I am trying to implement logistic regression from scratch using numpy. I wrote a class with the following methods to implement logistic regression for a binary classification problem and to score it based on BCE loss or Accuracy.
def accuracy(self, true_labels, predictions):
"""
This method implements the accuracy score. Where the accuracy is the number
of correct predictions our model has.
args:
true_labels: vector of shape (1, m) that contains the class labels where,
m is the number of samples in the batch.
predictions: vector of shape (1, m) that contains the model predictions.
"""
counter = 0
for y_true, y_pred in zip(true_labels, predictions):
if y_true == y_pred:
counter+=1
return counter/len(true_labels)
def train(self, score='loss'):
"""
This function trains the logistic regression model and updates the
parameters based on the Batch-Gradient Descent algorithm.
The function prints the training loss and validation loss on every epoch.
args:
X: input features with shape (num_features, m) or (num_features) for a
singluar sample where m is the size of the dataset.
Y: gold class labels of shape (1, m) or (1) for a singular sample.
"""
train_scores = []
dev_scores = []
for i in range(self.epochs):
# perform forward and backward propagation & get the training predictions.
training_predictions = self.propagation(self.X_train, self.Y_train)
# get the predictions of the validation data
dev_predictions = self.predict(self.X_dev, self.Y_dev)
# calculate the scores of the predictions.
if score == 'loss':
train_score = self.loss_function(training_predictions, self.Y_train)
dev_score = self.loss_function(dev_predictions, self.Y_dev)
elif score == 'accuracy':
train_score = self.accuracy((training_predictions==+1).squeeze(), self.Y_train)
dev_score = self.accuracy((dev_predictions==+1).squeeze(), self.Y_dev)
train_scores.append(train_score)
dev_scores.append(dev_score)
plot_training_and_validation(train_scores, dev_scores, self.epochs, score=score)
after testing the code with the following input
model = LogisticRegression(num_features=X_train.shape[0],
Learning_rate = 0.01,
Lambda = 0.001,
epochs=500,
X_train=X_train,
Y_train=Y_train,
X_dev=X_dev,
Y_dev=Y_dev,
normalize=False,
regularize = False,)
model.train(score = 'loss')
i get the following results
however when i swap the scoring metric to measure over time from loss to accuracy ass follows model.train(score='accuracy') i get the following result:
I have removed normalization and regularization to make sure i am using a simple implementation of logistic regression.
Note that i use an external method to visualize the training/validation score overtime in the LogisticRegression.train() method.
The trick you are using to create your predictions before passing into the accuracy method is wrong. You are using (dev_predictions==+1).
Your problem statement is a Logistic Regression model that would generate a value between 0 and 1. Most of the times, the values will NOT be exactly equal to +1.
So essentially, every time you are passing a bunch of False or 0 to the accuracy function. I bet if you check the number of classes in your datasets having the value False or 0 would be :
exactly 51.7 % in validation dataset
exactly 56.2 % in training dataset.
To fix this, you can use a in-between threshold like 0.5 to generate your labels. So use something like dev_predictions>0.5
Related
I have a problem with imbalanced labels, for example 90% of the data have the label 0 and the rest 10% have the label 1.
I want to teach the network with minibatches. So I want the optimizer to give the examples labeled with 1 a learning rate (or somehow change the gradients to be) greater by 9 than those with label 0.
is there any way of doing that?
The problem is that the whole training process is done in this line:
history = model.fit(trainX, trainY, epochs=1, batch_size=minibatch_size, validation_data=(valX, valY), verbose=0)
is there a way to change the fit method in the low level?
You can try using the class_weight parameter of keras.
From keras doc:
class_weight: Optional dictionary mapping class indices (integers) to a weight (float) value, used for weighting the loss function (during training only).
Example of using it in imbalance data:
https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/structured_data/imbalanced_data#class_weights
class_weights={"class_1": 1, "class_2": 10}
history = model.fit(trainX, trainY, epochs=1, batch_size=minibatch_size, validation_data=(valX, valY), verbose=0, class_weight=class_weights)
Full example:
# Examine the class label imbalance
# you can use your_df['label_class_column'] or just the trainY values.
neg, pos = np.bincount(your_df['label_class_column'])
total = neg + pos
print('Examples:\n Total: {}\n Positive: {} ({:.2f}% of total)\n'.format(
total, pos, 100 * pos / total))
# Scaling by total/2 helps keep the loss to a similar magnitude.
# The sum of the weights of all examples stays the same.
weight_for_0 = (1 / neg)*(total)/2.0
weight_for_1 = (1 / pos)*(total)/2.0
class_weight = {0: weight_for_0, 1: weight_for_1}
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.
I have to train a network on unlabelled data of binary type (True/False), which sounds like unsupervised learning. This is what the normalised data look like:
array([[-0.05744527, -1.03575495, -0.1940105 , -1.15348956, -0.62664491,
-0.98484037],
[-0.05497629, -0.50935675, -0.19396862, -0.68990988, -0.10551919,
-0.72375012],
[-0.03275552, 0.31480204, -0.1834951 , 0.23724946, 0.15504367,
0.29810553],
...,
[-0.05744527, -0.68482282, -0.1940105 , -0.87534175, -0.23580062,
-0.98484037],
[-0.05744527, -1.50366446, -0.1940105 , -1.52435329, -1.14777063,
-0.98484037],
[-0.05744527, -1.26970971, -0.1940105 , -1.33892142, -0.88720777,
-0.98484037]])
However, I do have a constraint on the total number of True labels in my data. This doesn't mean I can build a classical custom loss function in Keras taking (y_true, y_pred) arguments as required: my external constraint is just on the predicted total of True and False, not on the individual labels.
My question is whether there is a somewhat "standard" approach to this kind of problems, and how that is implementable in Keras.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Should I assign y_true randomly as 0/1, have a network return y_pred as 1/0 with a sigmoid activation function, and then define my loss function as
sum_y_true = 500 # arbitrary constant known a priori
def loss_function(y_true, y_pred):
loss = np.abs(y_pred.sum() - sum_y_true)
return loss
In the end, I went with the following solution, which worked.
1) Define batches in your dataframe df with a batch_id column, so that in each batch Y_train is your identical "batch ground truth" (in my case, the total number of True labels in the batch). You can then pass these instances together to the network. This can be done with a generator:
def grouper(g,x,y):
while True:
for gr in g.unique():
# this assigns indices to the entire set of values in g,
# then subsects to all the rows in which g == gr
indices = g == gr
yield (x[indices],y[indices])
# train set
train_generator = grouper(df.loc[df['set'] == 'train','batch_id'], X_train, Y_train)
# validation set
val_generator = grouper(df.loc[df['set'] == 'val','batch_id'], X_val, Y_val)
2) define a custom loss function, to track how close the total number of instances predicted as true matches the ground truth:
def custom_delta(y_true, y_pred):
loss = K.abs(K.mean(y_true) - K.sum(y_pred))
return loss
def custom_wrapper():
def custom_loss_function(y_true, y_pred):
return custom_delta(y_true, y_pred)
return custom_loss_function
Note that here
a) Each y_true label is already the sum of the ground truth in our batch (cause we don't have individual values). That's why y_true is not summed over;
b) K.mean is actually a bit of an overkill to extract a single scalar from this uniform tensor, in which all y_true values in each batch are identical - K.min or K.max would also work, but I haven't tested whether their performance is faster.
3) Use fit_generator instead of fit:
fmodel = Sequential()
# ...your layers...
# Create the loss function object using the wrapper function above
loss_ = custom_wrapper()
fmodel.compile(loss=loss_, optimizer='adam')
history1 = fmodel.fit_generator(train_generator, steps_per_epoch=total_batches,
validation_data=val_generator,
validation_steps=df.loc[encs.df['set'] == 'val','batch_id'].nunique(),
epochs=20, verbose = 2)
This way the problem is basically addressed as one of supervised learning, although without individual labels, which means that notions like true/false positive are meaningless here.
This approach not only managed to give me a y_pred that closely matches the totals I know per batch. It actually finds two groups (True/False) that occupy the expected different portions of parameter space.
I have a 1000 classes in the network and they have multi-label outputs. For each training example, the number of positive output is same(i.e 10) but they can be assigned to any of the 1000 classes. So 10 classes have output 1 and rest 990 have output 0.
For the multi-label classification, I am using 'binary-cross entropy' as cost function and 'sigmoid' as the activation function. When I tried this rule of 0.5 as the cut-off for 1 or 0. All of them were 0. I understand this is a class imbalance problem. From this link, I understand that, I might have to create extra output labels.Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out how to incorporate that into a simple neural network in keras.
nclasses = 1000
# if we wanted to maximize an imbalance problem!
#class_weight = {k: len(Y_train)/(nclasses*(Y_train==k).sum()) for k in range(nclasses)}
inp = Input(shape=[X_train.shape[1]])
x = Dense(5000, activation='relu')(inp)
x = Dense(4000, activation='relu')(x)
x = Dense(3000, activation='relu')(x)
x = Dense(2000, activation='relu')(x)
x = Dense(nclasses, activation='sigmoid')(x)
model = Model(inputs=[inp], outputs=[x])
adam=keras.optimizers.adam(lr=0.00001)
model.compile('adam', 'binary_crossentropy')
history = model.fit(
X_train, Y_train, batch_size=32, epochs=50,verbose=0,shuffle=False)
Could anyone help me with the code here and I would also highly appreciate if you could suggest a good 'accuracy' metric for this problem?
Thanks a lot :) :)
I have a similar problem and unfortunately have no answer for most of the questions. Especially the class imbalance problem.
In terms of metric there are several possibilities: In my case I use the top 1/2/3/4/5 results and check if one of them is right. Because in your case you always have the same amount of labels=1 you could take your top 10 results and see how many percent of them are right and average this result over your batch size. I didn't find a possibility to include this algorithm as a keras metric. Instead, I wrote a callback, which calculates the metric on epoch end on my validation data set.
Also, if you predict the top n results on a test dataset, see how many times each class is predicted. The Counter Class is really convenient for this purpose.
Edit: If found a method to include class weights without splitting the output.
You need a numpy 2d array containing weights with shape [number classes to predict, 2 (background and signal)].
Such an array could be calculated with this function:
def calculating_class_weights(y_true):
from sklearn.utils.class_weight import compute_class_weight
number_dim = np.shape(y_true)[1]
weights = np.empty([number_dim, 2])
for i in range(number_dim):
weights[i] = compute_class_weight('balanced', [0.,1.], y_true[:, i])
return weights
The solution is now to build your own binary crossentropy loss function in which you multiply your weights yourself:
def get_weighted_loss(weights):
def weighted_loss(y_true, y_pred):
return K.mean((weights[:,0]**(1-y_true))*(weights[:,1]**(y_true))*K.binary_crossentropy(y_true, y_pred), axis=-1)
return weighted_loss
weights[:,0] is an array with all the background weights and weights[:,1] contains all the signal weights.
All that is left is to include this loss into the compile function:
model.compile(optimizer=Adam(), loss=get_weighted_loss(class_weights))
I have a linear regression model that seems to work. I first load the data into X and the target column into Y, after that I implement the following...
X_train, X_test, Y_train, Y_test = train_test_split(
X_data,
Y_data,
test_size=0.2
)
rng = np.random
n_rows = X_train.shape[0]
X = tf.placeholder("float")
Y = tf.placeholder("float")
W = tf.Variable(rng.randn(), name="weight")
b = tf.Variable(rng.randn(), name="bias")
pred = tf.add(tf.multiply(X, W), b)
cost = tf.reduce_sum(tf.pow(pred-Y, 2)/(2*n_rows))
optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(FLAGS.learning_rate).minimize(cost)
init = tf.global_variables_initializer()
init_local = tf.local_variables_initializer()
with tf.Session() as sess:
sess.run([init, init_local])
for epoch in range(FLAGS.training_epochs):
avg_cost = 0
for (x, y) in zip(X_train, Y_train):
sess.run(optimizer, feed_dict={X:x, Y:y})
# display logs per epoch step
if (epoch + 1) % FLAGS.display_step == 0:
c = sess.run(
cost,
feed_dict={X:X_train, Y:Y_train}
)
print("Epoch:", '%04d' % (epoch + 1), "cost=", "{:.9f}".format(c))
print("Optimization Finished!")
accuracy, accuracy_op = tf.metrics.accuracy(labels=tf.argmax(Y_test, 0), predictions=tf.argmax(pred, 0))
print(sess.run(accuracy))
I cannot figure out how to print out the model's accuracy. For example, in sklearn, it is simple, if you have a model you just print model.score(X_test, Y_test). But I do not know how to do this in tensorflow or if it is even possible.
I think I'd be able to calculate the Mean Squared Error. Does this help in any way?
EDIT
I tried implementing tf.metrics.accuracy as suggested in the comments but I'm having an issue implementing it. The documentation says it takes 2 arguments, labels and predictions, so I tried the following...
accuracy, accuracy_op = tf.metrics.accuracy(labels=tf.argmax(Y_test, 0), predictions=tf.argmax(pred, 0))
print(sess.run(accuracy))
But this gives me an error...
FailedPreconditionError (see above for traceback): Attempting to use uninitialized value accuracy/count
[[Node: accuracy/count/read = IdentityT=DT_FLOAT, _class=["loc:#accuracy/count"], _device="/job:localhost/replica:0/task:0/device:CPU:0"]]
How exactly does one implement this?
Turns out, since this is a multi-class Linear Regression problem, and not a classification problem, that tf.metrics.accuracy is not the right approach.
Instead of displaying the accuracy of my model in terms of percentage, I instead focused on reducing the Mean Square Error (MSE) instead.
From looking at other examples, tf.metrics.accuracy is never used for Linear Regression, and only classification. Normally tf.metric.mean_squared_error is the right approach.
I implemented two ways of calculating the total MSE of my predictions to my testing data...
pred = tf.add(tf.matmul(X, W), b)
...
...
Y_pred = sess.run(pred, feed_dict={X:X_test})
mse = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(Y_pred - Y_test))
OR
mse = tf.metrics.mean_squared_error(labels=Y_test, predictions=Y_pred)
They both do the same but obviously the second approach is more concise.
There's a good explanation of how to measure the accuracy of a Linear Regression model here.
I didn't think this was clear at all from the Tensorflow documentation, but you have to declare the accuracy operation, and then initialize all global and local variables, before you run the accuracy calculation:
accuracy, accuracy_op = tf.metrics.accuracy(labels=tf.argmax(Y_test, 0), predictions=tf.argmax(pred, 0))
# ...
init_global = tf.global_variables_initializer
init_local = tf.local_variables_initializer
sess.run([init_global, init_local])
# ...
# run accuracy calculation
I read something on Stack Overflow about the accuracy calculation using local variables, which is why the local variable initializer is necessary.
After reading the complete code you posted, I noticed a couple other things:
In your calculation of pred, you use
pred = tf.add(tf.multiply(X, W), b). tf.multiply performs element-wise multiplication, and will not give you the fully connected layers you need for a neural network (which I am assuming is what you are ultimately working toward, since you're using TensorFlow). To implement fully connected layers, where each layer i (including input and output layers) has ni nodes, you need separate weight and bias matrices for each pair of successive layers. The dimensions of the i-th weight matrix (the weights between the i-th layer and the i+1-th layer) should be (ni, ni + 1), and the i-th bias matrix should have dimensions (ni + 1, 1). Then, going back to the multiplication operation - replace tf.multiply with tf.matmul, and you're good to go. I assume that what you have is probably fine for a single-class linear regression problem, but this is definitely the way you want to go if you plan to solve a multiclass regression problem or implement a deeper network.
Your weight and bias tensors have a shape of (1, 1). You give the variables the initial value of np.random.randn(), which according to the documentation, generates a single floating point number when no arguments are given. The dimensions of your weight and bias tensors need to be supplied as arguments to np.random.randn(). Better yet, you can actually initialize these to random values in Tensorflow: W = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([dim0, dim1], seed = seed) (I always initialize random variables with a seed value for reproducibility)
Just a note in case you don't know this already, but non-linear activation functions are required for neural networks to be effective. If all your activations are linear, then no matter how many layers you have, it will reduce to a simple linear regression in the end. Many people use relu activation for hidden layers. For the output layer, use softmax activation for multiclass classification problems where the output classes are exclusive (i.e., where only one class can be correct for any given input), and sigmoid activation for multiclass classification problems where the output classes are not exlclusive.