I am looking for an advice for as fast as possible implementation of a convolution algorithm for CNN inference but not a training.
This convolution neural networks modeled as alexnet, mobilenet, resnet etc.. will run on embedded ARM device (A72, A53, A35) and possibly on embedded GPU as well.
I understand there is various implementation outthere and NN frameworks which have various implementations such as direct convolution, unrolling based convolution (im2col), FFT based or Winograd but mine primary focus is to execute CNN under performance constrain of embedded device.
If anybody has experience and can recommend convolution implementation for CPU and parallel implementation as well, point to research paper or open source implementation I would very appreciate it.
If it is still actual. I found a small framework to inference of pre-trained neural network on CPU. It uses Simd Library to accelerate its work. The library has very fast (single thread) implementation of Convolution, Pooling, Relu and many other network layers for CPU (x86 and ARM). CNN convolution includes Winograd's method.
Related
I am new to ML and Pytorch and I have the following problem:
I am looking for a Fully Convolutional Network architecture in Pytorch, so that the input would be an RGB image (HxWxC or 480x640x3) and the output would be a single channel image (HxW or 480x640). In other words, I am looking for a network that will preserve the resolution of the input (HxW), and will loose the channel dimension. All of the networks that I've came across (ResNet, Densenet, ...) end with a fully connected layer (without any upsampling or deconvolution). This is problematic for two reasons:
I am restricted with the choice of the input size (HxWxC).
It has nothing to do with the output that I expect to get (a single channel image HxW).
What am I missing? Why is there even a FC layer? Why is there no up-sampling, or some deconvolution layers after feature extraction? Is there any build-in torchvision.model that might suit my requirements? Where can I find such pytorch architecture? As I said, I am new in this field so I don't really like the idea of building such a network from scratch.
Thanks.
You probably came across the networks that are used in classification. So they end up with a pooling and a fully connected layer to produce a fixed number of categorical output.
Have a look at Unet
https://lmb.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/people/ronneber/u-net/
Note: the original unet implementation use a lot of tricks.
You can simply downsample and then upsample symmetrically to do the work.
Your kind of task belongs to dense classification tasks, e.g. segmentation. In those tasks, we use fully convolution nets (see here for the original paper). In the FCNs you don't have any fully-connected layers, because when applying fully-connected layers you lose spatial information which you need for the dense prediction. Also have a look at the U-Net paper. All state-of-the art architectures use some kind of encoder-decoder architecture extended for example with a pyramid pooling module.
There are some implementations in the pytorch model zoo here. Search also Github for pytorch implementations for other networks.
In a CNN, the convolution operation 'convolves' a kernel matrix over an input matrix. Now, I know how a fully connected layer makes use of gradient descent and backpropagation to get trained. But how does the kernel matrix change over time?
There are multiple ways in which the kernel matrix is initialized as mentioned here, in the Keras documentation. However, I am interested to know how it is trained? If it uses backpropagation too, then is there any paper that describes in detail the training process?
This post also raises a similar question, but it is unanswered.
Here you have a well explained post about backpropagation for Convolutional layer. In short, it is also gradient descent just like with FC layer. In fact, you can effectively turn a Convolutional layer into a Fuly Connected layer as explained here.
To create RNN cells, there are classes like GRUCell and LSTMCell which can be used later to create RNN layers.
And also there are 2 other classes as CudnnGRU and CudnnLSTM which can be directly used to create RNN layers.
In the documentation they say that the latter classes have cuDNN implementation. Why should I use or not use this cuDNN implemented classes over classical RNN implementations when I'm creating a RNN model..?
In short: cudnnGRU and cudnnLSTM can/ must be used on GPU, normal rnn implementations not. So if you have tensorflow-gpu, cudnn implementation of RNN cells would run faster.
CuDNNLSTM and CuDNNGRU are the fast implementation backed by CuDNN. Both can only be run on the GPU, with the TensorFlow backend. The cuDNN is a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks.
The cuDNN provides highly tuned implementations for standard routines such as forward and backward convolution, pooling, normalization, and activation layers. cuDNN is part of the NVIDIA Deep Learning SDK.
The cuDNN highlights include:
Up to 3x faster training of ResNet-50 and GNMT on Tesla V100 vs.
Tesla P100
Improved NHWC support for pooling and strided convolution
Get Improved performance for common workloads such as ResNet50 and SSD as batchnorm now supports NHWC data layout with an added option
to fuse batchnorm with Add and ReLu operations
I want to know if the filters' weights in a, for example, 2D convolution layer in Keras are shared along the spatial dimensions by default. If yes, is there any way to have not shared weights?
I found that LocallyConnected2D does what I am looking for.
The LocallyConnected2D layer works similarly to the Conv2D layer, except that weights are unshared, that is, a different set of filters is applied at each different patch of the input.
I'm not clear on what your asking but:
The weights in the a single convolutional layer are shared. That is, the filters share the same weights with each stride.
However The weights between two convolutonal layers are not shared by default in keras.
There is no getting around shared wiegths in the filters within the conv layer. Since the execution of the convolution if offloaded to C++ libraries.
See this answer for further reference, in particular:
The implementation of tf.nn.conv2d() is written in C++, which invokes
optimized code using either Eigen (on CPU) or the cuDNN library (on
GPU). You can find the implementation here.
I'm trying to learn (and compare) different deep learning frameworks, by the time they are Caffe and Theano.
http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/gathered/examples/mnist.html
and
http://deeplearning.net/tutorial/lenet.html
I follow the tutorial to run those frameworks on MNIST dataset. However, I notice a quite difference in term of accuracy and performance.
For Caffe, it's extremely fast for the accuracy to build up to ~97%. In fact, it only takes 5 mins to finish the program (using GPU) which the final accuracy on test set of over 99%. How impressive!
However, on Theano, it is much poorer. It took me more than 46 minutes (using same GPU), just to achieve 92% test performance.
I'm confused as it should not have so much difference between the frameworks running relatively same architectures on same dataset.
So my question is. Is the accuracy number reported by Caffe is the percentage of correct prediction on test set? If so, is there any explanation for the discrepancy?
Thanks.
The examples for Theano and Caffe are not exactly the same network. Two key differences which I can think of are that the Theano example uses sigmoid/tanh activation functions, while the Caffe tutorial uses the ReLU activation function, and that the Theano code uses normal minibatch gradient descent while Caffe uses a momentum optimiser. Both differences will significantly affect the training time of your network. And using the ReLU unit will likely also affect the accuracy.
Note that Caffe is a deep learning framework which already has ready-to-use functions for many commonly used things like the momentum optimiser. Theano, on the other hand, is a symbolic maths library which can be used to build neural networks. However, it is not a deep learning framework.
The Theano tutorial you mentioned is an excellent resource to understand how exactly convolutional and other neural networks work on a basic level. However, it will be cumbersome to implement all the state-of-the-art tweaks. If you want to get state-of-the-art results quickly you are better off using one of the existing deep learning frameworks. Apart from Caffe, there are a number of frameworks based on Theano. I know of keras, blocks, pylearn2, and my personal favourite lasagne.