Guided Back-propagation in TensorFlow - tensorflow

I would like to implement in TensorFlow the technique of "Guided back-propagation" introduced in this Paper and which is described in this recipe .
Computationally that means that when I compute the gradient e.g., of the input wrt. the output of the NN, I will have to modify the gradients computed at every RELU unit. Concretely, the back-propagated signal on those units must be thresholded on zero, to make this technique work. In other words the partial derivative of the RELUs that are negative must be ignored.
Given that I am interested in applying these gradient computations only on test examples, i.e., I don't want to update the model's parameters - how shall I do it?
I tried (unsuccessfully) two things so far:
Use tf.py_func to wrap my simple numpy version of a RELU, which then is eligible to redefine it's gradient operation via the g.gradient_override_map context manager.
Gather the forward/backward values of BackProp and apply the thresholding on those stemming from Relus.
I failed with both approaches because they require some knowledge of the internals of TF that currently I don't have.
Can anyone suggest any other route, or sketch the code?
Thanks a lot.

The better solution (your approach 1) with ops.RegisterGradient and tf.Graph.gradient_override_map. Together they override the gradient computation for a pre-defined Op, e.g. Relu within the gradient_override_map context using only python code.
#ops.RegisterGradient("GuidedRelu")
def _GuidedReluGrad(op, grad):
return tf.where(0. < grad, gen_nn_ops._relu_grad(grad, op.outputs[0]), tf.zeros(grad.get_shape()))
...
with g.gradient_override_map({'Relu': 'GuidedRelu'}):
y = tf.nn.relu(x)
here is the full example implementation of guided relu: https://gist.github.com/falcondai/561d5eec7fed9ebf48751d124a77b087
Update: in Tensorflow >= 1.0, tf.select is renamed to tf.where. I updated the snippet accordingly. (Thanks #sbond for bringing this to my attention :)

The tf.gradients has the grad_ys parameter that can be used for this purpose. Suppose your network has just one relu layer as follows :
before_relu = f1(inputs, params)
after_relu = tf.nn.relu(before_relu)
loss = f2(after_relu, params, targets)
First, compute the derivative up to after_relu.
Dafter_relu = tf.gradients(loss, after_relu)[0]
Then threshold your gradients that you send down.
Dafter_relu_thresholded = tf.select(Dafter_relu < 0.0, 0.0, Dafter_relu)
Compute the actual gradients w.r.t to params.
Dparams = tf.gradients(after_relu, params, grad_ys=Dafter_relu_thresholded)
You can easily extend this same method for a network with many relu layers.

Related

Is there a PyTorch equivalent of tf.custom_gradient()?

I am new to PyTorch but have a lot of experience with TensorFlow.
I would like to modify the gradient of just a tiny piece of the graph: just the derivative of activation function of a single layer. This can be easily done in Tensorflow using tf.custom_gradient, which allows you to supply customized gradient for any functions.
I would like to do the same thing in PyTorch and I know that you can modify the backward() method, but that requires you to rewrite the derivative for the whole network defined in the forward() method, when I would just like to modify the gradient of a tiny piece of the graph. Is there something like tf.custom_gradient() in PyTorch? Thanks!
You can do this in two ways:
1. Modifying the backward() function:
As you already said in your question, pytorch also allows you to provide a custom backward implementation. However, in contrast to what you wrote, you do not need to re-write the backward() of the entire model - only the backward() of the specific layer you want to change.
Here's a simple and nice tutorial that shows how this can be done.
For example, here is a custom clip activation that instead of killing the gradients outside the [0, 1] domain, simply passes the gradients as-is:
class MyClip(torch.autograd.Function):
#staticmethod
def forward(ctx, x):
return torch.clip(x, 0., 1.)
#staticmethod
def backward(ctx, grad):
return grad
Now you can use MyClip layer wherever you like in your model and you do not need to worry about the overall backward function.
2. Using a backward hook
pytorch allows you to attach hooks to different layer (=sub nn.Modules) of your network. You can register_full_backward_hook to your layer. That hook function can modify the gradients:
The hook should not modify its arguments, but it can optionally return a new gradient with respect to the input that will be used in place of grad_input in subsequent computations.

Is it possible to integrate Levenberg-Marquardt optimizer from Tensorflow Graphics with a Tensorflow 2.0 model?

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.

How to wrap a custom TensorFlow loss function in Keras?

This is my third attempt to get a deep learning project off the ground. I'm working with protein sequences. First I tried TFLearn, then raw TensorFlow, and now I'm trying Keras.
The previous two attempts taught me a lot, and gave me some code and concepts that I can re-use. However there has always been an obstacle, and I've asked questions that the developers can't answer (in the case of TFLearn), or I've simply gotten bogged down (TensorFlow object introspection is tedious).
I have written this TensorFlow loss function, and I know it works:
def l2_angle_distance(pred, tgt):
with tf.name_scope("L2AngleDistance"):
# Scaling factor
count = tgt[...,0,0]
scale = tf.to_float(tf.count_nonzero(tf.is_finite(count)))
# Mask NaN in tgt
tgt = tf.where(tf.is_nan(tgt), pred, tgt)
# Calculate L1 losses
losses = tf.losses.cosine_distance(pred, tgt, -1, reduction=tf.losses.Reduction.NONE)
# Square the losses, then sum, to get L2 scalar loss.
# Divide the loss result by the scaling factor.
return tf.reduce_sum(losses * losses) / scale
My target values (tgt) can include NaN, because my protein sequences are passed in a 4D Tensor, despite the fact that the individual sequences differ in length. Before you ask, the data can't be resampled like an image. So I use NaN in the tgt Tensor to indicate "no prediction needed here." Before I calculate the L2 cosine loss, I replace every NaN with the matching values in the prediction (pred) so the loss for every NaN is always zero.
Now, how can I re-use this function in Keras? It appears that the Keras Lambda core layer is not a good choice, because a Lambda only takes a single argument, and a loss function needs two arguments.
Alternately, can I rewrite this function in Keras? I shouldn't ever need to use the Theano or CNTK backend, so it isn't necessary for me to rewrite my function in Keras. I'll use whatever works.
I just looked at the Keras losses.py file to get some clues. I imported keras.backend and had a look around. I also found https://keras.io/backend/. I don't seem to find wrappers for ANY of the TensorFlow function calls I happen to use: to_float(), count_nonzero(), is_finite(), where(), is_nan(), cosine_distance(), or reduce_sum().
Thanks for your suggestions!
I answered my own question. I'm posting the solution for anyone who may come across this same problem.
I tried using my TF loss function directly in Keras, as was independently suggested by Matias Valdenegro. I did not provoke any errors from Keras by doing so, however, the loss value went immediately to NaN.
Eventually I identified the problem. The calling convention for a Keras loss function is first y_true (which I called tgt), then y_pred (my pred). But the calling convention for a TensorFlow loss function is pred first, then tgt. So if you want to keep a Tensorflow-native version of the loss function around, this fix works:
def keras_l2_angle_distance(tgt, pred):
return l2_angle_distance(pred, tgt)
<snip>
model.compile(loss = keras_l2_angle_distance, optimizer = "something")
Maybe Theano or CNTK uses the same parameter order as Keras, I don't know. But I'm back in business.
You don't need to use keras.backend, as your loss is directly written in TensorFlow, then you can use it directly in Keras. The backend functions are an abstraction layer so you can code a loss/layer that will work with the multiple available backends in Keras.
You just have to put your loss in the model.compile call:
model.compile(loss = l2_angle_distance, optimizer = "something")

Custom external loss metric for Gradient Optimizer?

I have an external function which takes y and y_prediction (in matrix format), and computes a metric which depicts how good or bad the prediction actually is.
Unfortunately the metric is no simple y - ypred or confusion matrix, but still very useful and important. How can I use this number computed for the loss or as an argument for optimizer.minimize?
If i understood correctly i think there is two way to do this:
Either the loss you want to compute can be writen as tensorflow ops which gradient is defined (for exemple SVD has no gradient defined in tensorflow library saddly) then the optimisation is direct.
Or you can always write your loss function with numpy operators and use tf.py_func() https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/py_func and then you have to explicit the gradient by hand as said in here : How to make a custom activation function with only Python in Tensorflow?
But you have to know an explicit formula of your gradient ...

does TensorFlow automatically use sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits when possible?

Let's say that I have some code such as:
out = tf.nn.softmax(x) # shape (batch,time,n)
labels = .... # reference labels of type (batch,time)->int
And then I define my loss as the Cross Entropy:
loss = -tf.log(tf.gather_nd(out, labels))
Will TensorFlow automatically replace the loss in the computation graph by this?
loss = sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(x, labels)
What type of optimizations can I expect that TensorFlow will apply?
Follow-up question: If TensorFlow doesn't do this optimization, how can I do it manually? Consider that I have a modular framework where I get some out tensor which could possibly be the output of a softmax operation, and I want to calculate Cross Entropy, and I want to use sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits if possible. How could I accomplish this? Can I do something like the following?
if out.op == "softmax": # how to check this?
x = out.op.sources[0] # how to get this?
loss = sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(x, labels)
else:
loss = -tf.log(tf.gather_nd(out, labels))
TensorFlow generally doesn't merge nodes together in the way you're hoping. This is because other code (e.g. fetching outputs when running) may depend on intermediate nodes like the softmax, so removing them behind the user's back would be confusing.
If you do want to do this optimization yourself as part of a higher-level framework, you can analyze the current graphdef, but there's no annotation in TF to tell you what the outputs are, since that can vary at runtime depending on how session.run is called.