The Adam optimizer has several terms that are used to add "momentum" to the gradient descent algorithm, making the step size for each variable adaptive:
Specifically, in the case of Adam here, I refer to the m-hat and v-hat terms.
There are times, however, when you may wish to manually update their states, such as resetting training for a subset of variables. Is there a way to do this in PyTorch's momentum-based optimizers (especially Adam)?
Since mhat and vhat are dependent on the "betas" parameter, you can update that during training if you wish, as so:
optimizer.param_groups[0]['betas'] = (beta1,beta2)
However, to address your question, the source code at https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/22b12179db15923007aaec80829766079bb0b9d1/torch/optim/_functional.py#L53 doesn't seem to support direct modification of the mhat (exp_avg) and vhat (exp_avg_sq, I at least presume). If you wish to do this I think you would have to implement your own Adam optimizer function (which seems relatively straightforward if you just copy the source code and modify it according to what you'd like to use).
Related
I have a multilabel classification problem, which I am trying to solve with CNNs in Pytorch. I have 80,000 training examples and 7900 classes; every example can belong to multiple classes at the same time, mean number of classes per example is 130.
The problem is that my dataset is very imbalance. For some classes, I have only ~900 examples, which is around 1%. For “overrepresented” classes I have ~12000 examples (15%). When I train the model I use BCEWithLogitsLoss from pytorch with a positive weights parameter. I calculate the weights the same way as described in the documentation: the number of negative examples divided by the number of positives.
As a result, my model overestimates almost every class… Mor minor and major classes I get almost twice as many predictions as true labels. And my AUPRC is just 0.18. Even though it’s much better than no weighting at all, since in this case the model predicts everything as zero.
So my question is, how do I improve the performance? Is there anything else I can do? I tried different batch sampling techniques (to oversample minority class), but they don’t seem to work.
I would suggest either one of these strategies
Focal Loss
A very interesting approach for dealing with un-balanced training data through tweaking of the loss function was introduced in
Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He and Piotr Dollar Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (ICCV 2017).
They propose to modify the binary cross entropy loss in a way that decrease the loss and gradient of easily classified examples while "focusing the effort" on examples where the model makes gross errors.
Hard Negative Mining
Another popular approach is to do "hard negative mining"; that is, propagate gradients only for part of the training examples - the "hard" ones.
see, e.g.:
Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta and Ross Girshick Training Region-based Object Detectors with Online Hard Example Mining (CVPR 2016)
#Shai has provided two strategies developed in the deep learning era. I would like to provide you some additional traditional machine learning options: over-sampling and under-sampling.
The main idea of them is to produce a more balanced dataset by sampling before starting your training. Note that you probably will face some problems such as losing the data diversity (under-sampling) and overfitting the training data (over-sampling), but it might be a good start point.
See the wiki link for more information.
I'm training a token classification (AKA named entity recognition) model with the HuggingFace Transformers library, with a customized data loader.
Like most NER datasets (I'd imagine?) there's a pretty significant class imbalance: A large majority of tokens are other - i.e. not an entity - and of course there's a little variation between the different entity classes themselves.
As we might expect, my "accuracy" metrics are getting distorted quite a lot by this: It's no great achievement to get 80% token classification accuracy if 90% of your tokens are other... A trivial model could have done better!
I can calculate some additional and more insightful evaluation metrics - but it got me wondering... Can/should we somehow incorporate these weights into the training loss? How would this be done using a typical *ForTokenClassification model e.g. BERTForTokenClassification?
This is actually a really interesting question, since it seems there is no intention (yet) to modify losses in the models yourself. Specifically for BertForTokenClassification, I found this code segment:
loss_fct = CrossEntropyLoss()
# ...
loss = loss_fct(logits.view(-1, self.num_labels), labels.view(-1))
To actually change the loss computation and add other parameters, e.g., the weights you mention, you can go about either one of two ways:
You can modify a copy of transformers locally, and install the library from there, which makes this only a small change in the code, but potentially quite a hassle to change parts during different experiments, or
You return your logits (which is the case by default), and calculate your own loss outside of the actual forward pass of the huggingface model. In this case, you need to be aware of any potential propagation from the loss calculated within the forward call, but this should be within your power to change.
I want to train a Doc2Vec model with a generic corpus and, then, continue training with a domain-specific corpus (I have read that is a common strategy and I want to test results).
I have all the documents, so I can build and tag the vocab at the beginning.
As I understand, I should train initially all the epochs with the generic docs, and then repeat the epochs with the ad hoc docs. But, this way, I cannot place all the docs in a corpus iterator and call train() once (as it is recommended everywhere).
So, after building the global vocab, I have created two iterators, the first one for the generic docs and the second one for the ad hoc docs, and called train() twice.
Is it the best way or it is a more appropriate way?
If the best, how I should manage alpha and min_alpha? Is it a good decision not to mention them in the train() calls and let the train() manage them?
Best
Alberto
This is probably not a wise strategy, because:
the Python Gensim Doc2Vec class hasn't ever properly supported expanding its known vocabulary after a 1st single build_vocab() call. (Up through at least 3.8.3, such attempts typically cause a Segmentation Fault process crash.) Thus if there are words that are only in your domain-corpus, an initial typical initialization/training on the generic-corpus would leave them out of the model entirely. (You could work around this, with some atypical extra steps, but the other concerns below would remain.)
if there is truly an important contrast between the words/word-senses used in your generic and the different words/word-senses used in your domain corpus, influence of the words from the generic corpus may not be beneficial, diluting domain-relevant meanings
further, any followup training that just uses a subset of all documents (the domain corpus) will only be updating the vectors for that subset of words/word-senses, and the model's internal weights used for further unseen-document inference, in directions that make sense for the domain-corpus alone. Such later-trained vectors may be nudged arbitrarily far out of comparable alignment with other words not appearing in the domain-corpus, and earlier-trained vectors will find themselves no longer tuned in relation to the model's later-updated internal-weights. (Exactly how far will depend on the learning-rate alpha & epochs choices in the followup training, and how well that followup training optimizes model loss.)
If your domain dataset is sufficient, or can be grown with more domain data, it may not be necessary to mix in other training steps/data. But if you think you must try that, the best-grounded approach would be to shuffle all training data together, and train in one session where all words are known from the beginning, and all training examples are presented in balanced, interleaved fashion. (Or possibly, where some training texts considered extra-important are oversampled, but still mixed in with the variety of all available documents, in all epochs.)
If you see an authoritative source suggesting such a "train with one dataset, then another disjoint dataset" approach with the Doc2Vec algorithms, you should press them for more details on what they did to make that work: exact code steps, and the evaluations which showed an improvement. (It's not impossible that there's some way to manage all the issues! But I've seen many vague impressions that this separate-pretraining is straightforward or beneficial, and zero actual working writeups with code and evaluation metrics showing that it's working.)
Update with respect to the additional clarifications you provided at https://stackoverflow.com/a/64865886/130288:
Even with that context, my recommendation remains: don't do this segmenting of training into two batches. It's almost certain to degrade the model compared to a combined training.
I would be interested to see links to the "references in the literature" you allude to. They may be confused or talking about algorithms other than the Doc2Vec ("Paragraph Vectors") algorithm.
If there is any reason to give your domain docs more weight, a better-grounded way would be to oversample them in the combined corpus.
Bu by all means, test all these variants & publish the relative results. If you're exploring shaky hypotheses, I would ignore any advice from StackOverflow-like sources & just run all the variants that your reading of the literature suggest, to see which, if any actually help.
You're right to recognized that the choice of alpha parameters is a murky area that could majorly influence what impact such add-on training has. There's no right answer, so you'll have to search-for and reason-out what might make sense. The inherent issues I've mentioned with such subset-followup-training could make it so that even if you find benefits in some combos, they may be more a product of a lucky combination of data & arbitrary parameters than a generalizable practice.
And: your specific question "if it is better to set such values or not provide them at all" reduces to: "do you want to use the default values, or values set when the model was created, or not?"
Which values might be workable, if at all, for this unproven technique is something that'd need to be experimentally discovered. That is, if you wanted to have comparable (or publishable) results here, I think you'd have to justify from your own novel work some specific strategy for choosing good alpha/epochs and other parameters, rather than adopt any practice merely recommended in a StackOverflow answer.
I have some 360 odd features on which I am training my neural network model.
The accuracy I am getting is abysmally bad. There is one feature amongst the 360 that is more important than the others.
Right now, it does not enjoy any special status amongst the other features.
Is there a way to lay emphasis on one of the features while training the model? I believe this could improve my model's accuracy.
I am using Python 3.5 with Keras and Scikit-learn.
EDIT: I am attempting a regression problem
Any help would be appreciated
First of all, I would make sure that this feature alone has a decent prediction probability, but I am assuming that you already made sure of it.
Then, one approach that you could take, is to "embed" your 359 other features in a first layer, and only feed in your special feature once you have compressed the remaining information.
Contrary to what most tutorials make you believe, you do not have to add in all features already in the first layer, but can technically insert them at any point in time (or even multiple times).
The first layer that captures your other inputs is then some form of "PCA approximator", where you are embedding a high-dimensional feature space (359 dimensions) into something that is less dominant over your other feature (maybe 20-50 dimensions as a starting point?)
Of course there is no guarantee that this will work, but you might have a much better chance of getting attention on your special feature, although I am fairly certain that in general you should still see an increase in performance if the single feature is strongly enough correlated with your output.
The other question that is still open is the kind of task you are training for, i.e., whether you are doing some form of classification (if so, how many classes?), or regression. This might also influence architectural choices, and the amount of focus you can/should put on a single feature.
There are several feature selection and importance techniques in machine learning. Please follow this link.
Since Google released out tensorflow, it becomes kind of trend in the current deep learning selections.
I'd like to do some experiments about RBM/DBN (Restricted Boltzmann Machine/Deep Belief Network), I've made some attempt by myself and kind of implement it well through the combination of available APIs from tensorflow. See code and previous answer.
So, if doesn't bother the code running performance, here's the gift for RBM/DBN implementation with tensorflow.
But, the running performance must be considered for the future. Because of the special progress of CD (Contrastive Divergence) algorithm, I think it just works against the framework (data flow graph) used by tensorflow. That's why my code seems weired.
So, the custom operation should be implemented for acceleration. I've followed the current documentation about adding custom ops.
REGISTER_OP("NaiveRbm")
.Input("visible: float32")
.Input("weights: float32")
.Input("h_bias: float32")
.Input("v_bias: float32")
.Output("hidden: float32")
.Doc(R"doc(
Naive Rbm for seperate training use. DO NOT mix up with other operations
)doc");
In my design, NaiveRbm should is an operation that takes visible,weights,h_bias,v_bias as input, but output by only first 3 Variables ( simply sigmoid(X*W+hb) ), its gradient should return at least gradients for last 3 Variables.
Imagine example psuedo code like this:
X = tf.placeholder()
W1, hb1, vb1 = tf.Variable()
W2, hb2, vb2 = tf.Variable()
rbm1 = NaiveRbm(X,W1,hb1,vb1)
train_op = tf.train.MomentumOptimizer(0.01, 0.5).minimize(rbm1)
rbm2 = NaiveRbm(tf.stop_gradient(rbm1), W2, hb2, vb2)
train_op2 = tf.train.MomentumOptimizer(0.01, 0.5).minimize(rbm2)
with tf.Session() as sess:
for batch in batches:
sess.run(train_op, feed_dict={X: batch})
for batch in batches:
sess.run(train_op2, feed_dict={X: batch})
But the tensorflow library is too complex for me. And after too much time seeking for how to implement these existing operations (sigmoid, matmul, ma_add, relu, random_uniform) in custom operation, no solution is found by myself.
So, I'd like to ask if someone could help me achieve the remain works.
PS: before getting some ideas, I'd like to dive into Theano since it implements RBM/DBN already. Just in my opinion, Caffe is kind of not suitable for RBM/DBN because of its framework.
Update: After scratch through the tutorials from Theano, I found the key reason for Theano implemented the RBM/DBN while the tensorflow haven't is the scan technology. So, there might wait tensorflow to implement scan technology to prepare for RBM/DBN implementation.