I have been working on a super-resolution task. I have this question about determining loss function, So in the case of the task at hand I felt like going with SSIM as a loss function to train my model. I did get a good set of results. Recently I come across perceptual loss function where we compare how a pretrained model looks at the Ground truth(GT) Images and the Super Resolution(SR) Image(Image generated by the model). My question is, I am thinking of using both ((1-SSIM(SR,GT))+Perceptual loss(SR,GT)) loss for backpropagation, so should I use a trade-off parameter between these two losses? if so how can I set up these trade-off parameters? or should I add these losses with equal weights.
PS: the perceptual loss is calculated by finding SSIMs between the feature maps of GT and SR images from the pre-trained model
Related
So, I'm doing a 4 label x-ray images classification on around 12600 images:
Class1:4000
Class2:3616
Class3:1345
Class4:4000
I'm using VGG-16 architecture pertained on the imageNet dataset with cross-entrpy and SGD and a batch size of 32 and a learning rate of 1e-3 running on pytorch
[[749., 6., 50., 2.],
[ 5., 707., 9., 1.],
[ 56., 8., 752., 0.],
[ 4., 1., 0., 243.]]
I know since both train loss/acc are relatively 0/1 the model is overfitting, though I'm surprised that the val acc is still around 0.9!
How to properly interpret that and what causing it and how to prevent it?
I know it's something like because the accuracy is the argmax of softmax like the actual predictions are getting lower and lower but the argmax always stays the same, but I'm really confused about it! I even let it train for +64 epochs same results flat acc while loss increases gradually!
PS. I have seen other questions with answers and didn't really get an explanation
I think your question already says about what is going on. Your model is overfitting as you have also figured out. Now, as you are training more your model slowly becoming more specialized to the train set and loosing the the capability to generalize gradually. So the softmax probabilities are getting more and more flat. But still it is showing more or less the same accuracy for validation set as still now the correct class has at least slightly more probability than the others. So in my opinion there can be some possible reasons for this:
Your train set and validation set may not be from the same distribution.
Your validation set doesn't cover all cases need to be evaluated, it probably contains similar types of images but they do not differ too much. So, when the model can identify one, it can identify many of them from the validation set. If you add more heterogeneous images in validation set, you will no longer see such a large accuracy in validation set.
Similarly, we can say your train set has images which are heterogeneous i.e, they have a lot of variations, and the validation set is covering only a few varieties, so as training goes on, those minorities are getting less priority as the model yet to have many things to learn and generalize. This can happen if you augment your train-set and your model finds the validation set is relatively easier initially (until overfitting), but as training goes on the model gets lost itself while learning a lot of augmented varieties available in the train set. In this case don't make the augmentation too much wild. Think, if the augmented images are still realistic or not. Do augmentation on images as long as they remain realistic and each type of these images' variations occupy enough representative examples in the train set. Don't include unnecessary situations in augmentation those will never occur in reality, as these unrealistic examples will just increase burden on the model than doing any help.
I am trying to implement a CNN in Tensorflow (quite similar architecture to VGG), which then splits into two branches after the first fully connected layer. It follows this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01697
Each of the two branches of the network outputs a set of 32 numbers. I want to write a joint loss function, which will take 3 inputs:
The predictions of branch 1 (y)
The predictions of branch 2 (alpha)
The labels Y (ground truth) (q)
and calculate a weighted loss, as in the image below:
Loss function definition
q_hat = tf.divide(tf.reduce_sum(tf.multiply(alpha, y),0), tf.reduce_sum(alpha,0))
loss = tf.abs(tf.subtract(q_hat, q))
I understand the fact that I need to use the tf functions in order to implement this loss function. Having implemented the above function, the network is training, but once trained, it is not outputting the expected results.
Has anyone ever tried combining outputs of two branches of a network in one joint loss function? Is this something TensorFlow supports? Maybe I am making a mistake somewhere here? Any help whatsoever would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if you would like me to add any further details.
From TensorFlow perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a "regular" CNN graph and a "branched" graph. For TensorFlow, it is just a graph that needs to be executed. So, TensorFlow certainly supports this. "Combining two branches into joint loss" is also nothing special. In fact, it is "good" that loss depends on both branches. It means that when you ask TensorFlow to compute loss, it will have to do the forward pass through both branches, which is what you want.
One thing I noticed is that your code for loss is different than the image. Your code appears to do this https://ibb.co/kbEH95
I am currently looking into multi-labeling classification and I have some questions (and I couldn't find clear answers).
For the sake of clarity let's take an example : I want to classify images of vehicles (car, bus, truck, ...) and their make (Audi, Volkswagen, Ferrari, ...).
So I thought about training two independant CNN (one for the "type" classification and one fore the "make" classifiaction) but I thought it might be possible to train only one CNN on all the classes.
I read that people tend to use sigmoid function instead of softmax to do that. I understand that sigmoid does not sum up to 1 like softmax does but I dont understand in what doing that enables to do multi-labeling classification ?
My second question is : Is it possible to take into account that some classes are completly independant ?
Thridly, in term of performances (accuracy and time to give the classification for a new image), isn't training two independant better ?
Thank you for those who could give my some answers or some ideas :)
Softmax is a special output function; it forces the output vector to have a single large value. Now, training neural networks works by calculating an output vector, comparing that to a target vector, and back-propagating the error. There's no reason to restrict your target vector to a single large value, and for multi-labeling you'd use a 1.0 target for every label that applies. But in that case, using a softmax for the output layer will cause unintended differences between output and target, differences that are then back-propagated.
For the second part: you define the target vectors; you can encode any sort of dependency you like there.
Finally, no - a combined network performs better than the two halves would do independently. You'd only run two networks in parallel when there's a difference in network layout, e.g. a regular NN and CNN in parallel might be viable.
I have data with integer target class in the range 1-5 where one is the lowest and five the highest. In this case, should I consider it as regression problem and have one node in the output layer?
My way of handling it is:
1- first I convert the labels to binary class matrix
labels = to_categorical(np.asarray(labels))
2- in the output layer, I have five nodes
main_output = Dense(5, activation='sigmoid', name='main_output')(x)
3- I use 'categorical_crossentropy with mean_squared_error when compiling
model.compile(optimizer='rmsprop',loss='categorical_crossentropy',metrics=['mean_squared_error'],loss_weights=[0.2])
Also, can anyone tells me: what is the difference between using categorical_accuracy and 'mean_squared_error in this case?
Regression and classification are vastly different things. If you reimagine this as a regression task than the difference of predicting 2 when the ground truth is 4 will be rated more than if you predict 3 instead of 4. If you have class like car, animal, person you do not care for the ranking between those classes. Predicting car is just as wrong as animal, iff the image shows a person.
Metrics do not impact your learning at all. It is just something that is computed additionally to the loss to show the performance of the model. Here the accuracy makes sense, because this is mostly the metric that we care about. Mean squared error does not tell you how well your model performs. If you get something like 0.0015 mean squared error it sounds good, but it is hard to visualize just how well this performs. In contrast using accuracy and achieving 95% accuracy for example is meaningful.
One last thing you should use softmax instead of sigmoid as your final output to get a probability distribution in your final layer. Softmax will output percentages for every class that sum up to 1. Then crossentropy calculates the difference of the probability distribution of your network output and the ground truth.
After going through the Caffe tutorial here: http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/gathered/examples/mnist.html
I am really confused about the different (and efficient) model using in this tutorial, which is defined here: https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/blob/master/examples/mnist/lenet_train_test.prototxt
As I understand, Convolutional layer in Caffe simply calculate the sum of Wx+b for each input, without applying any activation function. If we would like to add the activation function, we should add another layer immediately below that convolutional layer, like Sigmoid, Tanh, or Relu layer. Any paper/tutorial I read on the internet applies the activation function to the neuron units.
It leaves me a big question mark as we only can see the Convolutional layers and Pooling layers interleaving in the model. I hope someone can give me an explanation.
As a site note, another doubt for me is the max_iter in this solver:
https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/blob/master/examples/mnist/lenet_solver.prototxt
We have 60.000 images for training, 10.000 images for testing. So why does the max_iter here only 10.000 (and it still can get > 99% accuracy rate)? What does Caffe do in each iteration?
Actually, I'm not so sure if the accuracy rate is the total correct prediction/test size.
I'm very amazed of this example, as I haven't found any example, framework that can achieve this high accuracy rate in that very short time (only 5 mins to get >99% accuracy rate). Hence, I doubt there should be something I misunderstood.
Thanks.
Caffe uses batch processing. The max_iter is 10,000 because the batch_size is 64. No of epochs = (batch_size x max_iter)/No of train samples. So the number of epochs is nearly 10. The accuracy is calculated on the test data. And yes, the accuracy of the model is indeed >99% as the dataset is not very complicated.
For your question about the missing activation layers, you are correct. The model in the tutorial is missing activation layers. This seems to be an oversight of the tutorial. For the real LeNet-5 model, there should be activation functions following the convolution layers. For MNIST, the model still works surprisingly well without the additional activation layers.
For reference, in Le Cun's 2001 paper, it states:
As in classical neural networks, units in layers up to F6 compute a dot product between their input vector and their weight vector, to which a bias is added. This weighted sum, denoted a_i, for unit i, is then passed through a sigmoid squashing function to produce the state of unit i ...
F6 is the "blob" between the two fully connected layers. Hence the first fully connected layers should have an activation function applied (the tutorial uses ReLU activation functions instead of sigmoid).
MNIST is the hello world example for neural networks. It is very simple to today's standard. A single fully connected layer can solve the problem with accuracy of about 92%. Lenet-5 is a big improvement over this example.