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.
Related
Most cutting-edge/famous CNN architectures have a stem that does not use a block like the rest of the part of the network, instead, most architectures use plain Conv2d or pooling in the stem without special modules/layers like a shortcut(residual), an inverted residual, a ghost conv, and so on.
Why is this? Are there experiments/theories/papers/intuitions behind this?
examples of stems:
classic ResNet: Conv2d+MaxPool:
bag of tricks ResNet-C: 3*Conv2d+MaxPool,
even though 2 Conv2d can form the exact same structure as a classic residual block as shown below in [figure 2], there is no shortcut in stem:
there are many other examples that have similar observations, such as EfficientNet, MobileNet, GhostNet, SE-Net, and so on.
cite:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.01187
https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385
As far as I know, this is done in order to quickly downsample an input image with strided convolutions of quite large kernel size (5x5 or 7x7) so that further layers can effectively do their work with much less computational complexity.
This is because these specialized modules can do no more than just convolutions. The difference is in the trainability of the resulting architecture. For example, the skip connections in ResNet are meant to bypass some layers when these are still so badly trained that they do not propagate the useful information from the input to the output. However, when fully trained, the skip connections could in theory be completely removed (or integrated) since the information can still propagate throught the layers that would otherwise be skipped. However, when you are using a backbone that you dont intend to train yourself, it does not make sence to include architectural features that are aimed at trainability. Instead, you can "compless" the backbone leaving only relatively fundamental operations and freeze all weights. This saves computational costs both when training the head as well as in the final deployment.
Stem layers work as a compression mechanism over the initial image.
This leads to a fast reduction in the spatial size of the activations, reducing memory and computational costs.
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.
Call for experts in deep learning.
Hey, I am recently working on training images using tensorflow in python for tone mapping. To get the better result, I focused on using perceptual loss introduced from this paper by Justin Johnson.
In my implementation, I made the use of all 3 parts of loss: a feature loss that extracted from vgg16; a L2 pixel-level loss from the transferred image and the ground true image; and the total variation loss. I summed them up as the loss for back propagation.
From the function
yˆ=argminλcloss_content(y,yc)+λsloss_style(y,ys)+λTVloss_TV(y)
in the paper, we can see that there are 3 weights of the losses, the λ's, to balance them. The value of three λs are probably fixed throughout the training.
My question is that does it make sense if I dynamically change the λ's in every epoch(or several epochs) to adjust the importance of these losses?
For instance, the perceptual loss converges drastically in the first several epochs yet the pixel-level l2 loss converges fairly slow. So maybe the weight λs should be higher for the content loss, let's say 0.9, but lower for others. As the time passes, the pixel-level loss will be increasingly important to smooth up the image and to minimize the artifacts. So it might be better to adjust it higher a bit. Just like changing the learning rate according to the different epochs.
The postdoc supervises me straightly opposes my idea. He thought it is dynamically changing the training model and could cause the inconsistency of the training.
So, pro and cons, I need some ideas...
Thanks!
It's hard to answer this without knowing more about the data you're using, but in short, dynamic loss should not really have that much effect and may have opposite effect altogether.
If you are using Keras, you could simply run a hyperparameter tuner similar to the following in order to see if there is any effect (change the loss accordingly):
https://towardsdatascience.com/hyperparameter-optimization-with-keras-b82e6364ca53
I've only done this on smaller models (way too time consuming) but in essence, it's best to keep it constant and also avoid angering off your supervisor too :D
If you are running a different ML or DL library, there are optimizer for each, just Google them. It may be best to run these on a cluster and overnight, but they usually give you a good enough optimized version of your model.
Hope that helps and good luck!
I have a dataset of around 6K chemical formulas which I am preprocessing via Keras' tokenization to perform binary classification. I am currently using a 1D convolutional neural network with dropouts and am obtaining an accuracy of 82% and validation accuracy of 80% after only two epochs. No matter what I try, the model just plateaus there and doesn't seem to be improving at all. Those same exact accuracies are reached with a vanilla LSTM too. What else can I try to improve my accuracies? Losses only have a difference of 0.04... Anyone have any ideas? Both models use an embedding layer and changing the output dimension isn't having an effect either.
According to your answer, I believe your model has a high bias and low variance (see this link for further details). Thus, your model is not fitting your data very well and it is causing underfitting. So, I suggest you 3 things:
Train your model a little longer: I believe two epoch are too few to give a chance to your model understand the patterns in the data. Try to minimize learning rate and increase the number of epochs.
Try a different architecture: you may change the amount of convolutions, filters and layers, You can also use different activation functions and other layers like max pooling.
Make an error analysis: once you finished your training, apply your model to test set and take a look into the errors. How much false positives and false negatives do you have? Is your model better to classify one class than the other? You can see a pattern in the errors that may be related to your data?
Finally, if none of these suggestions helped you, you may also try to increase the number of features, if possible.
I am trying to build a 11 class image classifier with 13000 training images and 3000 validation images. I am using deep neural network which is being trained using mxnet. Training accuracy is increasing and reached above 80% but validation accuracy is coming in range of 54-57% and its not increasing.
What can be the issue here? Should I increase the no of images?
The issue here is that your network stop learning useful general features at some point and start adapting to peculiarities of your training set (overfitting it in result). You want to 'force' your network to keep learning useful features and you have few options here:
Use weight regularization. It tries to keep weights low which very often leads to better generalization. Experiment with different regularization coefficients. Try 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 and see what impact they have on accuracy.
Corrupt your input (e.g., randomly substitute some pixels with black or white). This way you remove information from your input and 'force' the network to pick up on important general features. Experiment with noising coefficients which determines how much of your input should be corrupted. Research shows that anything in the range of 15% - 45% works well.
Expand your training set. Since you're dealing with images you can expand your set by rotating / scaling etc. your existing images (as suggested). You could also experiment with pre-processing your images (e.g., mapping them to black and white, grayscale etc. but the effectiveness of this technique will depend on your exact images and classes)
Pre-train your layers with denoising critera. Here you pre-train each layer of your network individually before fine tuning the entire network. Pre-training 'forces' layers to pick up on important general features that are useful for reconstructing the input signal. Look into auto-encoders for example (they've been applied to image classification in the past).
Experiment with network architecture. Your network might not have sufficient learning capacity. Experiment with different neuron types, number of layers, and number of hidden neurons. Make sure to try compressing architectures (less neurons than inputs) and sparse architectures (more neurons than inputs).
Unfortunately the process of training network that generalizes well involves a lot of experimentation and almost brute force exploration of parameter space with a bit of human supervision (you'll see many research works employing this approach). It's good to try 3-5 values for each parameter and see if it leads you somewhere.
When you experiment plot accuracy / cost / f1 as a function of number of iterations and see how it behaves. Often you'll notice a peak in accuracy for your test set, and after that a continuous drop. So apart from good architecture, regularization, corruption etc. you're also looking for a good number of iterations that yields best results.
One more hint: make sure each training epochs randomize the order of images.
This clearly looks like a case where the model is overfitting the Training set, as the validation accuracy was improving step by step till it got fixed at a particular value. If the learning rate was a bit more high, you would have ended up seeing validation accuracy decreasing, with increasing accuracy for training set.
Increasing the number of training set is the best solution to this problem. You could also try applying different transformations (flipping, cropping random portions from a slightly bigger image)to the existing image set and see if the model is learning better.