I am developing a graph neural network using PyTorch Geometric. The idea is to start with multivariate time series, build a graph based on the correlation between those time series and then classify the graph.
I have built a CorrelationLayer that computes the adjacency matrix of the graph using the pearson coefficient, and multiplies it for a matrix of trainable weights.
This matrix is then passed, along with the time series as node features, to a graph convolution layer (i will add other layers for classifications after the graph convolution but i made a super-simplified version for this question).
The problem is that when i try to train the model the weigths of the correlation layer do not update, while the parameters of the graph convolution layer do without any problem)
Here is the code for the correlation layer:
class CorrelationLayer(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, num_time_series):
super().__init__()
self.num_time_series = num_time_series
self.weights = nn.Parameter(torch.rand((num_time_series, num_time_series)))
def forward(self, x):
correlations = torch.zeros((x.shape[0], x.shape[0]))
for i in range(x.shape[0]):
for j in range(i+1, x.shape[0]):
c, _ = pearsonr(x[i], x[j])
correlations[i, j] = c
correlations[j, i] = c
correlations = correlations * self.weights
return correlations
And here is the code for the GCN model:
class GCN(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, num_time_series, ts_length, hidden_channels):
super(GCN, self).__init__()
self.corr_layer = CorrelationLayer(num_time_series)
self.graph_conv = GCNConv(ts_length, hidden_channels)
return
def forward(self, x):
adj = self.corr_layer(x)
out = self.graph_conv(x, torch_geometric.utils.dense_to_sparse(adj)[0])
return out
This is the code that i wrote in order to tray and test the model, with some sample data:
def train(model, X_train, Y_train):
model.train()
for x, y in zip(X_train,Y_train):
out = model(x)
print(model.corr_layer.weights)
print(model.graph_conv.state_dict().values())
loss = criterion(out, y)
loss.backward()
optimizer.step()
optimizer.zero_grad()
X = torch.tensor([
[
[0.,1.,2.,3.],
[1.,2.,3.,4.],
[0.,6.,3.,1.],
[3.,2.,1.,0.]
],
[
[2.,4.,6.,8.],
[1.,2.,3.,4.],
[1.,8.,3.,7.],
[3.,2.,1.,0.]
],
[
[0.,1.,2.,3.],
[1.,2.,3.,4.],
[0.,6.,3.,1.],
[3.,2.,1.,0.]
]
])
Y = torch.tensor([
[[1.],[1.],[1.],[1.]],
[[0.],[0.],[0.],[0.]],
[[1.],[1.],[1.],[1.]]
])
model = GCN(4,4,1)
optimizer = torch.optim.Adam(model.parameters(), lr=0.5)
criterion = torch.nn.MSELoss()
for epoch in range(1, 100):
train(model, X,Y)
With the prints in the train function we can see that the parameters of the graph_conv layer are updating, while the weights of the correlation layer not.
At the moment my guess is that the problem is in the transition from the adjacency matrix to the sparse version with dense_to_sparse but I am not sure.
Has anyone experienced something similar and have any ideas or suggestions?
Well, even though it's a very pointed and specific question, for anyone passing through here in the future, here's the solution:
As pointed out by the user thecho7 on the PyTorch forum (https://discuss.pytorch.org/t/pytorch-geometric-custom-layer-parameters-not-updating/170632/2)
dense_to_sparse contains two tensors that first one is a set of indices of elements and the second one is the value tensor. The index tensor does not contains the gradient where the value tensor has it.
So in the forward method I changed
out = self.graph_conv(x, torch_geometric.utils.dense_to_sparse(adj)[0])
to
out = self.graph_conv(x, torch_geometric.utils.dense_to_sparse(adj)[0], torch_geometric.utils.dense_to_sparse(adj)[1])
and now the weights of the correlation layer update.
Related
I was reading this blog from PyTorch. Just before the AutoGrad in training Section , it is mentioned
Be aware that only leaf nodes of the computation have their gradients computed. If you tried, for example, print(c.grad) you’d get back None. In this simple example, only the input is a leaf node, so only it has gradients computed.
Then weights are also considered to be leaf nodes. In the subsequent AutoGrad in training Section this below code block is executed.
BATCH_SIZE = 16
DIM_IN = 1000
HIDDEN_SIZE = 100
DIM_OUT = 10
class TinyModel(torch.nn.Module):
def __init__(self):
super(TinyModel, self).__init__()
self.layer1 = torch.nn.Linear(1000, 100)
self.relu = torch.nn.ReLU()
self.layer2 = torch.nn.Linear(100, 10)
def forward(self, x):
x = self.layer1(x)
x = self.relu(x)
x = self.layer2(x)
return x
some_input = torch.randn(BATCH_SIZE, DIM_IN, requires_grad=False)
ideal_output = torch.randn(BATCH_SIZE, DIM_OUT, requires_grad=False)
model = TinyModel()
When
print(model.layer2.weight.grad)
is executed it is shown as None.
But after training with the below code snippet, the weights have gradients,
optimizer = torch.optim.SGD(model.parameters(), lr=0.001)
prediction = model(some_input)
loss = (ideal_output - prediction).pow(2).sum()
loss.backward()
print(model.layer2.weight.grad[0][0:10])
So is my understanding correct? i.e when weights are initialised by calling TinyModel(), the requires_autograd is set to False. Only when the training starts happening with loss.backward() then the requires_autograd is set to True and the gradient is kept track?
But in other examples, when we create PyTorch models from scratch, where we initialise the weights randomly along with requires_grad=True, the gradient is tracked from beginning.
Or is the gradient tracking generally enabled only when it is started to be trained? If so why initially it was returning None in the above example.
Thank You in advance
I assume by requires_autograd you mean requires_grad.
when weights are initialised by calling TinyModel(), the requires_autograd is set to False.
No, this isn't true. The attribute model.layer2.weight is an instance of nn.Parameter which has requires_grad == True by default. You can verify this yourself:
model = TinyModel()
assert isinstance(model.layer2.weight, nn.Parameter)
assert model.layer2.weight.requires_grad
assert all(p.requires_grad for p in model.parameters())
why initially it was returning None in the above example
The value of model.layer2.weight.grad is None because at that point no gradient is computed yet. In fact, no forward computation is even computed yet. When loss.backward() is executed, the autograd engine computes the gradient of all tensor p with p.requires_grad == True and stores this gradient in p.grad. That's why model.layer2.weight.grad is no longer None after loss.backward().
I am getting acquainted with Tensorflow-Probability and here I am running into a problem. During training, the model returns nan as the loss (possibly meaning a huge loss that causes overflowing). Since the functional form of the synthetic data is not overly complicated and the ratio of data points to parameters is not frightening at first glance at least I wonder what is the problem and how it could be corrected.
The code is the following --accompanied by some possibly helpful images:
# Create and plot 5000 data points
x_train = np.linspace(-1, 2, 5000)[:, np.newaxis]
y_train = np.power(x_train, 3) + 0.1*(2+x_train)*np.random.randn(5000)[:, np.newaxis]
plt.scatter(x_train, y_train, alpha=0.1)
plt.show()
# Define the prior weight distribution -- all N(0, 1) -- and not trainable
def prior(kernel_size, bias_size, dtype = None):
n = kernel_size + bias_size
prior_model = Sequential([
tfpl.DistributionLambda(
lambda t: tfd.MultivariateNormalDiag(loc = tf.zeros(n) , scale_diag = tf.ones(n)
))
])
return(prior_model)
# Define variational posterior weight distribution -- multivariate Gaussian
def posterior(kernel_size, bias_size, dtype = None):
n = kernel_size + bias_size
posterior_model = Sequential([
tfpl.VariableLayer(tfpl.MultivariateNormalTriL.params_size(n) , dtype = dtype), # The parameters of the model are declared Variables that are trainable
tfpl.MultivariateNormalTriL(n) # The posterior function will return to the Variational layer that will call it a MultivariateNormalTril object that will have as many dimensions
# as the parameters of the Variational Dense Layer. That means that each parameter will be generated by a distinct Normal Gaussian shifted and scaled
# by a mu and sigma learned from the data, independently of all the other weights. The output of this Variablelayer will become the input to the
# MultivariateNormalTriL object.
# The shape of the VariableLayer object will be defined by the number of paramaters needed to create the MultivariateNormalTriL object given
# that it will live in a Space of n dimensions (event_size = n). This number is returned by the tfpl.MultivariateNormalTriL.params_size(n)
])
return(posterior_model)
x_in = Input(shape = (1,))
x = tfpl.DenseVariational(units= 2**4,
make_prior_fn=prior,
make_posterior_fn=posterior,
kl_weight=1/x_train.shape[0],
activation='relu')(x_in)
x = tfpl.DenseVariational(units= 2**4,
make_prior_fn=prior,
make_posterior_fn=posterior,
kl_weight=1/x_train.shape[0],
activation='relu')(x)
x = tfpl.DenseVariational(units=tfpl.IndependentNormal.params_size(1),
make_prior_fn=prior,
make_posterior_fn=posterior,
kl_weight=1/x_train.shape[0])(x)
y_out = tfpl.IndependentNormal(1)(x)
model = Model(inputs = x_in, outputs = y_out)
def nll(y_true, y_pred):
return -y_pred.log_prob(y_true)
model.compile(loss=nll, optimizer= 'Adam')
model.summary()
Train the model
history = model.fit(x_train1, y_train1, epochs=500)
The problem seems to be in the loss function: negative log-likelihood of the independent normal distribution without any specified location and scale leads to the untamed variance which leads to the blowing up the final loss value. Since you're experimenting with the variational layers, you must be interested in the estimation of the epistemic uncertainty, to that end, I'd recommend to apply the constant variance.
I tried to make a couple of slight changes to your code within the following lines:
first of all, the final output y_out comes directly from the final variational layer without any IndpendnetNormal distribution layer:
y_out = tfpl.DenseVariational(units=1,
make_prior_fn=prior,
make_posterior_fn=posterior,
kl_weight=1/x_train.shape[0])(x)
second, the loss function now contains the necessary calculations with the normal distribution you need but with the static variance in order to avoid the blowing up of the loss during training:
def nll(y_true, y_pred):
dist = tfp.distributions.Normal(loc=y_pred, scale=1.0)
return tf.reduce_sum(-dist.log_prob(y_true))
then the model is compiled and trained in the same way as before:
model.compile(loss=nll, optimizer= 'Adam')
history = model.fit(x_train, y_train, epochs=3000)
and finally let's sample 100 different predictions from the trained model and plot these values to visualize the epistemic uncertainty of the model:
predicted = [model(x_train) for _ in range(100)]
for i, res in enumerate(predicted):
plt.plot(x_train, res , alpha=0.1)
plt.scatter(x_train, y_train, alpha=0.1)
plt.show()
After 3000 epochs the result looks like this (with the reduced number of training points to 3000 instead of 5000 to speed-up the training):
The model has 38,589 trainable parameters but you have only 5,000 points as data; so, effective training is impossible with so many parameters.
So i am new to deep learning and started learning PyTorch. I created a classifier model with following structure.
class model(nn.Module):
def __init__(self):
super(model, self).__init__()
resnet = models.resnet34(pretrained=True)
layers = list(resnet.children())[:8]
self.features1 = nn.Sequential(*layers[:6])
self.features2 = nn.Sequential(*layers[6:])
self.classifier = nn.Sequential(nn.BatchNorm1d(512), nn.Linear(512, 3))
def forward(self, x):
x = self.features1(x)
x = self.features2(x)
x = F.relu(x)
x = nn.AdaptiveAvgPool2d((1,1))(x)
x = x.view(x.shape[0], -1)
return self.classifier(x)
So basically I wanted to classify among three things {0,1,2}. While evaluating, I passed the image it returned a Tensor with three values like below
(tensor([[-0.1526, 1.3511, -1.0384]], device='cuda:0', grad_fn=<AddmmBackward>)
So my question is what are these three numbers? Are they probability ?
P.S. Please pardon me If I asked something too silly.
The final layer nn.Linear (fully connected layer) of self.classifier of your model produces values, that we can call a scores, for example, it may be: [10.3, -3.5, -12.0], the same you can see in your example as well: [-0.1526, 1.3511, -1.0384] which are not normalized and cannot be interpreted as probabilities.
As you can see it's just a kind of "raw unscaled" network output, in other words these values are not normalized, and it's hard to use them or interpret the results, that's why the common practice is converting them to normalized probability distribution by using softmax after the final layer, as #skinny_func has already described. After that you will get the probabilities in the range of 0 and 1, which is more intuitive representation.
So after training what you would want to do is to apply softmax to the output tensor to extract the probability of each class, then you choose the maximal value (highest probability).
in your case:
prob = torch.nn.functional.softmax(model(x), dim=1)
_, pred_class = torch.max(prob, dim=1)
I am trying to reproduce a unet result on Carvana dataset using Ternausnet in PyTorch using Lightning.
I am using DiceLoss for that with sigmoid activation function. I think I am running into an issue of a vanishing gradient, because all gradients of weights are 0, and I see the output of the network with min value of order 10^8.
What could be the issue here? How can I address the vanishing gradient? Also, if I use a different criterion, I see a problem of loss going into negative values without stopping (for BCE with logits, for instance).
Here is the code for my Dice loss:
class DiceLoss(nn.Module):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
def forward(self, logits, targets, eps=0, threshold=None):
# comment out if your model contains a sigmoid or
# equivalent activation layer
proba = torch.sigmoid(logits)
proba = proba.view(proba.shape[0], 1, -1)
targets = targets.view(targets.shape[0], 1, -1)
if threshold:
proba = (proba > threshold).float()
# flatten label and prediction tensors
intersection = torch.sum(proba * targets, dim=1)
summation = torch.sum(proba, dim=1) + torch.sum(targets, dim=1)
dice = (2.0 * intersection + eps) / (summation + eps)
# print(intersection, summation, dice)
return (1 - dice).mean()
According to Keras Code, Keras computes the loss value considering optional weights and masks.
for i in range(len(self.outputs)):
if i in skip_target_indices:
continue
y_true = self.targets[i]
y_pred = self.outputs[i]
weighted_loss = weighted_losses[i]
sample_weight = sample_weights[i]
mask = masks[i]
loss_weight = loss_weights_list[i]
with K.name_scope(self.output_names[i] + '_loss'):
output_loss = weighted_loss(y_true, y_pred,
sample_weight, mask)
if len(self.outputs) > 1:
self.metrics_tensors.append(output_loss)
self.metrics_names.append(self.output_names[i] + '_loss')
if total_loss is None:
total_loss = loss_weight * output_loss
else:
total_loss += loss_weight * output_loss
On the other hand, in Keras documentation I see the basic loss function is introduced in compile function, and then sample or class weights can be introduced in fit command.
I am not sure how to relate 'weights and masks' in the first code to 'sample and class weights' in the second document. Can anybody give me more explanation?
My application is actually a Convolutional LSTM network, where I input a series of images and want the network to produce an output map (with the same size of input maps) of pixel classes, but some pixels don't have valid labels during training. Should I use weight or mask, sample or class?