text stringlengths 0 4.99k |
|---|
Epoch 43/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 28s 90ms/step - loss: 2.4814 - accuracy: 0.4770 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7868 - val_loss: 2.7504 - val_accuracy: 0.4260 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7457 |
Epoch 44/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 28s 91ms/step - loss: 2.4747 - accuracy: 0.4757 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7870 - val_loss: 2.8207 - val_accuracy: 0.4166 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7363 |
Epoch 45/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 28s 90ms/step - loss: 2.4653 - accuracy: 0.4809 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7924 - val_loss: 2.8663 - val_accuracy: 0.4130 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7209 |
Epoch 46/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 28s 90ms/step - loss: 2.4554 - accuracy: 0.4825 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7929 - val_loss: 2.8145 - val_accuracy: 0.4250 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7357 |
Epoch 47/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 29s 91ms/step - loss: 2.4602 - accuracy: 0.4823 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7919 - val_loss: 2.8352 - val_accuracy: 0.4189 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7365 |
Epoch 48/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 28s 91ms/step - loss: 2.4493 - accuracy: 0.4848 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7933 - val_loss: 2.8246 - val_accuracy: 0.4160 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7362 |
Epoch 49/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 28s 91ms/step - loss: 2.4454 - accuracy: 0.4846 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7958 - val_loss: 2.7731 - val_accuracy: 0.4320 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7436 |
Epoch 50/50 |
313/313 [==============================] - 29s 92ms/step - loss: 2.4418 - accuracy: 0.4848 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7951 - val_loss: 2.7926 - val_accuracy: 0.4317 - val_top-5-accuracy: 0.7410 |
Let's visualize the training progress of the model. |
plt.plot(history.history[\"loss\"], label=\"train_loss\") |
plt.plot(history.history[\"val_loss\"], label=\"val_loss\") |
plt.xlabel(\"Epochs\") |
plt.ylabel(\"Loss\") |
plt.title(\"Train and Validation Losses Over Epochs\", fontsize=14) |
plt.legend() |
plt.grid() |
plt.show() |
png |
Let's display the final results of the test on CIFAR-100. |
loss, accuracy, top_5_accuracy = model.evaluate(x_test, y_test) |
print(f\"Test loss: {round(loss, 2)}\") |
print(f\"Test accuracy: {round(accuracy * 100, 2)}%\") |
print(f\"Test top 5 accuracy: {round(top_5_accuracy * 100, 2)}%\") |
313/313 [==============================] - 6s 21ms/step - loss: 2.7574 - accuracy: 0.4391 - top-5-accuracy: 0.7471 |
Test loss: 2.76 |
Test accuracy: 43.91% |
Test top 5 accuracy: 74.71% |
EANet just replaces self attention in Vit with external attention. The traditional Vit achieved a ~73% test top-5 accuracy and ~41 top-1 accuracy after training 50 epochs, but with 0.6M parameters. Under the same experimental environment and the same hyperparameters, The EANet model we just trained has just 0.3M parame... |
Implementing the MLP-Mixer, FNet, and gMLP models for CIFAR-100 image classification. |
Introduction |
This example implements three modern attention-free, multi-layer perceptron (MLP) based models for image classification, demonstrated on the CIFAR-100 dataset: |
The MLP-Mixer model, by Ilya Tolstikhin et al., based on two types of MLPs. |
The FNet model, by James Lee-Thorp et al., based on unparameterized Fourier Transform. |
The gMLP model, by Hanxiao Liu et al., based on MLP with gating. |
The purpose of the example is not to compare between these models, as they might perform differently on different datasets with well-tuned hyperparameters. Rather, it is to show simple implementations of their main building blocks. |
This example requires TensorFlow 2.4 or higher, as well as TensorFlow Addons, which can be installed using the following command: |
pip install -U tensorflow-addons |
Setup |
import numpy as np |
import tensorflow as tf |
from tensorflow import keras |
from tensorflow.keras import layers |
import tensorflow_addons as tfa |
Prepare the data |
num_classes = 100 |
input_shape = (32, 32, 3) |
(x_train, y_train), (x_test, y_test) = keras.datasets.cifar100.load_data() |
print(f\"x_train shape: {x_train.shape} - y_train shape: {y_train.shape}\") |
print(f\"x_test shape: {x_test.shape} - y_test shape: {y_test.shape}\") |
x_train shape: (50000, 32, 32, 3) - y_train shape: (50000, 1) |
x_test shape: (10000, 32, 32, 3) - y_test shape: (10000, 1) |
Configure the hyperparameters |
weight_decay = 0.0001 |
batch_size = 128 |
num_epochs = 50 |
dropout_rate = 0.2 |
image_size = 64 # We'll resize input images to this size. |
patch_size = 8 # Size of the patches to be extracted from the input images. |
num_patches = (image_size // patch_size) ** 2 # Size of the data array. |
embedding_dim = 256 # Number of hidden units. |
num_blocks = 4 # Number of blocks. |
print(f\"Image size: {image_size} X {image_size} = {image_size ** 2}\") |
print(f\"Patch size: {patch_size} X {patch_size} = {patch_size ** 2} \") |
print(f\"Patches per image: {num_patches}\") |
print(f\"Elements per patch (3 channels): {(patch_size ** 2) * 3}\") |
Image size: 64 X 64 = 4096 |
Patch size: 8 X 8 = 64 |
Patches per image: 64 |
Elements per patch (3 channels): 192 |
Build a classification model |
We implement a method that builds a classifier given the processing blocks. |
def build_classifier(blocks, positional_encoding=False): |
inputs = layers.Input(shape=input_shape) |
# Augment data. |
augmented = data_augmentation(inputs) |
# Create patches. |
patches = Patches(patch_size, num_patches)(augmented) |
# Encode patches to generate a [batch_size, num_patches, embedding_dim] tensor. |
x = layers.Dense(units=embedding_dim)(patches) |
if positional_encoding: |
positions = tf.range(start=0, limit=num_patches, delta=1) |
position_embedding = layers.Embedding( |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.