I have a model that outputs a Softmax, and I would like to develop a custom loss function. The desired behaviour would be:
1) Softmax to one-hot (normally I do numpy.argmax(softmax_vector) and set that index to 1 in a null vector, but this is not allowed in a loss function).
2) Multiply the resulting one-hot vector by my embedding matrix to get an embedding vector (in my context: the word-vector that is associated to a given word, where words have been tokenized and assigned to indices, or classes for the Softmax output).
3) Compare this vector with the target (this could be a normal Keras loss function).
I know how to write a custom loss function in general, but not to do this. I found this closely related question (unanswered), but my case is a bit different, since I would like to preserve my softmax output.
It is possible to mix tensorflow and keras in you customer loss function. Once you can access to all Tensorflow function, things become very easy. I just give you a example of how this function could be imlement.
import tensorflow as tf
def custom_loss(target, softmax):
max_indices = tf.argmax(softmax, -1)
# Get the embedding matrix. In Tensorflow, this can be directly done
# with tf.nn.embedding_lookup
embedding_vectors = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(you_embedding_matrix, max_indices)
# Do anything you want with normal keras loss function
loss = some_keras_loss_function(target, embedding_vectors)
loss = tf.reduce_mean(loss)
return loss
Fan Luo's answer points in the right direction, but ultimately will not work because it involves non-derivable operations. Note such operations are acceptable for the real value (a loss function takes a real value and a predicted value, non-derivable operations are only fine for the real value).
To be fair, that was what I was asking in the first place. It is not possible to do what I wanted, but we can get a similar and derivable behaviour:
1) Element-wise power of the softmax values. This makes smaller values much smaller. For example, with a power of 4 [0.5, 0.2, 0.7] becomes [0.0625, 0.0016, 0.2400]. Note that 0.2 is comparable to 0.7, but 0.0016 is negligible with respect to 0.24. The higher my_power is, the more similar to a one-hot the final result will be.
soft_extreme = Lambda(lambda x: x ** my_power)(softmax)
2) Importantly, both softmax and one-hot vectors are normalized, but not our "soft_extreme". First, find the sum of the array:
norm = tf.reduce_sum(soft_extreme, 1)
3) Normalize soft_extreme:
almost_one_hot = Lambda(lambda x: x / norm)(soft_extreme)
Note: Setting my_power too high in 1) will result in NaNs. If you need a better softmax to one-hot conversion, then you may do steps 1 to 3 two or more times in a row.
4) Finally we want the vector from the dictionary. Lookup is forbidden, but we can take the average vector using matrix multiplication. Because our soft_normalized is similar to one-hot encoding this average will be similar to the vector associated to the highest argument (original intended behaviour). The higher my_power is in (1), the truer this will be:
target_vectors = tf.tensordot(almost_one_hot, embedding_matrix, axes=[[1], [0]])
Note: This will not work directly using batches! In my case, I reshaped my "one hot" (from [batch, dictionary_length] to [batch, 1, dictionary_length] using tf.reshape. Then tiled my embedding_matrix batch times and finally used:
predicted_vectors = tf.matmul(reshaped_one_hot, tiled_embedding)
There may be more elegant solutions (or less memory-hungry, if tiling the embedding matrix is not an option), so feel free to explore more.
Related
I have a data-set without labels, but I do have a way to get pairs of examples with opposite labels, that is given a pair x,z I know that their true labels are either 0,1 or 1,0.
So, I am building a model that accepts pairs of samples as input, and learns to classify them with opposite labels. Assuming I have an arbitrary model for predicting a single sample, y_hat = f(x), I am building a model with Keras that accepts pairs of samples (x,z) and outputs pairs of predictions, f(x), f(z). I then use a custom loss function that drives the model towards the correct direction: Given that a regular binary classifier is trained using the Binary Cross Entropy (BCE) to make the predicted and desired output "close", I use the negative BCE. Also, since BCE is not symmetric, I symmetrize it. So, the loss function I give the model.compile method is:
from tensorflow import keras
bce = keras.losses.BinaryCrossentropy()
def neg_sym_bce(y1, y2):
return (- 0.5 * (bce(y1, y2) + bce(y2, y1)))
My problem is, this model fails to learn to classify even a single pair of my data (I get f(x)~=f(z)~=0.5), and if I try to train it with synthetic "easy" data, it takes hundreds of epochs to converge (also on a single pair).
This made me suspect that it has to do with a "vanishing gradient" problem. Indeed, when I plot (see below) the loss for a single pair, which is a function of 2 variables (the 2 outputs), it is evident that there is a wide plateau around the 0.5, 0.5 point. It is also evident that the global minima is, as expected, around the points 0,1 and 1,0.
So, is there a way to deal with the vanishing gradient here? I read about the problem but the references I found deal with vanishing gradient in the network, not in the loss itself.
Or, is there another loss that can drive the model to predict opposite labels?
Think if your labels are always either 0,1 or 1,1 just use categorical_crossentropy for the loss.
I am training a GRU layer where inputs doesn't have the same length. Therefore, I have padded the inputs' features with 0.0 to make all sequences of same length. On the other hand, I don't want to compute any loss at any time step, for any sample as long as the input feature vector is all zeros. Example, at time step 1000, I have a batch size of 34, but samples number 33 and 34 of this batch lack data or feature values at time step 1000.
I have found that we can use the method Masking()(inputs) in Keras as long as all subsequent layers or operations support masking. But I have implemented my model in tensorflow. So what is the equivalence of Masking() in tensorflow?
Second, how can I know whether: batch normalization, conv layer and any non linear activation function has support for the masking() function in Keras?
Your help is much appreciated!!
So I found the detailed solution in danijar blog https://danijar.com/variable-sequence-lengths-in-tensorflow/.
The masking in keras is used when having incomplete sequences. So usually, you need to pad your sequences with 0.0 in the third dimension (The feature's dimension; when the input dimension has shape = [batch_size, sequence_length, num_features]).Afterwards, the masking in keras will take a number, will output 0 for their activations.
In summary: He showed how to compute the sequence length for each sample in the batch using length() he implemented. The output vector is then fed into the dynamic_rnn which will output zero vectors for incomplete sequences (for states and outputs), which is somehow similar to what happens in Keras Masking() function. Second, we should use a mask when computing the loss function.
All the details are discussed in this blog post.
But regarding the support thingy for masking in batch_norm, conv and non linear activation function; usually, if the output of the LSTM is zeros; then in case with sigmoid activation function at the output; the derivative of the output with respect to the input of the sigmoid function is output(1 - output). Hence, when the output is 0, this derivative is zero as well. And since back propagation applies the chain rule, then the gradients of the current sample with respect to any weight parameter in the network is going to be 0 as well. Hence, there is no need to worry about the support thingy... But the problem arises when the activation is relu for example, this is when the gradients should be explicitely multiplied by zeros before doing the back propagation (I guess). Maybe doing something like this will help:
final_output = output * mask
Then derivative of the final_output with respect to output will be the mask => 0 or 1 (the any time step; for any sample). Then, back propagate this gradient from the output of the activation function to its inputs...followed by chain rule => weights wont be affected in this case.
Second partial derivative test is a simple way to tell whether a critical point is a minimum, a maximum, or a saddle. I am currently toying with the idea of implementing such test for a simple neural network in tensorflow. The following set of weights is used for modeling an XOR neural network with 2 inputs, 1 hidden layer with 2 hidden units, and 1 output unit:
weights = {
'h1': tf.Variable(np.empty([2, 2]), name="h1", dtype=tf.float64),
'b1': tf.Variable(np.empty([2]), name="b1", dtype=tf.float64),
'h2': tf.Variable(np.empty([2, 1]), name="h2", dtype=tf.float64),
'b2': tf.Variable(np.empty([1]), name="b2", dtype=tf.float64)
}
Both the gradients and the hessians can now be obtained as follows:
gradients = tf.gradients(mse_op, [weights['h1'], weights['b1'], weights['h2'], weights['b2']])
hessians = tf.hessians(mse_op, [weights['h1'], weights['b1'], weights['h2'], weights['b2']])
Where mse_op is the MSE error of the network.
Both gradients and hessians compute just fine. The dimensionality of the gradients is equal to the dimensionality of the original inputs. The dimensionality of the hessians obviously differs.
The question: is it a good idea, and is it even possible to conveniently compute the eigenvalues of the hessians generated by tf.hessian applied to the given set of weights? Will the eigenvalues be representative of what I think they represent - i.e., will I be able to say that if overall, both positive and negative values are present, then we can conclude that the point is a saddle point?
So far, I have tried the following out-of-the-box approach to calculate the eigenvalues of each of the hessians:
eigenvals1 = tf.self_adjoint_eigvals(hessians[0])
eigenvals2 = tf.self_adjoint_eigvals(hessians[1])
eigenvals3 = tf.self_adjoint_eigvals(hessians[2])
eigenvals4 = tf.self_adjoint_eigvals(hessians[3])
1,2, and 4 work, but the 3rd one bombs out, complaining that Dimensions must be equal, but are 2 and 1 for 'SelfAdjointEigV2_2' (op: 'SelfAdjointEigV2') with input shapes: [2,1,2,1]. Should I just reshape the hessian somehow and carry on, or am I on the wrong track entirely?
After some fiddling, I have figured out that, given n*m matrix of input variables, TensorFlow's tf.hessians produces [n,m,n,m] tensor, which can be reshaped into square [n*m, n*m] Hessian matrix as follows:
sq_hess = tf.reshape(hessians[0], [tf.size(weights['h1']), tf.size(weights['h1'])])
Further, one can calculate the eigenvalues of the resulting square hessian:
eigenvals = tf.self_adjoint_eigvals(sq_hess)
This might be trivial, but it took me some time to wrap my head around this. I believe the behaviour of tf.hessians is not very well documented. Once you put together the dimensionalities, though, everything makes sense!
My understanding of noise contrastive estimation is that we sample some vectors from our word embeddings (the negative sample), and then calculate the log-likelihood of each. Then we want to maximize the difference between the probability of the target word and the log-likelihood of each of the negative sample words (So if I'm correct about this, we want to optimize the loss function so that it gets as close to 1 as possible).
My question is this:
What is the purpose of the num_classes parameters to the nce_loss function? My best guess is that the number of classes is passed in so that Tensorflow knows the size of the distribution from which the negative samples our drawn, but this might not make sense, since we could just infer the size of the distribution from the variable itself. Otherwise, I can't think of a reason for why we would need to know the total possible number of classes, especially if the language model is only outputting k + 1 predictions (negative sample size + 1 for the target word).
Your guess is correct. The num_classes argument is used to sample negative labels from the log-uniform (Zipfian) distribution.
Here's the link to the source code:
# Sample the negative labels.
# sampled shape: [num_sampled] tensor
# true_expected_count shape = [batch_size, 1] tensor
# sampled_expected_count shape = [num_sampled] tensor
if sampled_values is None:
sampled_values = candidate_sampling_ops.log_uniform_candidate_sampler(
true_classes=labels,
num_true=num_true,
num_sampled=num_sampled,
unique=True,
range_max=num_classes)
The range_max=num_classes argument basically defines the shape of this distribution and also the range of the sampled values - [0, range_max). Note that this range can't be accurately inferred from the labels, because a particular mini-batch can have only small word ids, which would skew the distribution significantly.
Alright, so I'm getting ready to run the tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits() function in Tensorflow.
It's my understanding that the 'logits' should be a Tensor of probabilities, each one corresponding to a certain pixel's probability that it is part of an image that will ultimately be a "dog" or a "truck" or whatever... a finite number of things.
These logits will get plugged into this cross entropy equation:
As I understand it, the logits are plugged into the right side of the equation. That is, they are the q of every x (image). If they were probabilities from 0 to 1... that would make sense to me. But when I'm running my code and ending up with a tensor of logits, I'm not getting probabilities. Instead I'm getting floats that are both positive and negative:
-0.07264724 -0.15262917 0.06612295 ..., -0.03235611 0.08587133 0.01897052 0.04655019 -0.20552202 0.08725972 ..., -0.02107313 -0.00567073 0.03241089 0.06872301 -0.20756687 0.01094618 ..., etc
So my question is... is that right? Do I have to somehow calculate all my logits and turn them into probabilities from 0 to 1?
The crucial thing to note is that tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(logits, labels) performs an internal softmax on each row of logits so that they are interpretable as probabilities before they are fed to the cross entropy equation.
Therefore, the "logits" need not be probabilities (or even true log probabilities, as the name would suggest), because of the internal normalization that happens within that op.
An alternative way to write:
xent = tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(logits, labels)
...would be:
softmax = tf.nn.softmax(logits)
xent = -tf.reduce_sum(labels * tf.log(softmax), 1)
However, this alternative would be (i) less numerically stable (since the softmax may compute much larger values) and (ii) less efficient (since some redundant computation would happen in the backprop). For real uses, we recommend that you use tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits().