We Keep Coding

Keras neural network predicting the same output

I need to develop a neural network with Keras to predict a disease using genetic data. It is known, that predicting this disease is possible even with logistic regression (however the predictions, in this case, are of very poor quality). It's worth mentioning that my data is imbalanced, so I introduced class weights later.
I decided to start with the simplest way to predict it - with a network, analogous to a logistic regression - one hidden layer with one neuron and achieved a bad, yet at least some result - 0.12-0.14 F1 score. Then I tried with 2 hidden and 1 output layers with different amount of neurons in the first hidden layer - from 1 to 8.
It turns out that in some cases it learns something, and in some is predicting the same output for every sample. I displayed the accuracy and loss function over the epochs and this is what I get:
Network loss function by epoch. It's clear that the loss function has roughly the same value, for the training data.
Network accuracy by epoch. It's clear that the accuracy is not improving, but fluctuates from 0 to 1
I searched for similar questions and the suggestions were the following:
Make more neurons - I just have to make it work with 1, 2 or more neurons in the first layer, so I can't add neurons to this one. I increased the amount of neurons in the second hidden layer up to 20, but it then stopped predicting anything with any number oh neurons in the first layer configuration.
Make more layers - I tried adding one more layer, but still have the same problem
To introduce dropout and increase it - what dropout are we talking about if it can learn with just one layer and one neuron in it
Reduce learning rate - decreased it from the default 10^(-3) to 10^(-4)
Reduce batch size - varied it from 500 samples in a minibatch to 1 (stochastic gradient descent)
More epochs - isn't 20 to 50 epochs on a 500'000 sample dataset enough?
Here's the model:
def run_nn_class_weights(data, labels, model):
n_iter = 20
predicted = None
true = None
print('Splitting the data')
x_train, x_valid, y_train, y_valid = train_test_split(data, labels, test_size = 0.05)
#model = create_model()
early_stopping_monitor=EarlyStopping(patience=240)
class_weights = class_weight.compute_class_weight('balanced',
np.unique(labels),
labels)
class_weights = dict(enumerate(class_weights))
hist = model.fit(x_train, y_train, validation_data=[x_valid, y_valid], class_weight=class_weights,
epochs=n_iter, batch_size=500, shuffle=True, callbacks=[early_stopping_monitor],verbose=1)
proba = model.predict(data)
predicted = proba.flatten()
true = labels
return(model, proba, hist)
def old_model_n_pred(n_neurons_1st = 1):
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(n_neurons_1st, activation='relu', input_shape=(7516,), kernel_initializer='glorot_normal'))
model.add(Dense(8, activation='relu'))
model.add(Dense(1, activation='sigmoid'))
#model.add(Flatten())
model.compile(loss='binary_crossentropy',
optimizer='adam',
metrics=['accuracy'])
return model

This is a small network that should be able to converge to something that's not an atractor (getting stuck on a single value).
I suggest taking a look at the weights of all the neurons with ReLu activation.
ReLus are great because get quick calculations; but half of the relu has derivate of zero, which doesn't help with gradient descent. This might be your case.
In guess in yout case the enemy would be the first neuron.
In order to overcome this problem, I would try to do regularize inputs (to have all samples centered around 0.5 and scaled by the standard deviation). If you do this to a ReLU, you'll make it ignore anything under between [-inf, sd].
if that does not fix part of the problem, swich to a different activation function in the first layer. A sigmoid will work very good and it's not too expensive for just one neuron.
Also, take a close look at your input distribution. What your network actually does is doing a sigmoid-like classification, then using between 4 to 8 neurons to "zoom"/correct on the important parts of the function that the first transformation didn't account for.

Keras RNN accuracy doesn't improve

I'm trying to improve my model so it can become a bit more accurate. Right now I'm training the model and get this as my training and validation accuracy.
For every epoch I get an training accuracy of 0.0003 and an validation accuracy of 0. I know this isn't good but I don't know how I can fix this.
Data is normalized with the minmax scaler. 4 of the 8 features are normalized (other 4 are hour, day, day_of_week and month)
Update:
I've also tried to normalize the entire dataset and it doesn't make a differance
scaling = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(0,1)).fit(df[cols])
df[[cols]] = scaling.transform(df[[cols]])
My model: The shape is (5351, 1, 8)
and the input_shape is (1, 8)
model = keras.Sequential()
model.add(keras.layers.Bidirectional(keras.layers.LSTM(2,input_shape=(X_train.shape[1], X_train.shape[2]), return_sequences=True, activation='linear')))
model.add(keras.layers.Dense(1))
model.compile(loss='mean_squared_error', optimizer='Adamax', metrics=['acc'])
history = model.fit(
X_train, y_train,
epochs=200,
batch_size=24,
validation_split=0.35,
shuffle=False,
)
i tried using the answer of this question:
Keras model accuracy not improving
but it didn't work

A mean_sqared_error loss is for regression tasks while a acc metric is for classification problems. So it makes no sense to use them together.
If you work on a classification problem, use binary_crossentropy or categorical_crossentropy as loss and keep the metric parameter as you did.
If it is a regression tasks, change the metric to [mse] for mean squares error instead of [acc].
Your model "works" and you have applied the standard formula for backpropagation by using the mean squares error loss. But measuring the accuracy will make Keras check if your model's output is EXACTLY equals to the expected values. Since the loss function is for regression, it will hardly ever be equal.
Three last points because that little change won't correct everything.
Firstly, your last dense layer should have an activation function. (It's safier)
Secondly, I'm pretty sure a Bidirectional+LSTM layer placed before a Dense layer should have a return_sequences=False. A LSTM layer (with or without Bidirectional) can return thé full séquence of vector (like a matrix) but a dense layer takes vectors as input. But in this case it will work because of the third point.
The last point is about the shape of your data. You have 5351 examples of shape (1, 8) each which a vector of size 8. But a LSTM layer takes a sequence of vectors still thé size of your séquence is one. I don't know if it is relevent to use an RNN type layer here.

neural network return classes instead of probabilities

I have a list of 70k datas of dimension 25000 that I'm trying to feed into a neural network to get a classification of 20 different things. The system run out of memory before I can do anything. So I came out with this idea. So I divide the set of features into 5 5000. Then I feed each of the 5 set of data of dimension 5000 into a neural network. Then the result of prediction is the average of the 5.
Here is how I separated the datas:
datas_feature1=datas[:,0:5000]
datas_feature2=datas[:,5000:10000]
datas_feature3=datas[:,10000:15000]
datas_feature4=datas[:,15000:20000]
datas_feature5=datas[:,20000:25000]
Then I feed each of them into a neural network:
model1 = Sequential()
model1.add(layers.Dense(300, activation = "relu", input_shape=(5000,)))
# Hidden - Layers
model1.add(layers.Dropout(0.4, noise_shape=None, seed=None))
model1.add(layers.Dense(20, activation = "softmax"))
model1.summary()
model1.compile(loss="categorical_crossentropy",
optimizer="adam",
metrics=['accuracy'])
model1.fit( np.array(vectorized_training1), np.array(y_train_neralnettr),
batch_size=2000,
epochs=10,
verbose=1,
validation_data=(np.array(vectorized_validation1), np.array(y_validation_neralnet)))
predict1= model1.predict(np.array(vectorized_validation1))
I have this same code for model2 neural network trained on feature2 dataset and so on.
And in the end, I took the average of the predictions.
Here is my question: prediction from neural network gives an elementary vector and not a probability. So taking the average of the predictions is going to return a vector of 1s and 0s. How can I change so that I actually get a probability of being one of the 20 classes for each prediction?
Is my method good to try?
can you give me sone reference?

Loss function for class imbalanced multi-class classifier in Keras

I am trying to apply deep learning to a multi-class classification problem with high class imbalance between target classes (10K, 500K, 90K, 30K). I want to write a custom loss function.
This is my current model:
model = Sequential()
model.add(LSTM(
units=10, # number of units returned by LSTM
return_sequences=True,
input_shape=(timestamps,nb_features),
dropout=0.2,
recurrent_dropout=0.2
)
)
model.add(TimeDistributed(Dense(1)))
model.add(Dropout(0.2))
model.add(Flatten())
model.add(Dense(units=nb_classes,
activation='softmax'))
model.compile(loss="categorical_crossentropy",
metrics = ['accuracy'],
optimizer='adadelta')
Unfortunately, all predictions belong to class 1!!! The model always predicts 1 for any input...
Appreciate any pointers on how I can solve this task.
Update:
Dimensions of input data:
94981 train sequences
29494 test sequences
X_train shape: (94981, 20, 18)
X_test shape: (29494, 20, 18)
y_train shape: (94981, 4)
y_test shape: (29494, 4)
Basically in the train data I have 94981 samples. Each sample contains a sequence of 20 timestamps. There are 18 features.
The imbalance between target classes (10K, 500K, 90K, 30K) is just an example. I have similar proportions in my real dataset.

First of all, you have ~100k samples. Start with something smaller, like 100 samples and multiple epochs and see whether your model overfits to this smaller training dataset (if it can't, you either have an error in your code or the model is not capable to model the dependencies [I would go with the second case]). Seriously, start with this one. And remember about representing all of your classes in this small dataset.
Secondly, hidden size of LSTM may be too small, you have 18 features for each sequence and sequences have length of 20, while your hidden is only 10. And you apply dropout to top it off and regularize the network even further.
Furthermore, you may want to add some dense outputs units instead of merely returning a linear layer of size 10 x 1 for each timestamp.
Last but not least, you may want to upsample the underrepresented data. 0 class would have to be repeated say 50 times (or maybe 25), class 2 something around 4 times and your one around 10-15 times, so the network is trained on them.
Oh, and use cross-validation for your hyperparameters like the hidden size, number of dense units etc.
Plus I don't know for how many epochs you've been training this network, what is your test dataset (it is entirely possible it only constitutes of the first class if you haven't done stratification).
I think this will get you started, hit me up with any doubts in the comments.
EDIT: When it comes to metrics, you may want to check something different than mere accuracy; maybe F1 score and your loss monitoring + accuracy to see how it performs. There are other available choices, for inspiration you can check sklearn's documentation as they provide quite a few options.

Are all train samples used in fit_generator in Keras?

I am using model.fit_generator() to train a neural network with Keras. During the fitting process I've set the steps_per_epoch to 16 (len(training samples)/batch_size).
If the mini batch size is set to 12, and the total number of training samples is 195, does it mean that 3 samples won't be used in the training phase?

No, because it is a generator the model does not know the total number of training samples. Therefore, it finishes an epoch when it reaches the final step defined with the steps_per_epoch argument. In your case it will indeed train 192 samples per epoch.
If you want to use all samples in your model you can shuffle the data at the start of every epoch with the argument shuffle.