Based on text description (varing length of 1000 words), i have to tag into one or more possible label values (for single training sample).
Any suggesting algorithm to proceed further.
More concered in backpropogation in tensorflow (Loss, optimizer & accuracy).
Would be using glove vector (Make use of Pretrained from stanfold) as embedding layer.
Related
I know what embeddings are and how they are trained. Precisely, while referring to the tensorflow's documentation, I came across two different articles. I wish to know what exactly is the difference between them.
link 1: Tensorflow | Vector Representations of words
In the first tutorial, they have explicitly trained embeddings on a specific dataset. There is a distinct session run to train those embeddings. I can then later on save the learnt embeddings as a numpy object and use the
tf.nn.embedding_lookup() function while training an LSTM network.
link 2: Tensorflow | Embeddings
In this second article however, I couldn't understand what is happening.
word_embeddings = tf.get_variable(“word_embeddings”,
[vocabulary_size, embedding_size])
embedded_word_ids = tf.gather(word_embeddings, word_ids)
This is given under the training embeddings sections. My doubt is: does the gather function train the embeddings automatically? I am not sure since this op ran very fast on my pc.
Generally: What is the right way to convert words into vectors (link1 or link2) in tensorflow for training a seq2seq model? Also, how to train the embeddings for a seq2seq dataset, since the data is in the form of separate sequences for my task unlike (a continuous sequence of words refer: link 1 dataset)
Alright! anyway, I have found the answer to this question and I am posting it so that others might benefit from it.
The first link is more of a tutorial that steps you through the process of exactly how the embeddings are learnt.
In practical cases, such as training seq2seq models or Any other encoder-decoder models, we use the second approach where the embedding matrix gets tuned appropriately while the model gets trained.
I used tensorflow to train LSTM language model, code is from here.
According to article here, it seems that if I use pre-trained word2vec, it works better.
Using word embeddings such as word2vec and GloVe is a popular method to improve the accuracy of your model. Instead of using one-hot vectors to represent our words, the low-dimensional vectors learned using word2vec or GloVe carry semantic meaning – similar words have similar vectors. Using these vectors is a form of pre-training.
So, I want to use word2vec to redo the training, but I am a little bit confused about how to do this.
The embedding code goes here:
with tf.device("/cpu:0"):
embedding = tf.get_variable(
"embedding", [vocab_size, size], dtype=data_type())
inputs = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(embedding, input_.input_data)
How can I change this code to use pre-trained word2vec?
I'm not sure if my understanding is correct but...
While training a seq2seq model, one of the purpose I want to initiated a set of pre-trained fasttext weights in the embedding layers is to decrease the unknown words in the test environment (these unknown words are not in training set). Since pre-trained fasttext model has larger vocabulary, during test environment, the unknown word can be represented by fasttext out-of-vocabulary word vectors, which supposed to have similar direction of the semantic similar words in the training set.
However, due to the fact that the initial fasttext weights in the embedding layers will be updated through the training process (updating weights generates better results). I am wondering if the updated embedding weights would distort the relationship of semantic similarity between words and undermine the representation of fasttext out-of-vocabulary word vectors? (and, between those updated embedding weights and word vectors in the initial embedding layers but their corresponding ID didn't appear in the training data)
If the input ID can be distributed represented vectors extracted from pre-trained model and, then, map these pre-trained word vectors (fixed weights while training) via a lookup table to the embedding layers (these weights will be updated while training), would it be a better solution?
Any suggestions will be appreciated!
You are correct about the problem: when using pre-trained vector and fine-tuning them in your final model, the words that are infrequent or hasn't appear in your training set won't get any updates.
Now, usually one can test how much of the issue for your particular case this is. E.g. if you have a validation set, try fine-tuning and not fine-tuning the weights and see what's the difference in model performance on validation set.
If you see a big difference in performance on validation set when you are not fine-tuning, here is a few ways to handle this:
a) Add a linear transformation layer after not-trainable embeddings. Fine-tuning embeddings in many cases does affine transformations to the space, so one can capture this in a separate layer that can be applied at test time.
E.g. A is pre-trained embedding matrix:
embeds = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(A, tokens)
X = tf.get_variable("X", [embed_size, embed_size])
b = tf.get_vairable("b", [embed_size])
embeds = tf.mul(embeds, X) + b
b) Keep pre-trained embeddings in the not-trainable embedding matrix A. Add trainable embedding matrix B, that has a smaller vocab of popular words in your training set and embedding size. Lookup words both in A and B (and if word is out of vocab use ID=0 for example), concat results and use it input to your model. This way you will teach your model to use mostly A and sometimes rely on B for popular words in your training set.
fixed_embeds = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(A, tokens)
B = tf.get_variable("B", [smaller_vocab_size, embed_size])
oov_tokens = tf.where(tf.less(tokens, smaller_vocab_size), tokens, tf.zeros(tf.shape(tokens), dtype=tokens.dtype))
dyn_embeds = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(B, oov_tokens)
embeds = tf.concat([fixed_embeds, dyn_embeds], 1)
In the FCN paper, the authors discuss the patch wise training and fully convolutional training. What is the difference between these two?
Please refer to section 4.4 attached in the following.
It seems to me that the training mechanism is as follows,
Assume the original image is M*M, then iterate the M*M pixels to extract N*N patch (where N<M). The iteration stride can some number like N/3 to generate overlapping patches. Moreover, assume each single image corresponds to 20 patches, then we can put these 20 patches or 60 patches(if we want to have 3 images) into a single mini-batch for training. Is this understanding right? It seems to me that this so-called fully convolutional training is the same as patch-wise training.
The term "Fully Convolutional Training" just means replacing fully-connected layer with convolutional layers so that the whole network contains just convolutional layers (and pooling layers).
The term "Patchwise training" is intended to avoid the redundancies of full image training.
In semantic segmentation, given that you are classifying each pixel in the image, by using the whole image, you are adding a lot of redundancy in the input. A standard approach to avoid this during training segmentation networks is to feed the network with batches of random patches (small image regions surrounding the objects of interest) from the training set instead of full images. This "patchwise sampling" ensures that the input has enough variance and is a valid representation of the training dataset (the mini-batch should have the same distribution as the training set). This technique also helps to converge faster and to balance the classes. In this paper, they claim that is it not necessary to use patch-wise training and if you want to balance the classes you can weight or sample the loss.
In a different perspective, the problem with full image training in per-pixel segmentation is that the input image has a lot of spatial correlation. To fix this, you can either sample patches from the training set (patchwise training) or sample the loss from the whole image. That is why the subsection is called "Patchwise training is loss sampling".
So by "restricting the loss to a randomly sampled subset of its spatial terms excludes patches from the gradient computation." They tried this "loss sampling" by randomly ignoring cells from the last layer so the loss is not calculated over the whole image.
I'm very interested in GAN those times.
I coded one for MNIST with the following structure :
Generator model
Discriminator model
Gen + Dis model
Generator model generate batches of image from random distribution.
Discrimator is trained over it and real images.
Then Discriminator is freeze in Gen+Dis model and Generator trained. (With the frozen Discriminator who says if the generator is good or not)
Now, imagine I don't want to feed my generator with a random distribution but with images. (For upscaling for example, or generate an real image from a draw)
Do I need to change something in it ?
(Except the conv model who will be more complex)
Should I continue to use the binary_crossentropy as loss function ?
Thanks you very much!
You can indeed put a variational autoencoder (VAE) in front in order to generate the initial distribution z (see paper).
If you are interested in the topic I can recommend the this course at Kadenze.