I am using a keras neural net for identifying category in which the data belongs.
self.model.compile(loss='categorical_crossentropy',
optimizer=keras.optimizers.Adam(lr=0.001, decay=0.0001),
metrics=[categorical_accuracy])
Fit function
history = self.model.fit(self.X,
{'output': self.Y},
validation_split=0.3,
epochs=400,
batch_size=32
)
I am interested in finding out which labels are getting categorized wrongly in the validation step. Seems like a good way to understand what is happening under the hood.
You can use model.predict_classes(validation_data) to get the predicted classes for your validation data, and compare these predictions with the actual labels to find out where the model was wrong. Something like this:
predictions = model.predict_classes(validation_data)
wrong = np.where(predictions != Y_validation)
If you are interested in looking 'under the hood', I'd suggest to use
model.predict(validation_data_x)
to see the scores for each class, for each observation of the validation set.
This should shed some light on which categories the model is not so good at classifying. The way to predict the final class is
scores = model.predict(validation_data_x)
preds = np.argmax(scores, axis=1)
be sure to use the proper axis for np.argmax (I'm assuming your observation axis is 1). Use preds to then compare with the real class.
Also, as another exploration you want to see the overall accuracy on this dataset, use
model.evaluate(x=validation_data_x, y=validation_data_y)
I ended up creating a metric which prints the "worst performing category id + score" on each iteration. Ideas from link
import tensorflow as tf
import numpy as np
class MaxIoU(object):
def __init__(self, num_classes):
super().__init__()
self.num_classes = num_classes
def max_iou(self, y_true, y_pred):
# Wraps np_max_iou method and uses it as a TensorFlow op.
# Takes numpy arrays as its arguments and returns numpy arrays as
# its outputs.
return tf.py_func(self.np_max_iou, [y_true, y_pred], tf.float32)
def np_max_iou(self, y_true, y_pred):
# Compute the confusion matrix to get the number of true positives,
# false positives, and false negatives
# Convert predictions and target from categorical to integer format
target = np.argmax(y_true, axis=-1).ravel()
predicted = np.argmax(y_pred, axis=-1).ravel()
# Trick from torchnet for bincounting 2 arrays together
# https://github.com/pytorch/tnt/blob/master/torchnet/meter/confusionmeter.py
x = predicted + self.num_classes * target
bincount_2d = np.bincount(x.astype(np.int32), minlength=self.num_classes**2)
assert bincount_2d.size == self.num_classes**2
conf = bincount_2d.reshape((self.num_classes, self.num_classes))
# Compute the IoU and mean IoU from the confusion matrix
true_positive = np.diag(conf)
false_positive = np.sum(conf, 0) - true_positive
false_negative = np.sum(conf, 1) - true_positive
# Just in case we get a division by 0, ignore/hide the error and set the value to 0
with np.errstate(divide='ignore', invalid='ignore'):
iou = false_positive / (true_positive + false_positive + false_negative)
iou[np.isnan(iou)] = 0
return np.max(iou).astype(np.float32) + np.argmax(iou).astype(np.float32)
~
usage:
custom_metric = MaxIoU(len(catagories))
self.model.compile(loss='categorical_crossentropy',
optimizer=keras.optimizers.Adam(lr=0.001, decay=0.0001),
metrics=[categorical_accuracy, custom_metric.max_iou])
Related
I am working on an stl-10 image dataset that consists of 10 different classes. I want to reduce this multiclass image classification problem to the binary class image classification such as class 1 Vs rest. I am using PyTorch torchvision to download and use the stl data but I am unable to do it as one Vs the rest.
train_data=torchvision.datasets.STL10(root='data',split='train',transform=data_transforms['train'], download=True)
test_data=torchvision.datasets.STL10(root='data',split='test',transform=data_transforms['val'], download=True)
train_dataloader = DataLoader(train_data,batch_size = 64,shuffle=True,num_workers=2)
test_dataloader = DataLoader(test_data,batch_size = 64,shuffle=True,num_workers=2)
For torchvision datasets, there is an inbuilt way to do this. You need to define a transformation function or class and add that into the target_transform while creating the dataset.
torchvision.datasets.STL10(root: str, split: str = 'train', folds: Union[int, NoneType] = None, transform: Union[Callable, NoneType] = None, target_transform: Union[Callable, NoneType] = None, download: bool = False)
Here is a working example for reference :
import torchvision
from torch.utils.data import DataLoader
from torchvision import transforms
class Multi2UniLabelTfm():
def __init__(self,pos_label=5):
if isinstance(pos_label,int) or isinstance(pos_label,float):
pos_label = [pos_label,]
self.pos_label = pos_label
def __call__(self,y):
# if y==self.pos_label:
if y in self.pos_label:
return 1
else:
return 0
if __name__=='__main__':
test_tfms = transforms.Compose([
transforms.ToTensor()
])
data_transforms = {'val':test_tfms}
#Original Labels
# target_transform = None
# Label 5 is converted to 1. Rest are 0.
# target_transform = Multi2UniLabelTfm(pos_label=5)
# Labels 5,6,7 are converted to 1. Rest are 0.
target_transform = Multi2UniLabelTfm(pos_label=[5,6,7])
test_data=torchvision.datasets.STL10(root='data',split='test',transform=data_transforms['val'], download=True, target_transform=target_transform)
test_dataloader = DataLoader(test_data,batch_size = 64,shuffle=True,num_workers=2)
for idx,(x,y) in enumerate(test_dataloader):
print(idx,y)
if idx == 5:
break
You need to relabel the image. At the beginning, class 0 corresponds to label 0, class 1 corresponds to label 1, ..., and class 10 corresponds to label 9. If you want to achieve binary classification, you need to change the label of the picture of category 1 (or other) to 0, and the picture of all other categories to 1.
One way is to update label values at runtime before passing them to loss function in the training loop. Let's say we want to relabel class 5 as 1, and the rest as 0:
my_class_id = 5
for imgs, labels in train_dataloader:
labels = torch.where(labels == my_class_id, 1, 0)
...
You may also need to do similar relabeling for test_dataloader. Also, I am not sure about the datatype of labels. If its float, change accordingly.
A bit confused with the probability between categorical target and one-hot encoding target from OneVsRestClassifier of sklean. Using iris data with simple logistic regression as an example. When I use original iris class[0,1,2], the calculated OneVsRestClassifier() probability for each observation will always add up to 1. However, if I converted the target to dummies, this is not the case. I understand that OneVsRestClassifier() compares one vs rest (class 0 vs non class 0, class 1 vs non class 1, etc). It makes more sense that the sum of these probabilities has no relation with 1. Then why I see the difference and how so?
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.multiclass import OneVsRestClassifier
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn import datasets
np.set_printoptions(suppress=True)
iris = datasets.load_iris()
rng = np.random.RandomState(0)
perm = rng.permutation(iris.target.size)
X = iris.data[perm]
y = iris.target[perm]
# categorical target with no conversion
X_train, y_train1 = X[:80], y[:80]
X_test, y_test1 = X[80:], y[80:]
m3 = LogisticRegression(random_state=0)
clf1 = OneVsRestClassifier(m3).fit(X_train, y_train1)
y_pred1 = clf1.predict(X_test)
print(np.sum(y_pred1 == y_test))
y_prob1 = clf1.predict_proba(X_test)
y_prob1[:5]
#output
array([[0.00014508, 0.17238549, 0.82746943],
[0.03850173, 0.79646817, 0.1650301 ],
[0.73981106, 0.26018067, 0.00000827],
[0.00016332, 0.32231163, 0.67752505],
[0.00029197, 0.2495404 , 0.75016763]])
# one hot encoding for categorical target
y2 = pd.get_dummies(y)
y_train2 = y2[:80]
y_test2 = y2[80:]
clf2 = OneVsRestClassifier(m3).fit(X_train, y_train2)
y_pred2 = clf2.predict(X_test)
y_prob2 = clf2.predict_proba(X_test)
y_prob2[:5]
#output
array([[0.00017194, 0.20430011, 0.98066319],
[0.02152246, 0.44522562, 0.09225181],
[0.96277892, 0.3385952 , 0.00001076],
[0.00023024, 0.45436925, 0.95512082],
[0.00036849, 0.31493725, 0.94676348]])
When you encode the targets, sklearn interprets your problem as a multilabel one instead of just multiclass; that is, that it is possible for a point to have more than one true label. And in that case, it is perfectly acceptable for the total sum of probabilities to be greater (or less) than 1. That's generally true for sklearn, but OneVsRestClassifier calls it out specifically in the docstring:
OneVsRestClassifier can also be used for multilabel classification. To use this feature, provide an indicator matrix for the target y when calling .fit.
As for the first approach, there are indeed three independent models, but the predictions are normalized; see the source code. Indeed, that's the only difference:
(y_prob2 / y_prob2.sum(axis=1)[:, None] == y_prob1).all()
# output
True
It's probably worth pointing out that LogisticRegression also natively supports multiclass. In that case, the weights for each class are independent, so it's similar to three separate models, but the resulting probabilities are the result of a softmax application, and the loss function minimizes the loss for each class simultaneously, so that the resulting coefficients and hence predictions can be different from those obtained from OneVsRestClassifier:
m3.fit(X_train, y_train1)
y_prob0 = m3.predict_proba(X_test)
y_prob0[:5]
# output:
array([[0.00000494, 0.01381671, 0.98617835],
[0.02569699, 0.88835451, 0.0859485 ],
[0.95239985, 0.04759984, 0.00000031],
[0.00001338, 0.04195642, 0.9580302 ],
[0.00002815, 0.04230022, 0.95767163]])
I've been trying to learn Tensorflow with python 3.6 and decided on building a facial recognition program using data from the University of Essex's face data base (http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/mv/allfaces/index.html). So far I've been following Tensorflow's MNIST Expert guide, but when I start testing, my accuracy is 0 for every epoch, so I know something is wrong. I feel most shaky on how I'm handling the labels, so I figure that's where the problem is.
The labels in the dataset are either numeric IDs, like 987323, or someone's name, like "fordj". My idea to deal with this was to create a "pre-encoding" encode_labels function, which gives each unique label in the test and training sets their own unique integer value. I checked to make sure each unique label in the test and train sets have the same unique value. It also returns a dictionary so that I can easily map back to the original label from the encoded version. If I don't do this step and pass the labels as I retrieve them (i.e "fordj"), I get an error saying
UnimplementedError (see above for traceback): Cast string to int32 is not supported
[[Node: Cast = CastDstT=DT_INT32, SrcT=DT_STRING, _device="/job:localhost/replica:0/task:0/device:CPU:0"]]
The way I'm interpreting this is that since many of the labels are people's names, tensorflow can't convert a label like "fordj" to a tf.int32. The code to grab labels and paths is here:
def get_paths_and_labels(path):
""" image_paths : list of relative image paths
labels : mix of alphanumeric characters """
image_paths = [path + image for image in os.listdir(path)]
labels = [i.split(".")[-3] for i in image_paths]
labels = [i.split("/")[-1] for i in labels]
return image_paths, labels
def encode_labels(train_labels, test_labels):
""" Assigns a numeric value to each label since some are subject's names """
found_labels = []
index = 0
mapping = {}
for i in train_labels:
if i in found_labels:
continue
mapping[i] = index
index += 1
found_labels.append(i)
return [mapping[i] for i in train_labels], [mapping[i] for i in test_labels], mapping
Here is how I assign my training and testing labels. I then want to use tensorflow's one-hot encoder to encode them again for me.
def main():
# Grabs the labels and each image's relative path
train_image_paths, train_labels = get_paths_and_labels(TRAIN_PATH)
# Smallish dataset so I can read it all into memory
train_images = [cv2.imread(image) for image in train_image_paths]
test_image_paths, test_labels = get_paths_and_labels(TEST_PATH)
test_images = [cv2.imread(image) for image in test_image_paths]
num_classes = len(set(train_labels))
# Placeholders
x = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=[None, IMAGE_SIZE[0] * IMAGE_SIZE[1]])
y_ = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=[None, num_classes])
x_image = tf.reshape(x, [-1, IMAGE_SIZE[0], IMAGE_SIZE[1], 1])
# One-hot labels
train_labels, test_labels, mapping = encode_labels(train_labels, test_labels)
train_labels = tf.one_hot(indices=tf.cast(train_labels, tf.int32), depth=num_classes)
test_labels = tf.one_hot(indices=tf.cast(test_labels, tf.int32), depth=num_classes)
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong. I know sklearn has a LabelEncoder, though I haven't tried it out yet. Thanks for any advice on this, all help is appreciated!
The way I'm interpreting this is that since many of the labels are people's names, tensorflow can't convert a label like "fordj" to a tf.int32.
You're right. Tensorflow can't do that. Instead, you can create a mapping function from a nome to a unique (and progressive) ID. Once you did that, you can correctly one-encode every numeric ID with its one-hot representation.
You already have the relation between the numeric ID and the string label, hence you can do something like:
train_labels, test_labels, mapping = encode_labels(train_labels, test_labels)
numeric_train_ids = [labels[idx] for idx in train_labels]
numeric_test_ids = [labels[idx] for idx in test_labels]
one_hot_train_labels = tf.one_hot(indices=numeric_train_ids, depth=num_classes)
one_hot_test_labels = tf.one_hot(indices=numeric_test_ids, depth=num_classes)
I've been experimenting with adversarial images and I read up on the fast gradient sign method from the following link https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6572.pdf...
The instructions explain that the necessary gradient can be calculated using backpropagation...
I've been successful at generating adversarial images but I have failed at attempting to extract the gradient necessary to create an adversarial image. I will demonstrate what I mean.
Let us assume that I have already trained my algorithm using logistic regression. I restore the model and I extract the number I wish to change into a adversarial image. In this case it is the number 2...
# construct model
logits = tf.matmul(x, W) + b
pred = tf.nn.softmax(logits)
...
...
# assign the images of number 2 to the variable
sess.run(tf.assign(x, labels_of_2))
# setup softmax
sess.run(pred)
# placeholder for target label
fake_label = tf.placeholder(tf.int32, shape=[1])
# setup the fake loss
fake_loss = tf.nn.sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(logits=logits,labels=fake_label)
# minimize fake loss using gradient descent,
# calculating the derivatives of the weight of the fake image will give the direction of weights necessary to change the prediction
adversarial_step = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(learning_rate=FLAGS.learning_rate).minimize(fake_loss, var_list=[x])
# continue calculating the derivative until the prediction changes for all 10 images
for i in range(FLAGS.training_epochs):
# fake label tells the training algorithm to use the weights calculated for number 6
sess.run(adversarial_step, feed_dict={fake_label:np.array([6])})
sess.run(pred)
This is my approach, and it works perfectly. It takes my image of number 2 and changes it only slightly so that when I run the following...
x_in = np.expand_dims(x[0], axis=0)
classification = sess.run(tf.argmax(pred, 1))
print(classification)
it will predict the number 2 as a number 6.
The issue is, I need to extract the gradient necessary to trick the neural network into thinking number 2 is 6. I need to use this gradient to create the nematode mentioned above.
I am not sure how can I extract the gradient value. I tried looking at tf.gradients but I was unable to figure out how to produce an adversarial image using this function. I implemented the following after the fake_loss variable above...
tf.gradients(fake_loss, x)
for i in range(FLAGS.training_epochs):
# calculate gradient with weight of number 6
gradient_value = sess.run(gradients, feed_dict={fake_label:np.array([6])})
# update the image of number 2
gradient_update = x+0.007*gradient_value[0]
sess.run(tf.assign(x, gradient_update))
sess.run(pred)
Unfortunately the prediction did not change in the way I wanted, and moreover this logic resulted in a rather blurry image.
I would appreciate an explanation as to what I need to do in order calculate and extract the gradient that will trick the neural network, so that if I were to take this gradient and apply it to my image as a nematode, it will result in a different prediction.
Why not let the Tensorflow optimizer add the gradients to your image? You can still evaluate the nematode to get the resulting gradients that were added.
I created a bit of sample code to demonstrate this with a panda image. It uses the VGG16 neural network to transform your own panda image into a "goldfish" image. Every 100 iterations it saves the image as PDF so you can print it losslessly to check if your image is still a goldfish.
import tensorflow as tf
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import IPython.display as ipyd
from libs import vgg16 # Download here! https://github.com/pkmital/CADL/tree/master/session-4/libs
pandaimage = plt.imread('panda.jpg')
pandaimage = vgg16.preprocess(pandaimage)
plt.imshow(pandaimage)
img_4d = np.array([pandaimage])
g = tf.get_default_graph()
input_placeholder = tf.Variable(img_4d,trainable=False)
to_add_image = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([224,224,3], mean=0.0, stddev=0.1, dtype=tf.float32))
combined_images_not_clamped = input_placeholder+to_add_image
filledmax = tf.fill(tf.shape(combined_images_not_clamped), 1.0)
filledmin = tf.fill(tf.shape(combined_images_not_clamped), 0.0)
greater_than_one = tf.greater(combined_images_not_clamped, filledmax)
combined_images_with_max = tf.where(greater_than_one, filledmax, combined_images_not_clamped)
lower_than_zero =tf.less(combined_images_with_max, filledmin)
combined_images = tf.where(lower_than_zero, filledmin, combined_images_with_max)
net = vgg16.get_vgg_model()
tf.import_graph_def(net['graph_def'], name='vgg')
names = [op.name for op in g.get_operations()]
style_layer = 'prob:0'
the_prediction = tf.import_graph_def(
net['graph_def'],
name='vgg',
input_map={'images:0': combined_images},return_elements=[style_layer])
goldfish_expected_np = np.zeros(1000)
goldfish_expected_np[1]=1.0
goldfish_expected_tf = tf.Variable(goldfish_expected_np,dtype=tf.float32,trainable=False)
loss = tf.reduce_sum(tf.square(the_prediction[0]-goldfish_expected_tf))
optimizer = tf.train.AdamOptimizer().minimize(loss)
sess = tf.InteractiveSession()
sess.run(tf.global_variables_initializer())
def show_many_images(*images):
fig = plt.figure()
for i in range(len(images)):
print(images[i].shape)
subplot_number = 100+10*len(images)+(i+1)
plt.subplot(subplot_number)
plt.imshow(images[i])
plt.show()
for i in range(1000):
_, loss_val = sess.run([optimizer,loss])
if i%100==1:
print("Loss at iteration %d: %f" % (i,loss_val))
_, loss_val,adversarial_image,pred,nematode = sess.run([optimizer,loss,combined_images,the_prediction,to_add_image])
res = np.squeeze(pred)
average = np.mean(res, 0)
res = res / np.sum(average)
plt.imshow(adversarial_image[0])
plt.show()
print([(res[idx], net['labels'][idx]) for idx in res.argsort()[-5:][::-1]])
show_many_images(img_4d[0],nematode,adversarial_image[0])
plt.imsave('adversarial_goldfish.pdf',adversarial_image[0],format='pdf') # save for printing
Let me know if this helps you!
I am trying to figure out what exactly the loss function formula is and how I can manually calculate it when class_weight='auto' in case of svm.svc, svm.linearSVC and linear_model.LogisticRegression.
For balanced data, say you have a trained classifier: clf_c. Logistic loss should be (am I correct?):
def logistic_loss(x,y,w,b,b0):
'''
x: nxp data matrix where n is number of data points and p is number of features.
y: nx1 vector of true labels (-1 or 1).
w: nx1 vector of weights (vector of 1./n for balanced data).
b: px1 vector of feature weights.
b0: intercept.
'''
s = y
if 0 in np.unique(y):
print 'yes'
s = 2. * y - 1
l = np.dot(w, np.log(1 + np.exp(-s * (np.dot(x, np.squeeze(b)) + b0))))
return l
I realized that logisticRegression has predict_log_proba() which gives you exactly that when data is balanced:
b, b0 = clf_c.coef_, clf_c.intercept_
w = np.ones(len(y))/len(y)
-(clf_c.predict_log_proba(x[xrange(len(x)), np.floor((y+1)/2).astype(np.int8)]).mean() == logistic_loss(x,y,w,b,b0)
Note, np.floor((y+1)/2).astype(np.int8) simply maps y=(-1,1) to y=(0,1).
But this does not work when data is imbalanced.
What's more, you expect the classifier (here, logisticRegression) to perform similarly (in terms of loss function value) when data in balance and class_weight=None versus when data is imbalanced and class_weight='auto'. I need to have a way to calculate the loss function (without the regularization term) for both scenarios and compare them.
In short, what does class_weight = 'auto' exactly mean? Does it mean class_weight = {-1 : (y==1).sum()/(y==-1).sum() , 1 : 1.} or rather class_weight = {-1 : 1./(y==-1).sum() , 1 : 1./(y==1).sum()}?
Any help is much much appreciated. I tried going through the source code, but I am not a programmer and I am stuck.
Thanks a lot in advance.
class_weight heuristics
I am a bit puzzled by your first proposition for the class_weight='auto' heuristic, as:
class_weight = {-1 : (y == 1).sum() / (y == -1).sum(),
1 : 1.}
is the same as your second proposition if we normalize it so that the weights sum to one.
Anyway to understand what class_weight="auto" does, see this question:
what is the difference between class weight = none and auto in svm scikit learn.
I am copying it here for later comparison:
This means that each class you have (in classes) gets a weight equal
to 1 divided by the number of times that class appears in your data
(y), so classes that appear more often will get lower weights. This is
then further divided by the mean of all the inverse class frequencies.
Note how this is not completely obvious ;).
This heuristic is deprecated and will be removed in 0.18. It will be replaced by another heuristic, class_weight='balanced'.
The 'balanced' heuristic weighs classes proportionally to the inverse of their frequency.
From the docs:
The "balanced" mode uses the values of y to automatically adjust
weights inversely proportional to class frequencies in the input data:
n_samples / (n_classes * np.bincount(y)).
np.bincount(y) is an array with the element i being the count of class i samples.
Here's a bit of code to compare the two:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.datasets import make_classification
from sklearn.utils import compute_class_weight
n_classes = 3
n_samples = 1000
X, y = make_classification(n_samples=n_samples, n_features=20, n_informative=10,
n_classes=n_classes, weights=[0.05, 0.4, 0.55])
print("Count of samples per class: ", np.bincount(y))
balanced_weights = n_samples /(n_classes * np.bincount(y))
# Equivalent to the following, using version 0.17+:
# compute_class_weight("balanced", [0, 1, 2], y)
print("Balanced weights: ", balanced_weights)
print("'auto' weights: ", compute_class_weight("auto", [0, 1, 2], y))
Output:
Count of samples per class: [ 57 396 547]
Balanced weights: [ 5.84795322 0.84175084 0.60938452]
'auto' weights: [ 2.40356854 0.3459682 0.25046327]
The loss functions
Now the real question is: how are these weights used to train the classifier?
I don't have a thorough answer here unfortunately.
For SVC and linearSVC the docstring is pretty clear
Set the parameter C of class i to class_weight[i]*C for SVC.
So high weights mean less regularization for the class and a higher incentive for the svm to classify it properly.
I do not know how they work with logistic regression. I'll try to look into it but most of the code is in liblinear or libsvm and I'm not too familiar with those.
However, note that the weights in class_weight do not influence directly methods such as predict_proba. They change its ouput because the classifier optimizes a different loss function.
Not sure this is clear, so here's a snippet to explain what I mean (you need to run the first one for the imports and variable definition):
lr = LogisticRegression(class_weight="auto")
lr.fit(X, y)
# We get some probabilities...
print(lr.predict_proba(X))
new_lr = LogisticRegression(class_weight={0: 100, 1: 1, 2: 1})
new_lr.fit(X, y)
# We get different probabilities...
print(new_lr.predict_proba(X))
# Let's cheat a bit and hand-modify our new classifier.
new_lr.intercept_ = lr.intercept_.copy()
new_lr.coef_ = lr.coef_.copy()
# Now we get the SAME probabilities.
np.testing.assert_array_equal(new_lr.predict_proba(X), lr.predict_proba(X))
Hope this helps.