I am a newbie to torch and lua (as anyone who has been following my latest posts could attest :) and have the following question on the forward function for the gmodule object (class nngraph).
as per the source code (https://github.com/torch/nn/blob/master/Module.lua - as class gmodule inherits from nn.module) the syntax is:
function Module:forward(input)
return self:updateOutput(input)
end
However, I have found cases where a table is passed as input, as in:
local lst = clones.rnn[t]:forward{x[{{}, t}], unpack(rnn_state[t-1])}
where:
clones.rnn[t]
is itself a gmodule object. In turn, rnn_state[t-1] is a table with 4 tensors. So in the end, we have something akin to
result_var = gmodule:forward{[1]=tensor_1,[2]=tensor_2,[3]=tensor_3,...,[5]=tensor_5}
The question is, depending on the network architecture, can you pass input - formatted as table - not only to the input layer but also to the hidden layers?
In that case, you have to check that you pass exactly one input per layer? (with the exception of the output layer)
Thanks so much
I finally found the answer. The module class (as well as the inherited class gmodule) has an input and an output.
However, the input (as well as the output) needs not be a vector, but it could be a collection of vectors - that depends on the neural net configuration, in this particular case it is a pretty complex recursive neural net.
So if the net has more than one input vector, you can do:
result_var = gmodule:forward{[1]=tensor_1,[2]=tensor_2,[3]=tensor_3,...,[5]=tensor_5}
where each tensor/vector is one of the input vectors. Only one of those vectors is the X vector, or the feature vector. The others could serve as input to other intermediate nodes.
In turn, result_var (which is the output) can have one output as tensor (the prediction) or a collection of tensors as output (a collection of tensors), depending on the network configuration.
If the latter is the case, one of those output tensors is the prediction, and the reminder are usually used as input to the intermediate nodes in the next time step - but that again depends on the net configuration.
Related
I have been trying to implement this paper . Basically what I want to do is sum the per client loss and compare the same with previous epoch. Then for each constituent layer of the model compare the KL divergence between the weights of the server and the client model to get the layer specific parameter updates and then doing a softmax and to decide whether an adaptive update or a normal FedAvg approach is needed.
The algorithm is as follows-
FedMed
I tried to make use of the code here to build a custom federated avg process. I got the basic understanding that there are some tf.computations and some tff.computations which are involved. I get that I need to make changes in the orchestration logic in the run_one_round function and basically manipulate the client outputs to do adaptive averaging instead of the vanilla federated averaging. The client_update tf.computation function basically returns all the values that I need i.e the weights_delta (can be used for client based model weights), model_output(which can be used to calculate the loss).
But I am not sure where exactly I should make the changes.
#tff.federated_computation(federated_server_state_type,
federated_dataset_type)
def run_one_round(server_state, federated_dataset):
server_message = tff.federated_map(server_message_fn, server_state)
server_message_at_client = tff.federated_broadcast(server_message)
client_outputs = tff.federated_map(
client_update_fn, (federated_dataset, server_message_at_client))
weight_denom = client_outputs.client_weight
# todo
# instead of using tff.federated_mean I wish to do a adaptive aggregation based on the client_outputs.weights_delta and server_state model
round_model_delta = tff.federated_mean(
client_outputs.weights_delta, weight=weight_denom)
#client_outputs.weights_delta has all the client model weights.
#client_outputs.client_weight has the number of examples per client.
#client_outputs.model_output has the output of the model per client example.
I want to make use of the server model weights using server_state object.
I want to calculate the KL divergence between the weights of server model and each client's model per layer. Then use a relative weight to aggregate the client weights instead of vanilla federated averaging.
Instead of using tff.federated_mean I wish to use a different strategy basically an adaptive one based on the algorithm above.
So I needed some suggestions on how to go about implementing this.
Basically what I want to do is :
1)Sum all the values of client losses.
2)Calculate the KL divergence per layerbasis of all the clients with server and then determine whether to use adaptive optimization or FedAvg.
Also is there a way to manipulate this value as a python value which will be helpful for debugging purposes( I tried to use tf.print but that was not helpful either). Thanks!
Simplest option: compute weights for mean on clients
If I read the algorithm above correctly, we need only compute some weights for a mean on-the-fly. tff.federated_mean accepts an optional CLIENTS-placed weight argument, so probably the simplest option here is to compute the desired weights on the clients and pass them in to the mean.
This would look something like (assuming the appropriate definitions of the variables used below, which we will comment on):
#tff.federated_computation(...)
def round_function(...):
...
# We assume there is a tff.Computation training_fn that performs training,
# and we're calling it here on the correct arguments
trained_clients = tff.federated_map(training_fn, clients_placed_arguments)
# Next we assume there is a variable in-scope server_model,
# representing the 'current global model'.
global_model_at_clients = tff.federated_broadcast(server_model)
# Here we assume a function compute_kl_divergence, which takes
# two structures of tensors and computes the KL divergence
# (as a scalar) between them. The two arguments here are clients-placed,
# so the result will be as well.
kl_div_at_clients = tff.federated_map(compute_kl_divergence,
(global_model_at_clients, trained_clients))
# Perhaps we wish to not use raw KL divergence as the weight, but rather
# some function thereof; if so, we map a postprocessing function to
# the computed divergences. The result will still be clients-placed.
mean_weight = tff.federated_map(postprocess_divergence, kl_div_at_clients)
# Now we simply use the computed weights in the mean.
return tff.federated_mean(trained_clients, weight=mean_weight)
More flexible tool: tff.federated_reduce
TFF generally encourages algorithm developers to implement whatever they can 'in the aggregation', and as such exposes some highly customizable primitives like tff.federated_reduce, which allow you to run arbitrary TensorFlow "in the stream" between clients and server. If the above reading of the desired algorithm is incorrect and something more involved is needed, or you wish to flexibly experiment with totally different notions of aggregation (something TFF encourages and is designed to support), this may be the option for you.
In TFF's heuristic typing language, tff.federated_reduce has signature:
<{T}#CLIENTS, U, (<U, T> -> U)> -> U#SERVER
Meaning, federated_reduce take a value of type T placed at the clients, a 'zero' in a reduction algebra of type U, and a function accepting a U and a T and producing a U, and applies this function 'in the stream' on the way between clients and server, producing a U placed at the server. The function (<U, T> -> U) will be applied to the partially accumulated value U, and the 'next' element in the stream T (note however that TFF does not guarantee ordering of these values), returning another partially accumulated value U. The 'zero' should represent whatever 'partially accumulated' means over the empty set in your application; this will be the starting point of the reduction.
Application to this problem
The components
Your reduction function needs access to two pieces of data: the global model state and the result of training on a given client. This maps quite nicely to the type T. In this application, we will have something like:
T = <server_model=server_model_type, trained_model=trained_model_type>
These two types are likely to be the same, but may not necessarily be so.
Your reduction function will accept the partial aggregate, your server model and your client-trained model, returning a new partial aggregate. Here we will start assuming the same reading of the algorithm as above, that of a weighted mean with particular weights. Generally, the easiest way to compute a mean is to keep two accumulators, one for numerator and one for denominator. This will affect the choice of zero and reduction function below.
Your zero should contain a structure of tensors with value 0 mapping to the weights of your model--this will be the numerator. This would be generated for you if you had an aggregation like tff.federated_sum (as TFF knows what the zero should be), but for this case you'll have to get your hands on such a tensor yourself. This shouldn't be too hard with tf.nest.map_structure and tf.zeros_like.
For the denominator, we will assume we just need a scalar. TFF and TF are much more flexible than this--you could keep a per-layer or per-parameter denominator if desired--but for simplicity we will assume that we just want to divide by a single float in the end.
Therefore our type U will be something like:
U = <numerator=server_model_type, denominator=tf.float32>
Finally we come to our reduction function. It will be more or less a different composition of the same pieces above; we will make slightly tighter assumptions about them here (in particular, that all the local functions are tff.tf_computations--a technical assumption, arguably a bug on TFF). Our reduction function will be along the lines (assuming appropriate type aliases):
#tff.tf_computation(U, T)
def reduction(partial_accumulate, next_element):
kl_div = compute_kl_divergence(
next_element.server_model, next_element.trained_model)
weight = postprocess_divergence(kl_div)
new_numerator = partial_accumulate.numerator + weight * next_element.trained_model
new_denominator = partial_accumulate.denominator + weight
return collections.OrderedDict(
numerator=new_numerator, denominator=new_denominator)
Putting them together
The basic outline of a round will be similar to the above; but we have put more computation 'in the stream', and consequently there wil be less on the clients. We assume here the same variable definitions.
#tff.federated_computation(...)
def round_function(...):
...
trained_clients = tff.federated_map(training_fn, clients_placed_arguments)
global_model_at_clients = tff.federated_broadcast(server_model)
# This zip I believe is not necessary, but it helps my mental model.
reduction_arg = tff.federated_zip(
collections.OrderedDict(server_model=global_model_at_clients,
trained_model=trained_clients))
# We assume a zero as specified above
return tff.federated_reduce(reduction_arg,
zero,
reduction)
I have 4 (or more) models (same structure but different training data). Now I want to ensemble them to make a prediction. I want to pre-load the models and then predict one input message (one message at a time) in parallel via multiprocess. However, the program always stops at "session.run" step. I could not figure it out why.
I tried passing all arguments to the function in each process, as shown in the code below. I also tried using a Queue object and put all the data (except the model object) in the queue. I also tried to set the number of process to 1. It made no difference.
with Manager() as manager:
first_level_test_features=manager.list()
procs =[]
for id in range(4):
p = Process(target=predict, args=(id, (message, models, configs, vocabs, emoji_dict,first_level_test_features)))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
for p in procs:
p.join()
I did not get any error message since it is just stuck there. I would expect the program can start multiple processes and each process uses the model pass to it to make the prediction.
I am unsure how session sharing along different Processes would work, and this is probably where your issue comes from. Given the way TensorFlow works, I would advise implementing the ensemble call as a graph operation, so that it can be run through a single session.run call, with TF handling the parallelization of computations wherever possible.
In practice, if you have symbolic tensors representing the models' predictions, you could use a TF operation to aggregate them (tf.concat, tf.reduce_mean, tf.add_n... whichever suits your design) and end up with a single symbolic tensor representing the ensemble prediction.
I hope this helps; if not, please provide some more details as to what your setting is, notably which form your models have.
Unlike most programming languages, TensorFlow does not regard the shape of an array as part of the type. The downside of this is that, if you make a mistake and accidentally provide data of the wrong shape, it may silently give a wrong answer e.g. Slightly different shape converges to wrong number - why? which makes debugging difficult.
Does there exist a shape checker for TF? That is, a function or program that can analyze a graph (with sample feed_dict if need be) and raise the alarm if there is a shape mismatch?
Tensorflow does offer a shape checker mechanism which is technically the shape argument you should specify while declaring Tensorflow place holders. By default, tensorflow takes [None,None] for shape. But , for example if you do specify the shape while declaring your place holders, then it will raise shape error whenever user enters data of incorrect/conflicting shape. For example
lets say I declared a place holder named X and did specify its shape argument too:
X=tf.placeholder(dtype=tf.float32, shape=[None,256])
Now, this means that number of rows of X can vary but number of features will always be 256. And now , if I mistakenly feed data of shape lets say 1000 rows and 20 features, shape error will be raised.
Also, check this link :https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/placeholder
Use:
print(str(tf.Shape(test_tensor))) # where test_tensor is
whatever your tensor's name is
Documentation available here: https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/shape
I am using this function of tensorflow to get my function jacobian. Came across two problems:
The tensorflow documentation is contradicted to itself in the following two paragraph if I am not mistaken:
gradients() adds ops to the graph to output the partial derivatives of ys with respect to xs. It returns a list of Tensor of length len(xs) where each tensor is the sum(dy/dx) for y in ys.
Blockquote
Blockquote
Returns:
A list of sum(dy/dx) for each x in xs.
Blockquote
According to my test, it is, in fact, return a vector of len(ys) which is the sum(dy/dx) for each x in xs.
I do not understand why they designed it in a way that the return is the sum of the columns(or row, depending on how you define your Jacobian).
How can I really get the Jacobian?
4.In the loss, I need the partial derivative of my function with respect to input (x), but when I am optimizing with respect to the network weights, I define x as a placeholder whose value is fed later, and weights are variable, in this case, can I still define the symbolic derivative of function with respect to input (x)? and put it in the loss? ( which later when we optimize with respect to weights will bring second order derivative of the function.)
I think you are right and there is a typo there, it was probably meant to be "of length len(ys)".
For efficiency. I can't explain exactly the reasoning, but this seems to be a pretty fundamental characteristic of how TensorFlow handles automatic differentiation. See issue #675.
There is no straightforward way to get the Jacobian matrix in TensorFlow. Take a look at this answer and again issue #675. Basically, you need one call to tf.gradients per column/row.
Yes, of course. You can compute whatever gradients you want, there is no real difference between a placeholder and any other operation really. There are a few operations that do not have a gradient because it is not well defined or not implemented (in which case it will generally return 0), but that's all.
Q: Is Tensorflow RNN implemented to ouput Elman Network's hidden state?
cells = tf.contrib.rnn.BasicRNNCell(4)
outputs, state = tf.nn.dynamic_rnn(cell=cells, etc...)
I'm quiet new to TF's RNN and curious about meaning of outputs, and state.
I'm following stanford's tensorflow tutorial but there seems no detailed explanation so I'm asking here.
After testing, I think state is hidden state after sequence calculation and outputs is array of hidden states after each time steps.
so I want to make it clear. outputs and state are just hidden state vectors so to fully implement Elman network, I have to make V matrix in the picture and do matrix multiplication again. am I correct?
I believe you are asking what the output of a intermediate state and output is.
From what I understand, the state would be intermediate output after a convolution / sequence calculation and is hidden, so your understanding is in the right direction.
Output may vary as how you decide to implement your network model, but on a general basis, it is an array where any operation (convolution, sequence calc etc) has been applied after which activation & downsampling/pooling has been applied, to concentrate on identifiable features across that layer.
From Colah's blog ( http://colah.github.io/posts/2015-08-Understanding-LSTMs/ ):
Finally, we need to decide what we’re going to output. This output will be based on our cell state, but will be a filtered version. First, we run a sigmoid layer which decides what parts of the cell state we’re going to output. Then, we put the cell state through tanhtanh (to push the values to be between −1−1 and 11) and multiply it by the output of the sigmoid gate, so that we only output the parts we decided to.
For the language model example, since it just saw a subject, it might want to output information relevant to a verb, in case that’s what is coming next. For example, it might output whether the subject is singular or plural, so that we know what form a verb should be conjugated into if that’s what follows next.
Hope this helps.
Thank you