the same set of data to feed to the predict function as the evaluate function. But I do not get the same result for the mean_squared_error -- not remotely close! (The mse I calculate from predict is much worse.)
Here is what I have done (edited out some details)...
Define a model_fn with Tensorflow Hub module. Then call the tf.Estimator functions to train, evaluate and predict.
def my_model_fun(features, labels, mode, params):
# Load InceptionV3 Module from Tensorflow Hub
iv3_module =hub.Module("https://tfhub.dev/google/imagenet/inception_v3/feature_vector/1",trainable=True, tags={'train'})
# Gather the variables for fine-tuning
var_list = tf.get_collection(tf.GraphKeys.GLOBAL_VARIABLES,scope='CustomeLayer')
var_list.extend(tf.get_collection(tf.GraphKeys.GLOBAL_VARIABLES,scope='module/InceptionV3/Mixed_5b'))
predictions = {"the_prediction" : final_output}
if mode == tf.estimator.ModeKeys.PREDICT:
return tf.estimator.EstimatorSpec(mode=mode, predictions=predictions)
# Define loss, optimizer, and evaluation metrics
loss = tf.losses.mean_squared_error(labels=labels, predictions=final_output)
optimizer =tf.train.AdadeltaOptimizer(learning_rate=learn_rate).minimize(loss,
var_list=var_list, global_step=tf.train.get_global_step())
rms_error = tf.metrics.root_mean_squared_error(labels=labels,predictions=predictions["the_prediction"])
eval_metric_ops = {"rms_error": rms_error}
if mode == tf.estimator.ModeKeys.TRAIN:
return tf.estimator.EstimatorSpec(mode=mode, loss=loss,train_op=optimizer)
if mode == tf.estimator.ModeKeys.EVAL:
tf.summary.scalar('rms_error', rms_error)
return tf.estimator.EstimatorSpec(mode=mode, loss=loss,eval_metric_ops=eval_metric_ops)
iv3_estimator = tf.estimator.Estimator(model_fn=iv3_model_fn)
iv3_estimator.train(input_fn=train_input_fn, steps=TRAIN_STEPS)
iv3_estimator.evaluate(input_fn=val_input_fn)
ii =0
for ans in iv3_estimator.predict(input_fn=test_input_fn):
sqErr = np.square(label[ii] - ans['the_prediction'][0])
totalSqErr += sqErr
ii += 1
mse = totalSqErr/ii
I expect that the mse loss reported by tf.Estimator.evaluate() should be the same as the when I calculate mse from the known labels and the output of tf.Estimator.predict()
Do I need to import the Tensorflow Hub model differently when I use predict? (use trainable=False in the call to hub.Module()?
Are the weights obtained from training being used when tf.Estimator.evaluate() runs, but not when tf.Estimator.predict()- runs?
other?
There's a few things that seem to be missing from the code snippet. How is final_output computed from iv3_module? Also, mean squared error is an unusual choice of loss function for a classification problem; the common approach is to pass image features from the module into a a linear output layer with scores for each class ("logits") and a "softmax cross-entropy loss". For an explanation of these terms, you can review online tutorials like https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/ (all the way to multi-class neural nets).
Regarding TF-Hub technicalities:
The variables of a Hub module are automatically added to the GLOBAL_VARIABLES and TRAINABLE_VARIABLES collections (if trainable=True, as you already do). No manual extension of those collections should be needed.
hub.Module(..., tags=...) should be set to {"train"} for mode==TRAIN and set to None or the empty set otherwise.
In general, it's useful to get a solution working end-to-end for your problem without fine-tuning as a baseline, and then add fine-tuning.
I'm trying to add image summary operations to visualize how well my network manages to reconstruct inputs from the validation set. However, since there are too many images in the validation set I would only like to plot a small subset of them.
I managed to achieve this with manual training loop, but I struggle to achieve the same with the new Tensorflow Estimator/Experiment/Datasets API. Has anyone done something like this?
The Experiment and Estimator are high level TensorFlow APIs. Although you could probably solve your issue with a hook, if you want more control on what's happening during the training process, it may be easier not to use these APIs.
That said, you can still use the Dataset API which will bring you a lot of useful features.
To solve your problem with the Dataset API, you will need to switch between train and validation datasets in your training loop.
One way to do that is to use a feedable iterator. See here for more details:
https://www.tensorflow.org/programmers_guide/datasets
You can also see a full example switching between training and validation with the Dataset API in this notebook.
In brief, after having created your train_dataset and your val_dataset, your training loop could be something like this:
# create TensorFlow Iterator objects
training_iterator = val_dataset.make_initializable_iterator()
val_iterator = val_dataset.make_initializable_iterator()
with tf.Session() as sess:
# Initialize variables
init = tf.global_variables_initializer()
sess.run(init)
# Create training data and validation data handles
training_handle = sess.run(training_iterator.string_handle())
validation_handle = sess.run(val_iterator.string_handle())
for epoch in range(number_of_epochs):
# Tell iterator to go to beginning of dataset
sess.run(training_iterator.initializer)
print ("Starting epoch: ", epoch)
# iterate over the training dataset and train
while True:
try:
sess.run(train_op, feed_dict={handle: training_handle})
except tf.errors.OutOfRangeError:
# End of epoch
break
# Tell validation iterator to go to beginning of dataset
sess.run(val_iterator.initializer)
# run validation on only 10 examples
for i in range(10):
my_value = sess.run(my_validation_op, feed_dict={handle: validation_handle}))
# Do whatever you want with my_value
...
I figured out a solution that uses Estimator/Experiment API.
First you need to modify your Dataset input to not only provide labels and features, but also some form of an identifier for each sample (in my case it was a filename). Then in the hyperparameters dictionary (params argument) you need to specify which of the validation samples you want to plot. You also will have to pass the model_dir in those parameters. For example:
params = tf.contrib.training.HParams(
model_dir=model_dir,
images_to_plot=["100307_EMOTION.nii.gz", "100307_FACE-SHAPE.nii.gz",
"100307_GAMBLING.nii.gz", "100307_RELATIONAL.nii.gz",
"100307_SOCIAL.nii.gz"]
)
learn_runner.run(
experiment_fn=experiment_fn,
run_config=run_config,
schedule="train_and_evaluate",
hparams=params
)
Having this set up you can create conditional Summary operations in your model_fn and an evaluation hook to include them in your outputs.
if mode == tf.contrib.learn.ModeKeys.EVAL:
summaries = []
for image_to_plot in params.images_to_plot:
is_to_plot = tf.equal(tf.squeeze(filenames), image_to_plot)
summary = tf.cond(is_to_plot,
lambda: tf.summary.image('predicted', predictions),
lambda: tf.summary.histogram("ignore_me", [0]),
name="%s_predicted" % image_to_plot)
summaries.append(summary)
evaluation_hooks = [tf.train.SummarySaverHook(
save_steps=1,
output_dir=os.path.join(params.model_dir, "eval"),
summary_op=tf.summary.merge(summaries))]
else:
evaluation_hooks = None
Note that the summaries have to be conditional - we are either plotting an image (computationally expensive) or saving a constant (computationally cheap). I opted for using histogram versus scalar in for the dummy summaries to avoid cluttering my tensorboard dashboard.
Finally you need to pass the hook in the return object of your `model_fn'
return tf.estimator.EstimatorSpec(
mode=mode,
predictions=predictions,
loss=loss,
train_op=train_op,
evaluation_hooks=evaluation_hooks
)
Please note that this only works when your batch size is 1 when evaluating the model (which should not be a problem).
I'm new to TensorFlow and am getting a bit tripped up on the mechanics of reading data. I set up a TensorFlow graph on the mnist data, but I'd like to modify it so that I can run one program to train it + save the model out, and run another to load said graph, make predictions, and compute test accuracy.
Where I'm getting confused is how to bypass the original I/O system in the training graph and "inject" an image to predict or an (image, label) tuple of test data for accuracy testing. To read the training data, I'm using this code:
_, input_data = util.read_examples(
paths_to_files,
batch_size,
shuffle=shuffle,
num_epochs=None)
feature_map = {
'label': tf.FixedLenFeature(
shape=[], dtype=tf.int64, default_value=[-1]),
'image': tf.FixedLenFeature(
shape=[NUM_PIXELS * NUM_PIXELS], dtype=tf.int64),
}
example = tf.parse_example(input_data, features=feature_map)
I then feed example to a convolution layer, etc. and generate the output.
Now imagine that I train my graph with that code specifying the input, save out the graph and weights, and then restore the graph and weights in another script for prediction -- I'd like to take (say) 10 images and feed them to the graph to generate predictions. How do I "inject" those 10 images so that the predictions come out the other end?
I played around with feed dictionaries and placeholders, but I'm not sure if they're the right things for me to use... it seems like they rely on having data in memory, as opposed to reading from a queue of test data, for example.
Thanks!
A feed dictionary with placeholders would make sense if you wanted to perform a small number of inferences/evaluations (i.e. enough to fit in memory) - e.g. if you were serving a simple model or running small eval loops.
If you specifically want to infer or evaluate large batches then you should use the same approach you've used for training, but with a different path to your test/eval/live data. e.g.
_, eval_data = util.read_examples(
paths_to_files, # CHANGE THIS BIT
batch_size,
shuffle=shuffle,
num_epochs=None)
You can use this as a normal python variable and set up successive, dependent steps to use this as a provided variable. e.g.
def get_example(data):
return tf.parse_example(data, features=feature_map)
sess.run([get_example(path_to_your_data)])