July 23, 2018, 11:10 a.m.
I recently started looking at a Kaggle Challenge about predicting poverty levels in Costa Rica. I used sklearn train_test_split to split the training data into train and validation sets and fit a few models. The first thing I noticed was that my submissions scored significantly lower than my validation sets: 0.36 on the submission vs. .96 on my validation data.
The data consists of information about individuals with the target as their poverty level. The features include both information relating to that individual as well as information for the household they live in. The data includes multiple individuals from the same household, and some exploratory data analysis indicated that most of the features were on a household level rather than the individual level.
This means that doing a random split ends up including data from the same household in both the train and validation datasets, which will result in the leakage that artificially raised my initial validation scores. This also means that my models were all tuned on a validation dataset which was essentially useless.
To fix this I did the split on unique household IDs, so no household would be included in both datasets. After re-tuning the models appropriately, the validation f1 scores had gone down from 0.96 to 0.65. The submissions scores went up to 0.41, which was not a huge increase, but it was much closer to the validation scores.
The moral of this story is never forget to make sure that your training and validation sets don't contain overlap or leakage, or the validation set becomes useless.
July 17, 2018, 7:34 a.m.
When I began working on this project my intention was to do multi-class classification of the images. To this end I built my graph with logits and a cross-entropy loss function. I soon realized that the decision to do multi-class classification was quite ambitious, and scaled back to doing binary classification into positive and negative. My goal was to implement the multi-class approach once I had the binary approach working reasonably well, so I left the cross entropy in place.
Over the months I have been working on this I have realized that, for many reasons, the multi-class classification was a bad idea. For an academic project it might have made sense, but for any sort of real world use case it made none. There is really no use to outputting a simple classification for something as important as detecting cancer. A much more useful output is the probabilities that each area of the image contains an abnormality as this could aid a radiologist in diagnosing abnormalities rather than completely replacing her. Yet for some reason I never bothered to change the output or the loss function.
The limiting factor on the size of the model has been the GPU memory of the Google Cloud instance I am training this monstrosity on. So I've been trying to optimize the model to run within the RAM constraints and train in a reasonable amount of time. Mostly this has involved trying to keep the number of parameters to a minimum, but today I was looking at the model and realized that the logits were definitely not helping the situation.
For this problem classification was absolutely the wrong approach. We aren't trying to classify the content of the image, we are trying to detect abnormalities. The negative class was not really a separate class, but the absence of any abnormalities, and the graph and the loss function should reflect this. In order to coerce the logits into an output that reflected the reality just described, I put the logits through a softmax and then discarded the negative probability - as I said the negative class doesn't really exist. However the cross entropy function does not know this and it places equal importance on the imaginary negative class as on the positive class (subject to the cross entropy weighting of course.) This means that the gradients placed equal weight on trying to find imaginary "normal" patterns, despite the fact that this information is discarded and never used.
So I reduced the logits layer to one unit, replaced the softmax activation with a sigmoid activation, and replaced the cross entropy with binary cross entropy. And the change has been more impactful than I imagined it would be. The model immediately began performing better than the same model with the logits/cross entropy structure. It seems obvious that this would be the case as now the model can focus on detecting abnormalities rather than wasting half of it's efforts on trying to detect normal patterns.
I am not sure why I waited so long to make this change and my best guess is that I was seduced by the undeniable elegance of the cross entropy loss function. For multi-class classification it is truly a thing of beauty, and I may have been blinded by that into attempting to use it in a situation it was not designed for.
July 5, 2018, 10:37 a.m.
I wrote about this paper before, but I am going to again because it has been so enormously useful to me. I am still working on segmentation of mammograms to highlight abnormalities and I recently decided to scrap the approach I had been taking to upsampling the image and start that part from scratch.
When I started I had been using the earliest approach to upsampling, which basically was take my classifier, remove the last fully-connected layer and upsample that back to full resolution with transpose convolutions. This worked well enough, but the network had to upsample images from 2x2x1024 to 640x640x2 and in order to do this I needed to add skip connections from the downsizing section to the upsampling section. This caused problems because the network would add features of the input image to the output, regardless of whether the features were relevant to the label. I tried to get around this by adding bottleneck layers before the skip connection in order to only select the pertinent features, but this greatly slowed down training and didn't help much and the output ended up with a lot of weird artifacts.
In "Deconvolution and Checkerboard Artifacts", Odena et al. have demonstrated that replacing transpose convolutions with nearest neighbors resizing produces smoother images than using transpose convolutions. I tried replacing a few of my tranpose convolutions with resizes and the results improved.
Then I started reading about dilated convolutions and I started wondering why I was downsizing my input from 640x640 to 5x5 just to have to resize it back up. I removed all the fully-connected layers (which in fact were 1x1 convolutions rather than fully-connected layers) and then replaced the last max pool with a dilated convolution.
I replaced all of the transpose convolutions with resizes, except for the last two layers, as suggested by Odena et al, and the final tranpose convolution has a stride of 1 in order to smooth out artifacts.
In the downsizing section, the current model reduces the input from 640x640x1 to 20x20x512, then it is upsampled by using nearest neighbors resizing followed by plain convolutions to 320x320x32. Finally there is a tranpose convolution with a stride of 2 followed by a transpose convolution with a stride of 1 and then a softmax for the output. As an added bonus, this version of the model trains significantly faster than upsampling with transpose convolutions.
I just started training this model, but I am fairly confident it will perform better than previous upsampling schemes as when I extracted the last downsizing convolutional layer from the model that layer appeared closer to the label (although much smaller) than the final output did. I will update when I have actual results.
Update - After training the model for just one epoch, with the downsizing layer weights initialized from a previous model, the results are already significantly better than under the previous scheme.
June 14, 2018, 9:21 a.m.
If you have ever used deconvolutions to upsample layers of convnets you have probably seen artifacts and possibly checkerboard patterns. This article explains why and gives some useful tips as to how to avoid the problem. I have implemented some of the suggestions and, while it's a bit early to evaluate their efficacity, so far they seem to be helping.