pretty new to deep learning, but couldn't seem to find/figure out what are backend weights such as
full_yolo_backend.h5
squeezenet_backend.h5
From what I have found and experimented, these backend weights have fundamentally different model architectures such as
yolov2 model has 40+ layers but the backend only 20+ layers (?)
you can build on top of the backend model with your own networks (?)
using backend models tend to yield poorer results (?)
I was hoping to seek some explanation on backend weights vs actual models for learning purposes. Thank you so much!
I'm note sure which implementation you are using but in many applications, you can consider a deep model as a feature extractor whose output is more or less task-agnostic, followed by a number of task-specific heads.
The choice of backend depends on your specific constraints in terms of tradeoff between accuracy and computational complexity. Examples of classical but time-consuming choices for backends are resnet-101, resnet-50 or VGG that can be coupled with FPN (feature pyramid networks) to yield multiscale features. However, if speed is your main concern then you can use smaller backends such as different MobileNet architectures or even the vanilla networks such as the ones used in the original Yolov1/v2 papers (tinyYolo is an extreme case).
Once you have chosen your backend (you can use a pretrained one), you can load its weights (that is what your *h5 files are). On top of that, you will add a small head that will carry the tasks that you need: this can be classification, bbox regression, or like in MaskRCNN forground/background segmentation. For Yolov2, you can just add very few, for example 3 convolutional layers (with non-linearities of course) that will output a tensor of size
BxC1xC2xAxP
#B==batch size
#C1==number vertical of cells
#C2==number of horizontal cells
#C3==number of anchors
#C4==number of parameters (i.e. bbx parameters, class prediction, confidence)
Then, you can just save/load the weights of this head separately. When you are happy with your results though, training jointly (end-to-end) will usually give you a small boost in accuracy.
Finally, to come back to your last questions, I assume that you are getting poor results with the backends because you are only loading backend weights but not the weights of the heads. Another possibility is that you are using a head trained with a backends X but that you are switching the backend to Y. In that case since the head expects different features, it's natural to see a drop in performance.
Related
I completely understand why one would use methods such as SHAP or LIME to explain black box machine learning models such as random forests or neural nets. However, I see a lot of content online where people apply these types of ad-hoc XAI methods to explain inherently interpretable models such as linear SVM or logistic regression.
Is there any way benefit to using, say, LIME instead of simply looking at the regression coefficients if my aim is to explain predictions from a logistic regression? Could it perhaps have to do with interactions between features when the number of features is very high?
I think same, interactions would be the main reason. As you can see how LIME and SHAP works from below definitions -
LIME -
Creates local data points near to the one in consideration, then creates local models by minimizing the outcomes from actual model and local model error and then makes inferences.
SHAP -
Iterate all possible subsets (sample) to see interactions, with and without feature.
I am a student and currently studying deep learning by myself. Here I would like to ask for clarification regarding the transfer learning.
For example MobileNetv2 (https://keras.io/api/applications/mobilenet/#mobilenetv2-function), if the weights parameter is set to None, then I am not doing transfer learning as the weights are random initialized. If I would like to do transfer learning, then I should set the weights parameter to imagenet. Is this concept correct?
Clarification and explanation regarding deep learning
Yes, when you initialize the weights with random values, you are just using the architecture and training the model from scratch. The goal of transfer learning is to use the previously gained knowledge by another trained model to get better results or to use less computational resources.
There are different ways to use transfer learning:
You can freeze the learned weights of the base model and replace the last layer of the model base on your problem and just train the last layer
You can start with the learned weights and fine-tune them (let them change in the learning process). Many people do that because sometimes it makes the training faster and gives better results because the weights already contain so much information.
You can use the first layers to extract basic features like colors, edges, circles... and add your desired layers after them. In this way, you can use your resources to learn high-level features.
There are more cases, but I hope it could give you an idea.
I have a dataset composed of 10k-15k pictures for supervised object detection which is very different from Imagenet or Coco (pictures are much darker and represent completely different things, industrial related).
The model currently used is a FasterRCNN which extracts features with a Resnet used as a backbone.
Could train the backbone of the model from scratch in one stage and then train the whole network in another stage be beneficial for the task, instead of loading the network pretrained on Coco and then retraining all the layers of the whole network in a single stage?
From my experience, here are some important points:
your train set is not big enough to train the detector from scratch (though depends on network configuration, fasterrcnn+resnet18 can work). Better to use a pre-trained network on the imagenet;
the domain the network was pre-trained on is not really that important. The network, especially the big one, need to learn all those arches, circles, and other primitive figures in order to use the knowledge for detecting more complex objects;
the brightness of your train images can be important but is not something to stop you from using a pre-trained network;
training from scratch requires much more epochs and much more data. The longer the training is the more complex should be your LR control algorithm. At a minimum, it should not be constant and change the LR based on the cumulative loss. and the initial settings depend on multiple factors, such as network size, augmentations, and the number of epochs;
I played a lot with fasterrcnn+resnet (various number of layers) and the other networks. I recommend you to use maskcnn instead of fasterrcnn. Just command it not to use the masks and not to do the segmentation. I don't know why but it gives much better results.
don't spend your time on mobilenet, with your train set size you will not be able to train it with some reasonable AP and AR. Start with maskrcnn+resnet18 backbone.
I have a small dataset collect from imagenet(7 classes each class with 1000 training data). I try to train it with alexnet model. But somehow the accuracy just cant go any higher(about 68% maximum). I remove conv4 and conv5 layer to prevent model overfitting also decrease the number of neuron in each layer(conv and fc). here is my setup.
Did i do anything wrong so that the accuracy is so low?
I want to sort out a few terms:
(1) A perceptron is an individual cell in a neural net.
(2) In a CNN, we generally focus on the kernel (filter) as a unit; this is the square matrix of perceptrons that forms a psuedo-visual unit.
(3) The only place it usually makes sense to focus on an individual perceptron is in the FC layers. When you talk about removing some of the perceptrons, I think you mean kernels.
The most important part of training a model is to make sure that your model is properly fitted to the problem at hand. AlexNet (and CaffeNet, the BVLC implementation) is fitted to the full ImageNet data set. Alex Krizhevsky and his colleagues spent a lot of research effort in tuning their network to the problem. You are not going to get similar accuracy -- on a severely reduced data set -- by simply removing layers and kernels at random.
I suggested that you start from CONVNET (the CIFAR-10 net) because it's much better tuned to this scale of problem. Most of all, I strongly recommend that you make constant use of your visualization tools, so that you can detect when the various kernel layers begin to learn their patterns, and to see the effects of small changes in the topology.
You need to run some experiments to tune and understand your topology. Record the kernel visualizations at chosen times during the training -- perhaps at intervals of 10% of expected convergence -- and compare the visual acuity as you remove a few kernels, or delete an entire layer, or whatever else you choose.
For instance, I expect that if you do this with your current amputated CaffeNet, you'll find that the severe losses in depth and breadth greatly change the feature recognition it's learning. The current depth of building blocks is not enough to recognize edges, then shapes, then full body parts. However, I could be wrong -- you do have three remaining layers. That's why I asked you to post the visualizations you got, to compare with published AlexNet features.
edit: CIFAR VISUALIZATION
CIFAR is much better differentiated between classes than is ILSVRC-2012. Thus, the training requires less detail per layer and fewer layers. Training is faster, and the filters are not nearly as interesting to the human eye. This is not a problem with the Gabor (not Garbor) filter; it's just that the model doesn't have to learn so many details.
For instance, for CONVNET to discriminate between a jonquil and a jet, we just need a smudge of yellow inside a smudge of white (the flower). For AlexNet to tell a jonquil from a cymbidium orchid, the network needs to learn about petal count or shape.
I am trying to train a learning model to recognize one specific scene. For example, say I would like to train it to recognize pictures taken at an amusement park and I already have 10 thousand pictures taken at an amusement park. I would like to train this model with those pictures so that it would be able to give a score for other pictures of the probability that they were taken at an amusement park. How do I do that?
Considering this is an image recognition problem, I would probably use a convolutional neural network, but I am not quite sure how to train it in this case.
Thanks!
There are several possible ways. The most trivial one is to collect a large number of negative examples (images from other places) and train a two-class model.
The second approach would be to train a network to extract meaningful low-dimensional representations from an input image (embeddings). Here you can use siamese training to explicitly train the network to learn similarities between images. Such an approach is employed for face recognition, for instance (see FaceNet). Having such embeddings, you can use some well-established methods for outlier detections, for instance, 1-class SVM, or any other classifier. In this case you also need negative examples.
I would heavily augment your data using image cropping - it is the most obvious way to increase the amount of training data in your case.
In general, your success in this task strongly depends on the task statement (are restricted to parks only, or any kind of place) and the proper data.