Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – XI – image creation by a VAE trained on CelebA

I continue with my series on Variational Autoencoders [VAEs] and related methods to control the KL-loss.

Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – I – some basics
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – II – an Autoencoder with binary-crossentropy loss
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – III – problems with the KL loss and eager execution
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – IV – simple rules to avoid problems with eager execution
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – V – a customized Encoder layer for the KL loss
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VI – KL loss via tensor transfer and multiple output
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VII – KL loss via model.add_loss()
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VIII – TF 2 GradientTape(), KL loss and metrics
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – IX – taming Celeb A by resizing the images and using a generator
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – X – VAE application to CelebA images

VAEs fall into a section of ML which is called “Generative Deep Learning“. The reason is that we can VAEs to create images with contain objects with features of objects learned from training images. One interesting category of such objects are human faces – of different color, with individual expressions and features and hairstyles, seen from different perspectives. One dataset which contains such images is the CelebA dataset.

During the last posts we came so far that we could train a CNN-based Variational Autoencoder [VAE] with images of the CelebA dataset. Even on graphics cards with low VRAM. Our VAE was equipped with a GradientTape()-based method for KL-loss control. We still have to prove that this method works in the expected way:

The distribution of data points (z-points) created by the VAE’s Encoder for training input should be confined to a region around the origin in the latent space (z-space). And neighboring z-points up to a limited distance should result in similar output of the Decoder.

Therefore, we have to look a bit deeper into the results of some VAE-experiments with the CelebA dataset. I have already pointed out why creating rather complex images from arbitrarily chosen points in the latent space is a suitable and good test for a VAE. Please remember that our efforts regarding the KL-loss have to do with the following fact:

not create reasonable images/objects from arbitrarily chosen z-points in the latent space.

This eliminates the use of an AE for creative purposes. A VAE, however, should be able to solve this type of task – at least for z-points in a limited surroundings of the latent space’s origin. Thus, by creating images from randomly selected z-points with the Decoder of a VAE, which has been trained on the CelebA data set, we cover two points:

  • Test 1: We test the functionality of the VAE-class, which we have developed and which includes the code for KL-loss handling via TF2’s GradientTape() and Keras’ train_step().
  • Test 2: We test the ability of the VAE’s Decoder to create images with convincing human-like face and hairstyle features from random z-points within an area close to the origin of the latent space.

Most of the experiments discussed below follow the same prescription: We take our trained VAE, select some random points in the latent space, feed the z-point-data into the VAE’s Decoder for a prediction and plot the images created on the Decoder’s output side. The Encoder only plays a role when we want to test reconstruction abilities.

For a low dimension z_dim=256 of the latent space we will find that the generated images display human faces reasonably well. But the images appear a bit blurry or unsharp – as if not fully focused. So, we need to discuss what we can do about this point. I will also name some plausible causes for the loss of accuracy in the representation of details.

Afterwards I want to show you that a VAE Decoder reconstructs original images relatively badly from the z-points calculated by the Encoder. At least when one looks at details. A simple AE with a sufficiently high dimension of the latent space performs much better. One may feel disappointed about the reconstruction ability of a VAE. But actually it is the ability of a VAE to forget about details and instead to focus on general features which enables it (the VAE) to create something meaningful from randomly chosen z-points in the latent space.

In a last step in this post we are going to look at images created from z-points with a growing distance from the origin of the multidimensional latent space [z-space]. (Distance can be defined by a L2-Euclidean norm). We will see that most z-points which have some z-coordinates above a value of 3 produce fancy images where the face structures get dominated or distorted by background structures learned from CelebA images. This effect was to be expected as the KL-loss enforced a distribution of the z-points which is confined to a region relatively close to the origin. Ideally, this distribution would be characterized by a normal distribution in all coordinates with a sigma of only 1. So, the fact that z-points in the vicinity of the origin of the latent space lead to a construction of images which show recognizable human faces is an indirect proof of the confining impact of the KL-loss on the z-point distribution. In another post I shall deliver data which prove this more directly.

Below I will call the latent space of a (V)AE also z-space.

Characteristics of the VAE tested

Our trained VAE with four Conv2D-layers in the Encoder and 4 corresponding Conv2DTranspose-Layers in the Decoder has the following basic characteristics:

(Encoder-CNN-) filters=(32,64,128,256), kernels=(3,3), stride=2,
reconstruction loss = BCE (binary crossentropy), fact=5.0, z_dim=256

The order of the filter- (= map-) numbers is, of course reversed for the Decoder. The factor fact to scale the KL-loss in comparison to the reconstruction loss was chosen to be fact=5, which led to a 3% contribution of the KL-loss to the total loss during training. The VAE was trained on 170,000 CelebA images with 24 epochs and a small epsilon=0.0005 plus Adam optimizer.

When you perform similar experiments on your own you may notice that the total loss values after around 24 epochs ( > 5015) are significantly higher than those of comparable experiments with a standard AE (4850). This already is an indication that our VAE will not reproduce a similar good match between an image reconstructed by the Decoder in comparison to the original input image fed into the Encoder.

Results for z-points with coordinates taken from a normal distribution around the origin of the latent space

The picture below shows some examples of generated face-images coming from randomly chosen z-points in the vicinity of the z-space’s origin. To calculate the coordinates of such z-points I applied a normal distribution:

z_points = np.random.normal(size = (n_to_show, z_dim)) # n_to_show = 28

So, what do the results for z_dim=256 look like?

Ok, we get reasonable images of human-like faces. The variations in perspective, face forms and hairstyles are also clearly visible and reflect part of the related variety in the training set. You will find more variations in more images below. So, we take this result as a success! In contrast to a pure AE we DO get something from random z-points which we clearly can interpret as human faces. The whole effort of confining z-points around the origin and at the same time of smearing out z-points with similar content over a region instead of a fixed point-mapping (as in an AE) has paid off. See for comparison:
Autoencoders, latent space and the curse of high dimensionality – I

Unfortunately, the images and their details details appear a bit blurry and not very sharp. Personally, this reminded me of the times when the first CCD-chips with relative low resolution were introduced in cameras and the raw image data looked disappointing as long as we did not apply some sharpening filters. The basic information to enhance details were there, but they had to be used explicitly to improve the plain raw data of the CCD.

The quality in details is about the same as what we see in example images in the book of D.Foster on “Generative Deep Learning”, 2019, O’Reilly. Despite the fact that Foster used a slightly higher resolution of the input images (128x128x3 pixels). The higher input resolution there also led to a higher resolution of the maps of the innermost convolutional layer. Regarding quality see also the images presented in:
https://datagen.tech/guides/image-datasets/celeba/

Enhancement processing of the images ?

Just for fun, I took a screenshot of my result, saved it and applied two different sharpening filters from the ShowFoto program:

Much better! And we do not have the impression that we added some fake information to the images by our post-processing ….

Now I hear already argument saying that such an enhancement should not be done. Frankly, I do not see any reason against post-processing of images created by a VAE-algorithm.

Remember: This is NOT about reproduction quality with respect to originals or a close-to-reality show. This is about generating new mages of human-like faces based on basic features which a VAE-algorithm hopefully has learned from training images. All of what we do with a VAE is creative. And it also comes close to a proof that ML-algorithms based on convolutional layers really can “learn” something about the basic features of objects presented to them. (The learned features are e.g. in the Encoder’s case saved in the sensitivity of the convolutional maps to typical patterns in the input images.)

And as in the case of raw-images of CCD or CMOS camera chips: Sometimes some post-processing is required to utilize the information optimally for sharpness.

Sharpening by PIL’s enhancement functionality

Of course we do not want to produce images in a ML run, take screenshots and sharpen each image individually. We need some tool that fits into the ML process pipeline. The good old PIL library for Python offers sharpening as one of multiple enhancement options for images. The next examples are results from the application of a PIL enhancement procedure:

These images look quite OK, too. The basic code fragment I used for each individual image in the above grid:

    # reconst_new is the output from my VAE's Decoder 
    ay_img      = reconst_new[i, :,:,:] * 255
    ay_img      = np.asarray(ay_img, dtype="uint8" )
    img_orig    = Image.fromarray(ay_img)
    img_shr_obj = ImageEnhance.Sharpness(img)
    sh_factor   = 7   # Specified Factor for Enhancing Sharpness
    img_sh      = img_shr_obj.enhance(sh_factor)

The sharpening factor I chose was quite high, namely sh_factor = 7.

The effect of PIL’s sharpening factor

Just to further demonstrate the effect of different factors for sharpening by PIL you find some examples below for sh_factor = 0, 3, 6.

sh_factor = 0

sh_factor = 3

sh_factor = 6

Obviously, the enhancement is important to get clearer and sharper images.
However, when you enlarge the images sufficiently enough you see some artifacts in the form of crossing lines. These artifacts are partially already existing in the Decoder’s output, but they are enhanced by the Sharpening mechanism used by PIL (unsharp masking). The artifacts become more pronounced with a growing sh_factor.
Hint: According to ML-literature the use of Upsampling layers instead of Conv2DTranspose layers in the Decoder may reduce such artefacts a bit. I have not yet tried it myself.

Assessment

How do we assess the point of relatively unclear, unsharp images produced by our VAE? What are plausible reasons for the loss of details?

  1. Firstly, already AEs with a latent space dimension z_dim=256 in general do not reconstruct brilliant images from z-points in the latent space. To get a good reconstruction quality even from an AE which does nothing else than to compress and reconstruct images of a size (96x96x3) z_dim-values > 1000 are required in my experience. More about this in another post in the future.
  2. A second important aspect is the following: Enforcing a compact distribution of similar images in the latent space via the KL-loss automatically introduces a loss of detail information. The KL-loss is designed to lead to a smear-out effect in z-space. Only basic concepts and features will be kept by the VAE to ensure a similarity of neighboring images. Details will be omitted and “smoothed” out. This has consequences also with respect to sharpness of detail structures. A detail as an eyebrow in a face is to be considered as an average of similar details found for images in the same region of the z-space. This alone brings some loss of clarity with it.
  3. Thirdly, a simple (V)AE based on some directly connected Conv2D-layers has limited capabilities in general. The reason is that we systematically reduce resolution whilst information is propagated from one Conv2D layer to the next neighboring one. Remember that we use a stride > 2 or pooling layers to cover filters on larger image scales. Due to this information processing a convolutional network automatically suppresses details in its inner layers – their resolution shrinks with growing distance from the input layer. In later posts of this blog we shall see that using ResNets instead of CNNs in the Encoder and Decoder already helps a bit regarding the reconstruction of clearer images. The correlation between details and large scale information is better kept up there than in CNNs.

Regarding the first point one may think of increasing z_dim. This may not be the best idea. It contradicts the whole idea of a VAE which at its core is a reduction of the degrees of freedom for z-points. For a higher dimensional space we may have to raise the ratio of KL-loss to reconstruction loss even further.

Regarding the third point: Of course it would also help to increase kernel sizes for the first two Conv2D layers and the number of maps there. A higher resolution of the input images would also be of advantage. Both methods may, however, conflict with your VRAM or GPU time limits.

If the second point were true then reduction of fact in our models, which controls the ration of KL-loss to reconstruction loss, would lead to a better image quality. In this case we are doomed to find an optimal value for fact – satisfying both the need for generalization and clarity of details in our images. You cannot have both … here we see a basic problem related to VAEs and the creation of realistic images. Actually, I tried this out – the effect is there, but the gain actually is not worth the effort. And for too small values of fact we eventually loose the ability to create reasonable images from arbitrary z-points at all.

All in all post-processing appears to be a simple and effective method to get images with somewhat sharper details.
Hint: If you want to create images of artificially generated faces with a really high quality, you have to turn to GANs.

Further examples – with PIL sharpening

In this example you see that not all points give you good images of faces. The z-point of the middle image in the second to last of the first illustration below has a relatively high distance from the origin. The higher the distance from the origin in z-space the weirder the images get. We shall see this below in a more systematic way.

Reconstruction quality of a VAE vs. an AE – or the “female” side of myself

If I were not afraid of copy and personal rights aspects of using CelebA images directly I could show you now a comparison of the the reconstruction ability of an AE in comparison to a VAE. You find such a comparison, though a limited one, by looking at some images in the book of D. Foster.

To avoid any problems I just tried to work with an image of myself. Which really gave me a funny result.

A plain Autoencoder with

  • an extended latent space dimension of z_dim = 1600,
  • a reasonable convolutional filter sequence of (64, 64, 128, 128)
  • a stride value of stride=2
  • and kernels ((5,5),(5,5),(3,3),(3,3))

is well able to reproduce many detailed features one’s face after a training on 80,000 CelebA images. Below see the result for an image of myself after 24 training epochs of such an AE:

The left image is the original, the right one the reconstruction. The latter is not perfect, but many details have been reproduced. Please note that the trained AE never had seen an image of myself before. For biometric analysis the reproduction would probably be sufficient.

Ok, so much about an AE and a latent space with a relatively high dimension. But what does a VAE think of me?
With fact = 5.0, filters like (32,64,128,256), (3,3)-kernels, z_dim=256 and after 18 epochs with 170,000 training images of CelebA my image really got a good cure:

My wife just laughed and said: Well, now in the age of 64 at least an AI has found something soft and female in you … Well, had the CelebA included many faces of heavy metal figures the results would have looked differently. I bet …

So with generative VAEs we obviously pay a price: Details are neglected in favor of very general face features and hairstyle aspects. And we loose sharpness. Which is good if you have wrinkles. Good for me and the celebrities, too. 🙂

However, I recommend anybody who wants to study VAEs to check the reproduction quality for CelebA test images (not from the training set). You will see the generalization effect for a broader range of images. And, of course, a better reproduction with smaller values for the ratio of the KL-loss to the reconstruction loss. However, for too small values of fact you will not be able to create realistic face images at all from arbitrary z-points – even if you choose them to be relatively close to the origin of the latent space.

Dependency of the creation of reasonable images on the distance from the origin

In another post in this blog I have discussed why we need VAEs at all if we want to reconstruct reasonable face images from randomly picked points in the latent space. See:
Autoencoders, latent space and the curse of high dimensionality – I

I think the reader is meanwhile convinced that VAEs do a reasonably good job to create images from randomly chosen z-points. But all of the above images were taken from z-points calculated with the help of a function assuming a normal distribution in the z-space coordinates. The width of the resulting distribution around the origin is of course rather limited. Most points lie within a 3 sigma distance around the origin. This is OK as we have put a lot of effort into the KL-loss to force the z-points to approach such a normal distribution around the origin of the latent space.

But what happens if and when we increase the distance of our random z-points from the origin? An easy way to investigate this is to create the z-points with a function that creates the coordinates randomly, but equally distributed in an interval ]0,limit]. The chance that at least one of the coordinates gets a high value is rather big then. This in turn ensures relatively high radius values (in terms of an L2-distance norm).

Below you find the results for z-points created by the function random.uniform:

r_limit = 1.5
l_limit = -r_limit
znew = np.random.uniform(l_limit, r_limit, size = (n_to_show, z_dim))

r_limit is varied as indicated:

r_limit = 0.5

r_limit = 1.0

r_limit = 1.5

r_limit = 2.0

r_limit = 2.5

r_limit = 3.0

r_limit = 3.5

r_limit = 5.0

r_limit = 8.0

Well, this proves that we get reasonable images only up to a certain distance from the origin – and only in certain areas or pockets of the z-space at higher radii.

Another notable aspect is the fact that the background variations are completely smoothed out a low distances from the origin. But they get dominant in the outer regions of the z-space. This is consistent with the fact that we need more information to distinguish various background shapes, forms and colors than basic face patterns. Note also that the faces appear relatively homogeneous for r_limit = 0.5. The farther we are away from the origin the larger the volumes to cover and distinguish certain features of the training images become.

Conclusion

Our VAE with the GradientTape()-mechanism for the control of the KL-loss seems to do its job. In contrast to a pure AE the smear-out effect of the KL-loss allows now for the creation of images with interpretable contents from arbitrary z-points via the VAE’s Decoder – as long as the selected z-points are not too far away from the z-space’s origin. Thus, by indirect evidence we can conclude that the z-points for training images of the CelebA dataset were distributed and at the same time confined around the origin. The strongest indication came from the last series of images. But we pay a price: The reconstruction abilities of a VAE are far below those of AEs. A relatively low number of dimensions of the latent space helps with an effective confinement of the z-points. But it leads to a significant loss in detail sharpness of the generated images, too. However, part of this effect can be compensated by the application of standard procedures for image enhancemnet.

In the next post
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – XII – save some VRAM by an extra Dense layer in the Encoder
I will discuss a simple trick to reduce the VRAM consumption of the Encoder. In a further post we shall then analyze the confinement of the z-point distribution with the help of more explicit data.

And let us all who praise freedom not forget:
The worst fascist, war criminal and killer living today is the Putler. He must be isolated at all levels, be denazified and sooner than later be imprisoned. An aggressor who orders the bombardment of civilian infrastructure, civilian buildings, schools and hospitals with drones bought from other anti-democrats and women oppressors puts himself in the darkest and most rotten corner of human history.

 

Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – X – VAE application to CelebA images

I continue with my series on Variational Autoencoders and methods to control the Kullback-Leibler [KL] loss.

Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – I – some basics
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – II – an Autoencoder with binary-crossentropy loss
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – III – problems with the KL loss and eager execution
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – IV – simple rules to avoid problems with eager execution
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – V – a customized Encoder layer for the KL loss
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VI – KL loss via tensor transfer and multiple output
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VII – KL loss via model.add_loss()
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VIII – TF 2 GradientTape(), KL loss and metrics
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – IX – taming Celeb A by resizing the images and using a generator

The last method discussed made use of Tensorflow’s GradientTape()-class. We still have to test this approach on a challenging dataset like CelebA. Our ultimate objective will be to pick up randomly chosen data points in the VAE’s latent space and create yet unseen but realistic face images by the trained Decoder’s abilities. This task falls into the category of Generative Deep Learning. It has nothing to do with classification or a simple reconstruction of images. Instead we let a trained Artificial Neural Network create something new.

The code fragments discussed in the last post of this series helped us to prepare images of CelebA for training purposes. We cut and downsized them. We saved them in their final form in Numpy arrays: Loading e.g. 170,000 training images from a SSD as a Numpy array is a matter of a few seconds. We also learned how to prepare a Keras ImageDataGenerator object to create a flow of batches with image data to the GPU.

We have also developed two Python classes “MyVariationalAutoencoder” and “VAE” for the setup of a CNN-based VAE. These classes allow us to control a VAE’s input parameters, its layer structure based on Conv2D- and Conv2DTranspose layers, and the handling of the Kullback-Leibler [KL-] loss. In this post I will give you Jupyter code fragments that will help you to apply these classes in combination with CelebA data.

Basic structure of the CNN-based VAE – and sizing of the KL-loss contribution

The Encoder and Decoder CNNs of our VAE shall consist of 4 convolutional layers and 4 transpose convolutional layers, respectively. We control the KL loss by invoking GradientTape() and train_step().

Regarding the size of the KL-loss:
Due to the “curse of dimensionality” we will have to choose the KL-loss contribution to the total loss large enough. We control the relative size of the KL-loss in comparison to the standard reconstruction loss by a parameter “fact“. To determine an optimal value requires some experiments. It also depends on the kind of reconstruction loss: Below I assume that we use a “Binary Crossentropy” loss. Then we must choose fact > 3.0 to get the KL-loss to become bigger than 3% of the total loss. Otherwise the confining and smoothing effect of the KL-loss on the data distribution in the latent space will not be big enough to force the VAE to learn general and not specific features of the training images.

Imports and GPU usage

Below I present Jupyter cells for required imports and GPU preparation without many comments. Its all standard. I keep the Python file with the named classes in a folder “my_AE_code.models”. This folder must have been declared as part of the module search path “sys.path”.

Jupyter Cell 1 – Imports

import os, sys, time, random 
import math
import numpy as np

import matplotlib as mpl
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.colors import ListedColormap
import matplotlib.patches as mpat 

import PIL as PIL 
from PIL import Image
from PIL import ImageFilter

# temsorflow and keras 
import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow import keras as K
from tensorflow.keras import backend as B 
from tensorflow.keras.models import Model
from tensorflow.keras import regularizers
from tensorflow.keras import optimizers
from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import Adam
from tensorflow.keras import metrics
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Input, Conv2D, Flatten, Dense, Conv2DTranspose, Reshape, Lambda, \
                                    Activation, BatchNormalization, ReLU, LeakyReLU, ELU, Dropout, \
                                    AlphaDropout, Concatenate, Rescaling, ZeroPadding2D, Layer

#from tensorflow.keras.utils import to_categorical
#from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import schedules

from tensorflow.keras.preprocessing.image import ImageDataGenerator

from my_AE_code.models.MyVAE_3 import MyVariationalAutoencoder
from my_AE_code.models.MyVAE_3 import VAE

Jupyter Cell 2 – List available Cuda devices

# List Cuda devices 
# Suppress some TF2 warnings on negative NUMA node number
# see https://www.programmerall.com/article/89182120793/
os.environ['TF_CPP_MIN_LOG_LEVEL'] = '3'  # or any {'0', '1', '2'}

tf.config.experimental.list_physical_devices()

Jupyter Cell 3 – Use GPU and limit VRAM usage

# Restrict to GPU and activate jit to accelerate 
# *************************************************
# NOTE: To change any of the following values you MUST restart the notebook kernel ! 

b_tf_CPU_only      = False   # we need to work on a GPU  
tf_limit_CPU_cores = 4 
tf_limit_GPU_RAM   = 2048

b_experiment  = False # Use only if you want to use the deprecated way of limiting CPU/GPU resources 
                      # see the next cell 

if not b_experiment: 
    if b_tf_CPU_only: 
        ... 
    else: 
        gpus = tf.config.experimental.list_physical_devices('GPU')
        tf.config.experimental.set_virtual_device_configuration(gpus[0], 
        [tf.config.experimental.VirtualDeviceConfiguration(memory_limit = tf_limit_GPU_RAM)])
    
    # JiT optimizer 
    tf.config.optimizer.set_jit(True)

You see that I limited the VRAM consumption drastically to leave some of the 4GB VRAM available on my old GPU for other purposes than ML.

Setting some basic parameters for VAE training

The next cell defines some basic parameters – you know this already from my last post.

Juypter Cell 4 – basic parameters

# Some basic parameters
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INPUT_DIM          = (96, 96, 3) 
BATCH_SIZE         = 128

# The number of available images 
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
num_imgs = 200000  # Check with notebook CelebA 

# The number of images to use during training and for tests
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NUM_IMAGES_TRAIN  = 170000   # The number of images to use in a Trainings Run 
#NUM_IMAGES_TO_USE  = 60000   # The number of images to use in a Trainings Run 

NUM_IMAGES_TEST = 10000   # The number of images to use in a Trainings Run 

# for historic comapatibility reasons 
N_ImagesToUse        = NUM_IMAGES_TRAIN 
NUM_IMAGES           = NUM_IMAGES_TRAIN 
NUM_IMAGES_TO_TRAIN  = NUM_IMAGES_TRAIN   # The number of images to use in a Trainings Run 
NUM_IMAGES_TO_TEST   = NUM_IMAGES_TEST  # The number of images to use in a Test Run 

# Define some shapes for Numpy arrays with all images for training
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shape_ay_imgs_train = (N_ImagesToUse, ) + INPUT_DIM
print("Assumed shape for Numpy array with train imgs: ", shape_ay_imgs_train)

shape_ay_imgs_test = (NUM_IMAGES_TO_TEST, ) + INPUT_DIM
print("Assumed shape for Numpy array with test  imgs: ",shape_ay_imgs_test)

Load the image data and prepare a generator

Also the next cells were already described in the last blog.

Juypter Cell 5 – fill Numpy arrays with image data from disk

# Load the Numpy arrays with scaled Celeb A directly from disk 
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
print("Started loop for train and test images")
start_time = time.perf_counter()

x_train = np.load(path_file_ay_train)
x_test  = np.load(path_file_ay_test)

end_time = time.perf_counter()
cpu_time = end_time - start_time
print()
print("CPU-time for loading Numpy arrays of CelebA imgs: ", cpu_time) 
print("Shape of x_train: ", x_train.shape)
print("Shape of x_test:  ", x_test.shape)

The Output is

Started loop for train and test images

CPU-time for loading Numpy arrays of CelebA imgs:  2.7438277259999495
Shape of x_train:  (170000, 96, 96, 3)
Shape of x_test:   (10000, 96, 96, 3)

Juypter Cell 6 – create an ImageDataGenerator object

# Generator based on Numpy array of image data (in RAM)
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b_use_generator_ay = True

BATCH_SIZE    = 128
SOLUTION_TYPE = 3

if b_use_generator_ay:

    if SOLUTION_TYPE == 0: 
        data_gen = ImageDataGenerator()
        data_flow = data_gen.flow(
                           x_train 
                         , x_train
                         , batch_size = BATCH_SIZE
                         , shuffle = True
                         )
    
    if SOLUTION_TYPE == 3: 
        data_gen = ImageDataGenerator()
        data_flow = data_gen.flow(
                           x_train 
                         , batch_size = BATCH_SIZE
                         , shuffle = True
                         )

In our case we work with SOLUTION_TYPE = 3. This specifies the use of GradientTape() to control the KL-loss. Note that we do NOT need to define label data in this case.

Setting up the layer structure of the VAE

Next we set up the sequence of convolutional layers of the Encoder and Decoder of our VAE. For this objective we feed the required parameters into the __init__() function of our class “MyVariationalAutoencoder” whilst creating an object instance (MyVae).

Juypter Cell 7 – Parameters for the setup of VAE-layers

from my_AE_code.models.MyVAE_3 import MyVariationalAutoencoder
from my_AE_code.models.MyVAE_3 import VAE

z_dim = 256  # a first good guess to get a sufficient basic reconstruction quality 
#              due to the KL-loss the general reconstruction quality will 
#              nevertheless be poor in comp. to an AE  

solution_type = SOLUTION_TYPE     # We test GradientTape => SOLUTION_TYPE = 3 
loss_type     = 0                 # Reconstruction loss => 0: BCE, 1: MSE  
act           = 0                 # standard leaky relu activation function 

# Factor to scale the KL-loss in comparison to the reconstruction loss   
fact           = 5.0     #  - for BCE , other working values 1.5, 2.25, 3.0 
                         #              best: fact >= 3.0   
# fact           = 2.0e-2   #  - for MSE, other working values 1.2e-2, 4.0e-2, 5.0e-2

use_batch_norm  = True
use_dropout     = False
dropout_rate    = 0.1

n_ch  = INPUT_DIM[2]   # number of channels
print("Number of channels = ",  n_ch)
print()

# Instantiation of our main class
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
MyVae = MyVariationalAutoencoder(
    input_dim = INPUT_DIM
    , encoder_conv_filters     = [32,64,128,256]
    , encoder_conv_kernel_size = [3,3,3,3]
    , encoder_conv_strides     = [2,2,2,2]
    , encoder_conv_padding     = ['same','same','same','same']

    , decoder_conv_t_filters     = [128,64,32,n_ch]
    , decoder_conv_t_kernel_size = [3,3,3,3]
    , decoder_conv_t_strides     = [2,2,2,2]
    , decoder_conv_t_padding     = ['same','same','same','same']

    , z_dim = z_dim
    , solution_type = solution_type    
    , act   = act
    , fact  = fact
    , loss_type      = loss_type
    , use_batch_norm = use_batch_norm
    , use_dropout    = use_dropout
    , dropout_rate   = dropout_rate
)

There are some noteworthy things:

Choosing working values for “fact”

Reaonable values of “fact” depend on the type of reconstruction loss we choose. In general the “Binary Cross-Entropy Loss” (BCE) has steep walls around a minimum. BCE, therefore, creates much larger loss values than a “Mean Square Error” loss (MSE). Our class can handle both types of reconstruction loss. For BCE some trials show that values “3.0 <= fact <= 6.0" produce z-point distributions which are well confined around the origin of the latent space. If you lie to work with "MSE" for the reconstruction loss you must assign much lower values to fact - around fact = 0.01.

Batch normalization layers, but no drop-out layers

I use batch normalization layers in addition to the convolution layers. It helps a bit or a faster convergence, but produces GPU-time overhead during training. In my experience batch normalization is not an absolute necessity. But try out by yourself. Drop-out layers in addition to a reasonable KL-loss size appear to me as an unnecessary double means to enforce generalization.

Four convolutional layers

Four Convolution layers allow for a reasonable coverage of patterns on different length scales. Four layers make it also easy to use a constant stride of 2 and a “same” padding on all levels. We use a kernel size of 3 for all layers. The number of maps of the layers are defined as 32, 64, 128 and 256.

All in all we use a standard approach to combine filters at different granularity levels. We also cover 3 color layers of a standard image, reflected in the input dimensions of the Encoder. The Decoder creates corresponding arrays with color information.

Building the Encoder and the Decoder models

We now call the classes methods to build the models for the Encoder and Decoder parts of the VAE.

Juypter Cell 8 – Creation of the Encoder model

# Build the Encoder 
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MyVae._build_enc()
MyVae.encoder.summary()

Output:

You see that the KL-loss related layers dominate the number of parameters.

Juypter Cell 9 – Creation of the Decoder model

# Build the Decoder 
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MyVae._build_dec()
MyVae.decoder.summary()

Output:

Building and compiling the full VAE based on GradientTape()

Building and compiling the full VAE based on parameter solution_type = 3 is easy with our class:

Juypter Cell 10 – Creation and compilation of the VAE model

# Build the full AE 
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MyVae._build_VAE()

# Compile the model 
learning_rate = 0.0005
MyVae.compile_myVAE(learning_rate=learning_rate)

Note that internally an instance of class “VAE” is built which handles all loss calculations including the KL-contribution. Compilation and inclusion of an Adam optimizer is also handled internally. Our classes make or life easy …

Our initial learning_rate is relatively small. I followed recommendations of D. Foster’s book on “Generative Deep Learning” regarding this point. A value of 1.e-4 does not change much regarding the number of epochs for convergence.

Due to the chosen low dimension of the latent space the total number of trainable parameters is relatively moderate.

Prepare saving and loading of model parameters

To save some precious computational time (and energy consumption) in the future we need a basic option to save and load model weight parameters. I only describe a direct method; I leave it up to the reader to define a related Callback.

Juypter Cell 11 – Paths to save or load weight parameters

path_model_save_dir = 'YOUR_PATH_TO_A_WEIGHT_SAVING_DIR'

dir_name = 'MyVAE3_sol3_act0_loss0_epo24_fact_5p0emin0_ba128_lay32-64-128-256/'
path_dir = path_model_save_dir + dir_name
if not os.path.isdir(path_dir): 
    os.mkdir(path_dir, mode = 0o755)

dir_all_name = 'all/'
dir_enc_name = 'enc/'
dir_dec_name = 'dec/'

path_dir_all = path_dir + dir_all_name
if not os.path.isdir(path_dir_all): 
    os.mkdir(path_dir_all, mode = 0o755)

path_dir_enc = path_dir + dir_enc_name
if not os.path.isdir(path_dir_enc): 
    os.mkdir(path_dir_enc, mode = 0o755)

path_dir_dec = path_dir + dir_dec_name
if not os.path.isdir(path_dir_dec): 
    os.mkdir(path_dir_dec, mode = 0o755)

name_all = 'all_weights.hd5'
name_enc = 'enc_weights.hd5'
name_dec = 'dec_weights.hd5'

#save all weights
path_all = path_dir + dir_all_name + name_all
path_enc = path_dir + dir_enc_name + name_enc
path_dec = path_dir + dir_dec_name + name_dec

You see that I define separate files in “hd5” format to save parameters of both the full model as well as of its Encoder and Decoder parts.

If we really wanted to load saved weight parameters we could set the parameter “b_load_weight_parameters” in the next cell to “True” and execute the cell code:

Juypter Cell 12 – Load saved weight parameters into the VAE model

b_load_weight_parameters = False

if b_load_weight_parameters:
    MyVae.model.load_weights(path_all)

Training and saving calculated weights

We are ready to perform a training run. For our 170,000 training images and the parameters set I needed a bit more than 18 epochs, namely 24. I did this in two steps – first 18 epochs and then another 6.

Juypter Cell 13 – Load saved weight parameters into the VAE model

INITIAL_EPOCH = 0 

#n_epochs      = 18
n_epochs      = 6

MyVae.set_enc_to_train()
MyVae.train_myVAE(   
             data_flow
            , b_use_generator = True 
            , epochs = n_epochs
            , initial_epoch = INITIAL_EPOCH
            )

The total loss starts in the beginning with a value above 6,900 and quickly closes in to something like 5,100 and below. The KL-loss during raining rises continuously from something like 30 to 176 where it stays almost constant. The 6 epochs after epoch 18 gave the following result:

I stopped the calculation at this point – though a full convergence may need some more epochs.

You see that an epoch takes about 2 minutes GPU time (on a GTX960; a modern graphics card will deliver far better values). For 170,000 images the training really costs. On the other side you get a broader variation of face properties in the resulting artificial images later on.

After some epoch we may want to save the weights calculated. The next Jupyter cell shows how.

Juypter Cell 14 – Save weight parameters to disk

print(path_all)
MyVae.model.save_weights(path_all)
print("saving all weights is finished")

print()
#save enc weights
print(path_enc)
MyVae.encoder.save_weights(path_enc)
print("saving enc weights is finished")

print()
#save dec weights
print(path_dec)
MyVae.decoder.save_weights(path_dec)
print("saving dec weights is finished")

How to test the reconstruction quality?

After training you may first want to test the reconstruction quality of the VAE’s Decoder with respect to training or test images. Unfortunately, I cannot show you original data of the Celeb A dataset. However, the following code cells will help you to do the test by yourself.

Juypter Cell 15 – Choose images and compare them to their reconstructed counterparts

# We choose 14 "random" images from the x_train dataset
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from numpy.random import MT19937
from numpy.random import RandomState, SeedSequence
# For another method to create reproducale "random numbers" see https://albertcthomas.github.io/good-practices-random-number-generators/

n_to_show = 7  # per row 

# To really recover all data we must have one and the same input dataset per training run 
l_seed = [33, 44]   #l_seed = [33, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, 99]
num_exmpls = len(l_seed)
print(num_exmpls) 

# a list to save the image rows 
l_img_orig_rows = []
l_img_reco_rows = []

start_time = time.perf_counter()

# Set the Encoder to prediction = epsilon * 0.0 
# MyVae.set_enc_to_predict()

for i in range(0, num_exmpls):

    # fixed random distribution 
    rs1 = RandomState(MT19937( SeedSequence(l_seed[i]) ))

    # indices of example array selected from the test images 
    #example_idx = np.random.choice(range(len(x_test)), n_to_show)
    example_idx    = rs1.randint(0, len(x_train), n_to_show)
    example_images = x_train[example_idx]

    # calc points in the latent space 
    if solution_type == 3:
        z_points, mu, logvar  = MyVae.encoder.predict(example_images)
    else:
        z_points  = MyVae.encoder.predict(example_images)

    # Reconstruct the images - note that this results in an array of images  
    reconst_images = MyVae.decoder.predict(z_points)

    # save images in a list 
    l_img_orig_rows.append(example_images)
    l_img_reco_rows.append(reconst_images)

end_time = time.perf_counter()
cpu_time = end_time - start_time

# Reset the Encoder to prediction = epsilon * 1.00 
# MyVae.set_enc_to_train()

print()
print("n_epochs : ", n_epochs, ":: CPU-time to reconstr. imgs: ", cpu_time) 

We save the selected original images and the reconstructed images in Python lists.
We then display the original images in one row of a matrix and the reconstructed ones in a row below. We arrange 7 images per row.

Juypter Cell 16 – display original and reconstructed images in a matrix-like array

# Build an image mesh 
# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(16, 8))
fig.subplots_adjust(hspace=0.2, wspace=0.2)

n_rows = num_exmpls*2 # One more for the original 

for j in range(num_exmpls): 
    offset_orig = n_to_show * j * 2
    for i in range(n_to_show): 
        img = l_img_orig_rows[j][i].squeeze()
        ax = fig.add_subplot(n_rows, n_to_show, offset_orig + i+1)
        ax.axis('off')
        ax.imshow(img, cmap='gray_r')
    
    offset_reco = offset_orig + n_to_show
    for i in range(n_to_show): 
        img = l_img_reco_rows[j][i].squeeze()
        ax = fig.add_subplot(n_rows, n_to_show, offset_reco+i+1)
        ax.axis('off')
        ax.imshow(img, cmap='gray_r')

You will find that the reconstruction quality is rather limited – and not really convincing by any measures regarding details. Only the general shape of faces an their features are reproduced. But, actually, it is this lack of precision regarding details which helps us to create images from arbitrary z-points. I will discuss these points in more detail in a further post.

First results: Face images created from randomly distributed points in the latent space

The technique to display images can also be used to display images reconstructed from arbitrary points in the latent space. I will show you various results in another post.

For now just enjoy the creation of images derived from z-points defined by a normal distribution around the center of the latent space:

Most of these images look quite convincing and crispy down to details. The sharpness results from some photo-processing with PIL functions after the creation by the VAE. But who said that this is not allowed?

Conclusion

In this post I have presented Jupyter cells with code fragments which may help you to apply the VAE-classes created previously. With the VAE setup discussed above we control the KL-loss by a GradientTape() object.
Preliminary results show that the images created of arbitrarily chosen z-points really show heads with human-like faces and hair-dos. In contrast to what a simple AE would produce (see:
Autoencoders, latent space and the curse of high dimensionality – I

In the next post
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – XI – image creation by a VAE trained on CelebA
I will have a look at the distribution of z-points corresponding to the CelebA data and discuss the delicate balance between the representation of details and the generalization of features. With VAEs you cannot get both.

And let us all who praise freedom not forget:
The worst fascist, war criminal and killer living today is the Putler. He must be isolated at all levels, be denazified and sooner than later be imprisoned. Long live a free and democratic Ukraine!

 

Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VIII – TF 2 GradientTape(), KL loss and metrics

I continue with my series on options for an implementation of the Kullback-Leibler divergence as a loss [KL loss] contribution in Variational Autoencoder [VAE] models:

Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – I – some basics
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – II – an Autoencoder with binary-crossentropy loss
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – III – problems with the KL loss and eager execution
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – IV – simple rules to avoid problems with eager execution
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – V – a customized Encoder layer for the KL loss
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VI – KL loss via tensor transfer and multiple output
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VII – KL loss via model.add_loss()

Our objective is to avoid or circumvent potential problems with the eager execution mode of present Tensorflow 2 versions. I have already described three solutions based on standard Keras functionality:

  • Either we add loss contributions via the function layer.add_loss()and a special layer of the Encoder part of the VAE
  • or we add a loss to the output of a full VAE-model via function model.add_loss()
  • or we build a complex model which transports required KL-related tensors from the Encoder part of the VAE model to the Decoder’s output layer.

In all these cases we invoke native Keras functions to handle loss contributions and related operations. Keras controls the calculation of the gradient components of the KL related tensors “mu” and “log_var” in the background for us. This comprises partial derivatives with respect to trainable weight variables of lower Encoder layers and related operations. The same holds for partial derivatives of reconstruction tensors at the Decoder’s output layer with respect to trainable parameters of all layers of the VAE-model. Keras does most of the job

  • of derivative calculation and the registration of related operation sequences during forward pass
  • and the correct application of the registered operations and values in later weight corrections during backward propagation

for us in the background as long as we respect certain rules for eager mode execution.

But Tensorflow 2 [TF2] gives us a much more flexible and low-level option to control the calculation of gradients under the conditions of eager execution. This option requires that we inform the TF/Keras machinery which processes the training steps of an epoch of how to exactly calculate losses and their partial derivatives. Rules to determine and create metrics output must be provided in addition.

TF2 provides a context for registering operations for loss and derivative evaluations. This context is provided by a functional object called GradientTape(). In addition we have to write an encapsulating function “train_step()” to control gradient calculations and output during training.

In this post I will describe how we integrate such an approach with our class “MyVariationalAutoencoder()” for the setup of a VAE model based on convolutional layers. I have discussed the elements and methods of this class MyVariationalAutoencoder() in detail during the last posts.

Regarding the core of the technical solution for train_step() and GradientTape() I follow more or less the recommendations of one of the masters of Keras: F. Chollet. His original code for a TF2-compatible implementation of a VAE can be found here:
https://keras.io/examples/generative/vae/

However, in my opinion Chollet’s code contains a small problem, which I have allowed myself to correct.

The general recipe presented here can, of course, be extended to more complex tasks beyond the optimization of KL and reconstruction losses of VAEs. Therefore, a brief study of the methods to establish detailed loss control is really worth it for ML and VAE beginners. But TF2 and Keras experts will not learn anything new from this post.

I provide the pure code of the classes in this post. In the next post you will find Jupyter cell code for an application to the Celeb A dataset. To prove that the classes below do their job in the end I show you some faces which have been created from arbitrarily chosen points in the latent space after training.

These faces do not exist in reality. They are constructed by the VAE based on compressed and “normalized” data for face patterns and face attribute distributions in the latent space. Note that I used a latent space with a dimension of z_dim =200.

Layer setup by class MyVariationalAutoencoder()

We have already many of the required methods ready. In the last posts we used the flexible functional interface of Keras to set up Neural Network models for both Encoder and Decoder, each with sequences of (convolutional) layers. For our present purposes we will not change the elementary layer structure of the Encoder or Decoder. In particular the layers for the “mu” and “log_var” contributions to the KL loss and a subsequent sampling-layer of the Encoder will remain unchanged.

In the course of the last two posts I have already introduced a parameter “solution_type” to control specifics of our VAE model. We shall use it now to invoke a child class of Keras’ Model() which allows for detailed steps of loss and gradient evaluations.

A child class of keras.models.Model() for loss and gradient evaluation

The standard Keras method Model.fit() normally provides a convenient interface for Keras users. We do not have to think about calling the low-level functions at all if we do not want to or do not need to control gradient calculations in detail. In our present approach, however, we use the low level functionality of GradientTape() directly. This requires to overwrite a specific method of the standard Keras class Model() – namely the function “train_step()”.

If you have never worked with a self-defined training_step() and GradientTape() before then I recommend to read the following introductions first:
https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/autodiff
customizing what happens in fit() and the relation to training_step()
These articles contain valuable information about how to operate at low level with training_step() regarding losses, derivatives and metrics. This information will help to better understand the methods of a new class VAE() which I am going to derive from Keras’ class Model() below.

Let us first briefly repeat some imports required.

Imports

# Imports 
# ~~~~~~~~ 
import sys
import numpy as np
import os
import pickle

import tensorflow as tf
import tensorflow.keras as keras
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Layer, Input, Conv2D, Flatten, Dense, Conv2DTranspose, Reshape, Lambda, \
                                    Activation, BatchNormalization, ReLU, LeakyReLU, ELU, Dropout, AlphaDropout
from tensorflow.keras.models import Model
# to be consistent with my standard loading of the Keras backend in Jupyter notebooks:  
from tensorflow.keras import backend as B      
from tensorflow.keras import metrics
#from tensorflow.keras.backend import binary_crossentropy

from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import Adam
from tensorflow.keras.callbacks import ModelCheckpoint 
from tensorflow.keras.utils import plot_model

#from tensorflow.python.debug.lib.check_numerics_callback import _maybe_lookup_original_input_tensor

# Personal: The following works only if the path in the notebook is supplemented by the path to /projects/GIT/mlx
# The user has to organize his paths for modules to be referred to from Jupyter notebooks himself and 
# replace this settings  
from mynotebooks.my_AE_code.utils.callbacks import CustomCallback, VAE_CustomCallback, step_decay_schedule    
from keras.callbacks import ProgbarLogger

Now we define a class VAE() which inherits basic functionality from the Keras class Model() and overwrite the method train_step(). We shall later create an instance of this new class within an object of class MyVariationalAutoencoder().

New Class VAE

from tensorflow.keras import metrics
...
...
# A child class of Model() to control train_step with GradientTape() 
class VAE(keras.Model): 
    
    # We use our self defined __init__() to provide a reference MyVAE 
    # to an object of type "MyVariationalAutoencoder" 
    # This in turn allows us to address the Encoder and the Decoder  
    def __init__(self, MyVAE, **kwargs):
        super(VAE, self).__init__(**kwargs)
        self.MyVAE   = MyVAE 
        self.encoder = self.MyVAE.encoder
        self.decoder = self.MyVAE.decoder
        
        # A factor to control the ratio between the KL loss and the reconstruction loss 
        self.fact = MyVAE.fact
        
        # A counter 
        self.count = 0 
        
        # A factor to scale the absolute values of the losses 
        # e.g. by the number of pixels of an image
        self.scale_fact = 1.0  # no scaling
        # self.scale_fact = tf.constant(self.MyVAE.input_dim[0] * self.MyVAE.input_dim[1], dtype=tf.float32)
        self.f_scale    = 1. / self.scale_fact
        
        # loss type : 0: BCE, 1: MSE 
        self.loss_type = self.MyVAE.loss_type
        
        # track loss development via metrics 
        self.total_loss_tracker = keras.metrics.Mean(name="total_loss")
        self.reco_loss_tracker  = keras.metrics.Mean(name="reco_loss")
        self.kl_loss_tracker    = keras.metrics.Mean(name="kl_loss")

    def call(self, inputs):
        x, z_m, z_var = self.encoder(inputs)
        return self.decoder(x)  

    # Overwrite the metrics() of Model() - use getter mechanism  
    @property
    def metrics(self):
        return [
            self.total_loss_tracker,
            self.reco_loss_tracker,
            self.kl_loss_tracker
        ]

    # Core function to control all operations regarding eager differentiation operations, 
    # i.e. the calculation of loss terms with respect to tensors and differentiation variables 
    # and metrics data 
    def train_step(self, data):
        # We use the GradientTape context to record differntiation operations/results 
        #self.count += 1 
        
        with tf.GradientTape() as tape:
            z, z_mean, z_log_var = self.encoder(data)
            reconstruction = self.decoder(z)
            #reco_shape = tf.shape(self.reconstruction)
            #print("reco_shape = ", reco_shape, self.reconstruction.shape, data.shape)
            
            #BCE loss (Binary Cross Entropy) 
            if self.loss_type == 0: 
                reconstruction_loss = tf.reduce_mean(
                    tf.reduce_sum(
                        keras.losses.binary_crossentropy(data, reconstruction), axis=(1, 2)
                    )
                ) * self.f_scale
            
            # MSE loss (Mean Squared Error) 
            if self.loss_type == 1: 
                reconstruction_loss = tf.reduce_mean(
                    tf.reduce_sum(
                        keras.losses.mse(data, reconstruction), axis=(1, 2)
                    )
                ) * self.f_scale
            
            kl_loss = -0.5 * self.fact * (1 + z_log_var - tf.square(z_mean) - tf.exp(z_log_var))
            kl_loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.reduce_sum(kl_loss, axis=1))  
            total_loss = reconstruction_loss + kl_loss 
        
        grads = tape.gradient(total_loss, self.trainable_weights)
        self.optimizer.apply_gradients(zip(grads, self.trainable_weights))
        #if self.count == 1: 
            
        self.total_loss_tracker.update_state(total_loss)
        self.reco_loss_tracker.update_state(reconstruction_loss)
        self.kl_loss_tracker.update_state(kl_loss)
        return {
            "total_loss": self.total_loss_tracker.result(),
            "reco_loss": self.reco_loss_tracker.result(),
            "kl_loss": self.kl_loss_tracker.result(),
        }
        
    def compile_VAE(self, learning_rate):

        # Optimizer
        # ~~~~~~~~~ 
        optimizer = Adam(learning_rate=learning_rate)
        # save the learning rate for possible intermediate output to files 
        self.learning_rate = learning_rate
        self.compile(optimizer=optimizer)

Explanation of class VAE(): Details of the methods of the additional class

First, we need to import an additional library tensorflow.keras.metrics. Its functions, as e.g. Mean(), will help us to print out intermediate data about various loss contributions during training – averaged over the batches of an epoch.

Then, we have added four central methods to class VAE:

  • a function __init__(),
  • a function metrics() together with Python’s getter-mechanism
  • a function call()
  • and our central function training_step().

All functions overwrite the defaults of the parent class Model(). Be careful to distinguish the range of batches which keras.metrics() and training_step() operate on:

  • A “training step” covers just one batch eventually provided to the training mechanism by the Model.fit()-function.
  • Averaging performed by functions of keras.metrics instead works across all batches of an epoch.

Functions “__init__() ” and call() to instantiate a Model based on class VAE()

In general we can use the standard interface of __init__(inputs, outputs, …) or a call()-interface to instantiate an object of class-type Model(). See
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/ keras/ Model
https://docs.w3cub.com/tensorflow~python/ tf/ keras/ model.html

We have to be precise about the parameters of __init()__ or the call()-interface if we intend to use properties of the standard compile()– and fit()-interfaces of a model – at least in application cases where we do not control everything regarding losses and gradients ourselves.

To define a complete model for the general case we therefore add the call()-method. At the same time we “misuse” the __init__() function of VAE() to provide a reference to our instance of class “MyVariationalAutoencoder”. Actually, providing “call()” is done only for the sake of flexibility in other use cases than the one discussed here. For our present purposes we could actually omit call().

The __init__()-function retrieves some parameters from MyVAE. You see the factor “fact” which controls the ratio of the KL-loss to the reconstruction loss. In addition I provided an option to scale the loss values by a division by the number of pixels of input images. You just have to un-comment the respective statement. Sorry, I have not yet made it controllable by a parameter of MyVariationalAutoencoder().

Finally, the parameter loss_type is evaluated; for a value of “1” we take MSE as a loss function instead of the standard BCE (Binary Cross-Entropy); see the Jupyter cells in the next post. This allows for some more flexibility in dealing with certain datasets.

Function “metrics()” to produce loss values as output during training

With the function metrics() we are able to establish our own “tracking” of the evolution of the Model’s loss contributions during training. In our case we are particularly interested in the evolution of the “reconstruction loss” and the “KL-loss“.

Note that the @property decorator is added to the metrics()-function. This allows us to define its output via the getter-mechanism for Python classes. In our case the __init__()-function defines the mechanism to fill required variables:
The three “tracker”-variables there get their values from the function tensorflow.keras.metrics.Mean(). Note that the names given to the loss-trackers in __init__() are of importance for later output handling!

Note also that keras.metrics.Mean() calculates averages over values derived for all batches of an epoch. The tf.reduce_mean()-statements in the GradientTape() section of the code above, instead, refer to averages calculated over the samples of a single batch.

Actualized loss output is later delivered during each training step by the method update_state(). You find a description of the methods of keras.metrics.Mean() here.

The result of all this is that metrics() delivers loss values by actualized tracker-variables of our child class VAE(). Note that neither __init__() nor metrics() define what exactly is to be done to calculate each loss term. __init__() and metrics() only prepare the later output technically by formal class constructs. Note also that all the data defined by metrics() are updated and averaged per epoch without the requirement to call the function “reset_states()” (see the Keras docs). This is automatically done at the beginning of each epoch.

train_step() and GradientTape() to control losses and their gradients

Let us turn to the necessary calculations which must be performed during each training step. In an eager environment we must watch the trainable variables, on which the different loss terms depend, to be able to calculate the partial derivatives and record related operations and intermediate results already during forward pass:

We must track the differentiation operations and resulting values to know exactly what has to be done in reverse during error backward propagation. To be able to do this TF2 offers us a recording mechanism called GradientTape(). Its results are kept in an object which often is called a “tape”.

You find more information about these topics at
https://debuggercafe.com/basics-of-tensorflow-gradienttape/
https://runebook.dev/de/docs/ tensorflow/gradienttape

Within train_step() we need some tensors which are required for loss calculations in an explicit form. So, we must change the Keras model for the Encoder to give us the tensors for “mu” and “log_var” as its output.

This is no problem for us. We have already made the output of the Encoder dependent on a variable “solution_type” and discussed a multi-output Encoder model already in the post Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – VI – KL loss via tensor transfer and multiple output.

Therefore, we just have to add a new value 3 to the checks of “solution_type”. The same is true for the input control of the Decoder (see a section about the related methods of MyVariationalAutoencoder() below).

The statements within the section for GradientTape() deal with the calculation of loss terms and record the related operations. All the calculations should be be familiar from previous posts of this series.

This includes an identification of the trainable_weights of the involved layers. Quote from
https://keras.io/guides/ writing_a_training_loop_from_scratch/ #using-the-gradienttape-a-first-endtoend-example:

Calling a model inside a GradientTape scope enables you to retrieve the gradients of the trainable weights of the layer with respect to a loss value. Using an optimizer instance, you can use these gradients to update these variables (which you can retrieve using model.trainable_weights).

In train_step() we need to register that the total loss is dependent on all trainable weights and that all related partial derivatives have to be taken into account during optimization. This is done by

        grads = tape.gradient(total_loss, self.trainable_weights)
        self.optimizer.apply_gradients(zip(grads, self.trainable_weights))

To be able to get actualized output during training we update the state of all tracked variables:

        self.total_loss_tracker.update_state(total_loss)
        self.reco_loss_tracker.update_state(reco_loss)
        self.kl_loss_tracker.update_state(kl_loss)

A small problem with F. Chollet’s code

The careful reader may have noticed that my code of the function “train_step()” deviates from F. Chollet’s recommendations. Regarding the return statement I use

        return {
            "total_loss": self.total_loss_tracker.result(),
            "reco_loss": self.reco_loss_tracker.result(),
            "kl_loss": self.kl_loss_tracker.result(),
        }

whilst F. Chollet’s original code contains a statement like

        return {
            "loss": self.total_loss_tracker.result(),     # here lies the main difference - different "name" than defined in __init__!
            "reconstruction_loss": self.reconstruction_loss_tracker.result(),  # ignore my abbreviation to reco_loss 
            "kl_loss": self.kl_loss_tracker.result(),
        }

Chollet’s original code unfortunately gives inconsistent loss data: The sum of his “reconstruction loss” and the “KL (Kullback Leibler) loss” do not add up to the (total) “loss”. This can be seen from the data of the first epochs in F. Chollet’s example on the tutorial at
keras.io/examples/generative/vae.

Some of my own result data for the MNIST example with this error look like:

Epoch 1/5
469/469 [============================_build_dec==] - 7s 13ms/step - reconstruction_loss: 209.0115 - kl_loss: 3.4888 - loss: 258.9048
Epoch 2/5
469/469 [==============================] - 7s 14ms/step - reconstruction_loss: 173.7905 - kl_loss: 4.8220 - loss: 185.0963
Epoch 3/5
469/469 [==============================] - 6s 13ms/step - reconstruction_loss: 160.4016 - kl_loss: 5.7511 - loss: 167.3470
Epoch 4/5
469/469 [==============================] - 6s 13ms/step - reconstruction_loss: 155.5937 - kl_loss: 5.9947 - loss: 162.3994
Epoch 5/5
469/469 [==============================] - 6s 13ms/step - reconstruction_loss: 152.8330 - kl_loss: 6.1689 - loss: 159.5607

Things do get better from epoch to epoch – but we want a consistent output from the beginning: The averaged (total) loss should always be printed as equal to the sum of the averaged) KL loss plus the reconstruction loss.

The deviation is surprising as we seem to use the right tracker-results in the code. And the name used in the return statement of the train_step()-function here should only be relevant for the printing …

However, the name “loss” is NOT consistent with the name defined in the statement Mean(name=”total_loss”) in the __init__() function of Chollet, where he defines his tracking mechanisms.

self.total_loss_tracker = keras.metrics.Mean(name="total_loss")

This has consequences: The inconsistency triggers a different output than a consistent use of names. Just try it out on your own …

This is not only true for the deviation between “loss” in

return {
            "loss": self.total_loss_tracker.result(),
            ....
       }

and “total_loss” in the __init__) function

self.total_loss_tracker = keras.metrics.Mean(name="total_loss") , namely a value lacking averaging  -     

but also for deviations in the names used for the other loss contributions. In case of an inconsistency Keras seems to fall back to a default here which does not reflect the standard linear averaging of Mean() over all values calculated for the batches of an epoch (without any special weights).

That there is some common default mechanism working can be seen from the fact that wrong names for all individual losses (here the KL loss and the reconstruction loss) give us at least a consistent sum-value for the total amount again. But all the values derived by the fallback are much closer to the start values at an epochs begin than the mean values averaged over an epoch. You may test this yourself.

To get on the safe side we use the correct “names” defined in the __init__()-function of our code:

        return {
            "total_loss": self.total_loss_tracker.result(),
            "reco_loss": self.reco_loss_tracker.result(),
            "kl_loss": self.kl_loss_tracker.result(),
        }

For MNIST data fed into our VAE model we then get:

Epoch 1/5
469/469 [==============================] - 8s 13ms/step - reco_loss: 214.5662 - kl_loss: 2.6004 - total_loss: 217.1666
Epoch 2/5
469/469 [==============================] - 7s 14ms/step - reco_loss: 186.4745 - kl_loss: 3.2799 - total_loss: 189.7544
Epoch 3/5
469/469 [==============================] - 6s 13ms/step - reco_loss: 181.9590 - kl_loss: 3.4186 - total_loss: 185.3774
Epoch 4/5
469/469 [==============================] - 6s 13ms/step - reco_loss: 177.5216 - kl_loss: 3.9433 - total_loss: 181.4649
Epoch 5/5
469/469 [==============================] - 6s 13ms/step - reco_loss: 163.7209 - kl_loss: 5.5816 - total_loss: 169.3026

This is exactly what we want.

A general recipe to use train_step()

So, the general recipe is:

  • Define what metric properties you are interested in. Create respective tracker-variables in the __init__() function.
  • Use the getter mechanism to define your metrics() function and its output via references to the trackers.
  • Define your own training step by a function train_step().
  • Use Tensorflow’s GradientTape context to register statements which control the calculation of loss contributions from elementary tensors of your (functional) Keras model. Provide all layers there, e.g. by references to their models.
  • Register gradient-operations of the total loss with respect to all trainable weights and updates of metrics data within function “train_step()”.

Actually, I have used the GradientTape() mechanism already in this blog when I played a bit with approaches to create so called DeepDream images. See
https://linux-blog.anracom.com/category/machine-learning/deep-dream/
for more information – there in a different context.

How to combine the classes “VAE()” and “MyVariationalAutoencoder()” ?

Where do we stand? We have defined a new class “VAE()” which modifies the original Keras Model() class. And we have our class “MyVariationalAutoencoder()” to control the setup of a VAE model.

Next we need to address the question of how we combine these two classes. If you have read my previous posts you may expect a major change to the method “_build_VAE()“. This is correct, but we also have to modify the conditions for the Encoder output construction in _build_enc() and the definition of the Decoder’s input in _build_dec(). Therefore I give you the modified code for these functions. For reasons of completeness I add the code for the __init__()-function:

Function __init__()

    def __init__(self
        , input_dim                  # the shape of the input tensors (for MNIST (28,28,1)) 
        , encoder_conv_filters       # number of maps of the different Conv2D layers   
        , encoder_conv_kernel_size   # kernel sizes of the Conv2D layers 
        , encoder_conv_strides       # strides - here also used to reduce spatial resolution avoid pooling layers 
                                     # used instead of Pooling layers 
        , encoder_conv_padding       # padding - valid or same  
        
        , decoder_conv_t_filters     # number of maps in Con2DTranspose layers 
        , decoder_conv_t_kernel_size # kernel sizes of Conv2D Transpose layers  
        , decoder_conv_t_strides     # strides for Conv2dTranspose layers - inverts spatial resolution
        , decoder_conv_t_padding     # padding - valid or same  
        
        , z_dim                      # A good start is 16 or 24  
        , solution_type  = 0         # Which type of solution for the KL loss calculation ?
        , act            = 0         # Which type of activation function?  
        , fact           = 0.65e-4   # Factor for the KL loss (0.5e-4 < fact < 1.e-3is reasonable) 
        , loss_type      = 0         # 0: BCE, 1: MSE   
        , use_batch_norm = False     # Shall BatchNormalization be used after Conv2D layers? 
        , use_dropout    = False     # Shall statistical dropout layers be used for tregularization purposes ? 
        , dropout_rate   = 0.25      # Rate for statistical dropout layer  
        , b_build_all    = False     # Added by RMO - full Model is build in 2 steps 
        ):
        
        '''
        Input: 
        The encoder_... and decoder_.... variables are Python lists,
        whose length defines the number of Conv2D and Conv2DTranspose layers 
        
        input_dim : Shape/dimensions of the input tensor - for MNIST (28,28,1) 
        encoder_conv_filters:     List with the number of maps/filters per Conv2D layer    
        encoder_conv_kernel_size: List with the kernel sizes for the Conv-Layers   
        encoder_conv_strides:     List with the strides used for the Conv-Layers   

        z_dim : dimension of the "latent_space"
        solution_type : Type of solution for KL loss calculation (0: Customized Encoder layer, 
                                                                  1: transfer of mu, var_log to Decoder 
                                                                  2: model.add_loss()
                                                                  3: definition of training step with Gradient.Tape()
        
        act :  determines activation function to use (0: LeakyRELU, 1:RELU , 2: SELU)
               !!!! NOTE: !!!!
               If SELU is used then the weight kernel initialization and the dropout layer need to be special   
               https://github.com/christianversloot/machine-learning-articles/blob/main/using-selu-with-tensorflow-and-keras.md
               AlphaDropout instead of Dropout + LeCunNormal for kernel initializer
        fact = 0.65e-4 : Factor to scale the KL loss relative to the reconstruction loss
                         Must be adapted to the way of calculation - 
                         e.g. for solution_type == 3 the loss is not averaged over all pixels 
                         => at least factor of around 1000 bigger than normally 
        loss-type = 0:   Defines the way we calculate a reconstruction loss 
                         0: Binary Cross Entropy - recommended by many authors 
                         1: Mean Square error - recommended by some authors especially for "face arithmetics"
        use_batch_norm = False   # True : We use BatchNormalization   
        use_dropout    = False   # True : We use dropout layers (rate = 0.25, see Encoder)
        b_build_all    = False   # True : Full VAE Model is build in 1 step; 
                                   False: Encoder, Decoder, VAE are build in separate steps   
        '''
        
        self.name = 'variational_autoencoder'

        # Parameters for Layers which define the Encoder and Decoder 
        self.input_dim                  = input_dim
        self.encoder_conv_filters       = encoder_conv_filters
        self.encoder_conv_kernel_size   = encoder_conv_kernel_size
        self.encoder_conv_strides       = encoder_conv_strides
        self.encoder_conv_padding       = encoder_conv_padding
        
        self.decoder_conv_t_filters     = decoder_conv_t_filters
        self.decoder_conv_t_kernel_size = decoder_conv_t_kernel_size
        self.decoder_conv_t_strides     = decoder_conv_t_strides
        self.decoder_conv_t_padding     = decoder_conv_t_padding
        
        self.z_dim = z_dim

        # Check param for activation function 
        if act < 0 or act > 2: 
            print("Range error: Parameter act = " + str(act) + " has unknown value ")  
            sys.exit()
        else:
            self.act = act 
        
        # Factor to scale the KL loss relative to the Binary Cross Entropy loss 
        self.fact = fact 
        
        # Type of loss - 0: BCE, 1: MSE 
        self.loss_type = loss_type
        
        
        # Check param for solution approach  
        if solution_type < 0 or solution_type > 3: 
            print("Range error: Parameter solution_type = " + str(solution_type) + " has unknown value ")  
            sys.exit()
        else:
            self.solution_type = solution_type 

        self.use_batch_norm = use_batch_norm
        self.use_dropout    = use_dropout
        self.dropout_rate   = dropout_rate

        # Preparation of some variables to be filled later 
        self._encoder_input  = None  # receives the Keras object for the Input Layer of the Encoder 
        self._encoder_output = None  # receives the Keras object for the Output Layer of the Encoder 
        self.shape_before_flattening = None # info of the Encoder => is used by Decoder 
        self._decoder_input  = None  # receives the Keras object for the Input Layer of the Decoder
        self._decoder_output = None  # receives the Keras object for the Output Layer of the Decoder

        # Layers / tensors for KL loss 
        self.mu      = None # receives special Dense Layer's tensor for KL-loss 
        self.log_var = None # receives special Dense Layer's tensor for KL-loss 

        # Parameters for SELU - just in case we may need to use it somewhere 
        # https://keras.io/api/layers/activations/ see selu
        self.selu_scale = 1.05070098
        self.selu_alpha = 1.67326324

        # The number of Conv2D and Conv2DTranspose layers for the Encoder / Decoder 
        self.n_layers_encoder = len(encoder_conv_filters)
        self.n_layers_decoder = len(decoder_conv_t_filters)

        self.num_epoch = 0 # Intialization of the number of epochs 

        # A matrix for the values of the losses 
        self.std_loss  = tf.TensorArray(tf.float32, size=0, dynamic_size=True, clear_after_read=False)

        # We only build the whole AE-model if requested
        self.b_build_all = b_build_all
        if b_build_all:
            self._build_all()


Changes to the Encoder and Decoder code

We just need to set the right options for the output tensors of the Encoder and the input tensors of the Decoder. The relevant code parts are controlled by the parameter “solution_type”.

Modified code of _build_enc() of class MyVariationalAutoencoder

    def _build_enc(self, solution_type = -1, fact=-1.0):
        '''  Your documentation '''
        # Checking whether "fact" and "solution_type" for the KL loss shall be overwritten
        if fact < 0:
            fact = self.fact  
        if solution_type < 0:
            solution_type = self.solution_type
        else: 
            self.solution_type = solution_type
        
        # Preparation: We later need a function to calculate the z-points in the latent space 
        # The following function wiChangedll be used by an eventual Lambda layer of the Encoder 
        def z_point_sampling(args):
            '''
            A point in the latent space is calculated statistically 
            around an optimized mu for each sample 
            '''
            mu, log_var = args # Note: These are 1D tensors !
            epsilon = B.random_normal(shape=B.shape(mu), mean=0., stddev=1.)
            return mu + B.exp(log_var / 2) * epsilon

        
        # Input "layer"
        self._encoder_input = Input(shape=self.input_dim, name='encoder_input')

        # Initialization of a running variable x for individual layers 
        x = self._encoder_input

        # Build the CNN-part with Conv2D layers 
        # Note that stride>=2 reduces spatial resolution without the help of pooling layers 
        for i in range(self.n_layers_encoder):
            conv_layer = Conv2D(
                filters = self.encoder_conv_filters[i]
                , kernel_size = self.encoder_conv_kernel_size[i]
                , strides = self.encoder_conv_strides[i]
                , padding = 'same'  # Important ! Controls the shape of the layer tensors.    
                , name = 'encoder_conv_' + str(i)
                )
            x = conv_layer(x)
            
            # The "normalization" should be done ahead of the "activation" 
            if self.use_batch_norm:
                x = BatchNormalization()(x)

            # Selection of activation function (out of 3)      
            if self.act == 0:
                x = LeakyReLU()(x)
            elif self.act == 1:
                x = ReLU()(x)
            elif self.act == 2: 
                # RMO: Just use the Activation layer to use SELU with predefined (!) parameters 
                x = Activation('selu')(x) 

            # Fulfill some SELU requirements 
            if self.use_dropout:
                if self.act == 2: 
                    x = AlphaDropout(rate = 0.25)(x)
                else:
                    x = Dropout(rate = 0.25)(x)

        # Last multi-dim tensor shape - is later needed by the decoder 
        self._shape_before_flattening = B.int_shape(x)[1:]

        # Flattened layer before calculating VAE-output (z-points) via 2 special layers 
        x = Flatten()(x)
        
        # "Variational" part - create 2 Dense layers for a statistical distribution of z-points  
        self.mu      = Dense(self.z_dim, name='mu')(x)
        self.log_var = Dense(self.z_dim, name='log_var')(x)

        if solution_type == 0: 
            # Customized layer for the calculation of the KL loss based on mu, var_log data
            # We use a customized layer according to a class definition  
            self.mu, self.log_var = My_KL_Layer()([self.mu, self.log_var], fact=fact)


        # Layer to provide a z_point in the Latent Space for each sample of the batch 
        self._encoder_output = Lambda(z_point_sampling, name='encoder_output')([self.mu, self.log_var])

        # The Encoder Model 
        # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        # With extra KL layer or with vae.add_loss()
        if self.solution_type == 0 or self.solution_type == 2: 
            self.encoder = Model(self._encoder_input, self._encoder_output, name="encoder")
        
        # Transfer solution => Multiple outputs 
        if self.solution_type == 1  or self.solution_type == 3: 
            self.encoder = Model(inputs=self._encoder_input, outputs=[self._encoder_output, self.mu, self.log_var], name="encoder")

The difference is the dependency of the output on “solution_type 3”. For the Decoder we have:

Modified code of _build_enc() of class MyVariationalAutoencoder

    def _build_dec(self):
        ''' Your documentation       '''       
 
        # Input layer - aligned to the shape of z-points in the latent space = output[0] of the Encoder 
        self._decoder_inp_z = Input(shape=(self.z_dim,), name='decoder_input')
        
        # Additional Input layers for the KL tensors (mu, log_var) from the Encoder
        if self.solution_type == 1  or self.solution_type == 3: 
            self._dec_inp_mu       = Input(shape=(self.z_dim), name='mu_input')
            self._dec_inp_var_log  = Input(shape=(self.z_dim), name='logvar_input')
            
            # We give the layers later used as output a name 
            # Each of the Activation layers below just correspond to an identity passed through 
            #self._dec_mu            = self._dec_inp_mu 
            #self._dec_var_log       = self._dec_inp_var_log 
            self._dec_mu            = Activation('linear',name='dc_mu')(self._dec_inp_mu) 
            self._dec_var_log       = Activation('linear', name='dc_var')(self._dec_inp_var_log) 

        # Here we use the tensor shape info from the Encoder          
        x = Dense(np.prod(self._shape_before_flattening))(self._decoder_inp_z)
        x = Reshape(self._shape_before_flattening)(x)

        # The inverse CNN
        for i in range(self.n_layers_decoder):
            conv_t_layer = Conv2DTranspose(
                filters = self.decoder_conv_t_filters[i]
                , kernel_size = self.decoder_conv_t_kernel_size[i]
                , strides = self.decoder_conv_t_strides[i]
                , padding = 'same' # Important ! Controls the shape of tensors during reconstruction
                                   # we want an image with the same resolution as the original input 
                , name = 'decoder_conv_t_' + str(i)
                )
            x = conv_t_layer(x)

            # Normalization and Activation 
            if i < self.n_layers_decoder - 1:
                # Also in the decoder: normalization before activation  
                if self.use_batch_norm:
                    x = BatchNormalization()(x)
                
                # Choice of activation function
                if self.act == 0:
                    x = LeakyReLU()(x)
                elif self.act == 1:
                    x = ReLU()(x)
                elif self.act == 2: 
                    #x = self.selu_scale * ELU(alpha=self.selu_alpha)(x)
                    x = Activation('selu')(x)
                
                # Adaptions to SELU requirements 
                if self.use_dropout:
                    if self.act == 2: 
                        x = AlphaDropout(rate = 0.25)(x)
                    else:
                        x = Dropout(rate = 0.25)(x)
                
            # Last layer => Sigmoid output 
            # => This requires s<pre style="padding:8px; height: 400px; overflow:auto;">caled input => Division of pixel values by 255
            else:
                x = Activation('sigmoid', name='dc_reco')(x)

        # Output tensor => a scaled image 
        self._decoder_output = x

        # The Decoder model 
        # solution_type == 0/2/3: Just the decoded input 
        if self.solution_type == 0 or self.solution_type == 2 or self.solution_type == 3: 
            self.decoder = Model(self._decoder_inp_z, self._decoder_output, name="decoder")
        
        # solution_type == 1: The decoded tensor plus the transferred tensors mu and log_var a for the variational distribution 
        if self.solution_type == 1: 
            self.decoder = Model([self._decoder_inp_z, self._dec_inp_mu, self._dec_inp_var_log], 
                                 [self._decoder_output, self._dec_mu, self._dec_var_log], name="decoder")

Changes to the methods _build_VAE for building the VAE model

Our VAE model now is set up with the help of the __init__() method of our new class VAE. We just have to supplement the object created by MyVariationalAutoencoder.

Modified code of _build_VAE() of class MyVariationalAutoencoder

    def _build_VAE(self):     
        ''' Your documentation '''
        
        # Solution with train_step() and GradientTape(): Control is transferred to class VAE  
        if self.solution_type == 3:
            self.model = VAE(self)   # Here parameter "self" provides a reference to an instance of MyVariationalAutoencoder  
            self.model.summary()
        
        # Solutions with layer.add_loss or model.add_loss() 
        if self.solution_type == 0 or self.solution_type == 2:
            model_input  = self._encoder_input
            model_output = self.decoder(self._encoder_output)
            self.model = Model(model_input, model_output, name="vae")

        # Solution with transfer of data from the Encoder to the Decoder output layer
        if self.solution_type == 1: 
            enc_out      = self.encoder(self._encoder_input)
            dc_reco, dc_mu, dc_var = self.decoder(enc_out)
            # We organize the output and later association of cost functions and metrics via a dictionary 
            mod_outputs = {'vae_out_main': dc_reco, 'vae_out_mu': dc_mu, 'vae_out_var': dc_var}
            self.model = Model(inputs=self._encoder_input, outputs=mod_outputs, name="vae")

Note that we keep the resulting model within the object for class MyVariationalAutoencoder. See the Jupyter cells in my next post.

Changes to the method compile_myVAE()

The modification of the function compile_myVAE is simple

    def compile_myVAE(self, learning_rate):

        # Optimizer
        # ~~~~~~~~~ 
        optimizer = Adam(learning_rate=learning_rate)
        # save the learning rate for possible intermediate output to files 
        self.learning_rate = learning_rate
        
        # Parameter "fact" will be used by the cost functions defined below to scale the KL loss relative to the BCE loss 
        fact = self.fact
        
        # Function for solution_type == 1
        # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
        @tf.function
        def mu_loss(y_true, y_pred):
            loss_mux = fact * tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(y_pred))
            return loss_mux
        
        @tf.function
        def logvar_loss(y_true, y_pred):
            loss_varx = -fact * tf.reduce_mean(1 + y_pred - tf.exp(y_pred))    
            return loss_varx

        # Function for solution_type == 2 
        # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        # We follow an approach described at  
        # https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/keras/layers/Layer
        # NOTE: We can NOT use @tf.function here 
        def get_kl_loss(mu, log_var):
            kl_loss = -fact * tf.reduce_mean(1 + log_var - tf.square(mu) - tf.exp(log_var))
            return kl_loss


        # Required operations for solution_type==2 => model.add_loss()
        # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        res_kl = get_kl_loss(mu=self.mu, log_var=self.log_var)

        if self.solution_type == 2: 
            self.model.add_loss(res_kl)    
            self.model.add_metric(res_kl, name='kl', aggregation='mean')
        
        # Model compilation 
        # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        
        # Solutions with layer.add_loss or model.add_loss() 
        if self.solution_type == 0 or self.solution_type == 2: 
            if self.loss_type == 0: 
                self.model.compile(optimizer=optimizer, loss="binary_crossentropy",
                                   metrics=[tf.keras.metrics.BinaryCrossentropy(name='bce')])
            if self.loss_type == 1: 
                self.model.compile(optimizer=optimizer, loss="mse",
                                   metrics=[tf.keras.metrics.MSE(name='mse')])
        
        # Solution with transfer of data from the Encoder to the Decoder output layer
        if self.solution_type == 1: 
            if self.loss_type == 0: 
                self.model.compile(optimizer=optimizer
                                   , loss={'vae_out_main':'binary_crossentropy', 'vae_out_mu':mu_loss, 'vae_out_var':logvar_loss} 
                                   #, metrics={'vae_out_main':tf.keras.metrics.BinaryCrossentropy(name='bce'), 'vae_out_mu':mu_loss, 'vae_out_var': logvar_loss }
                                   )
            if self.loss_type == 1: 
                self.model.compile(optimizer=optimizer
                                   , loss={'vae_out_main':'mse', 'vae_out_mu':mu_loss, 'vae_out_var':logvar_loss} 
                                   #, metrics={'vae_out_main':tf.keras.metrics.MSE(name='mse'), 'vae_out_mu':mu_loss, 'vae_out_var': logvar_loss }
                                   )
       
        # Solution with train_step() and GradientTape(): Control is transferred to class VAE  
        if self.solution_type == 3:
            self.model.compile(optimizer=optimizer)

Note the adaptions to the new parameter “loss_type” which we have added to the __init__()-function!

Changes to the method train_myVAE() – inclusion of a dataflow “generator

It gets a bit more complicated for the function “train_myVAE()”. The reason is that we use the opportunity to include the output of so called generators which create limited batches on the fly from disc or memory.

Such a generator is very useful if you have to handle datasets which you cannot get into the VRAM of your video card. A typical case might be the Celeb A dataset for older graphics cards as mine.

In such a case we provide a dataflow to the function. The batches in this data flow are continuously created as needed and handed over to Tensorflows data processing on the graphics card. So, “x_train” as an input variable must not be taken literally in this case! It is replaced by the generator’s dataflow then. See the code for the Jupyter cells in the next post.

In addition we prepare for cases where we have to provide target data to compare the input data “x_train” to which deviate from each other. Typical cases are the application of AEs/VAEs for denoising or recolorization.

    # Function to initiate training 
    # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    def train_myVAE(self, x_train, x_target=None
                    , b_use_generator   = False 
                    , b_target_ne_train = False
                    , batch_size = 32
                    , epochs = 2
                    , initial_epoch = 0, 
                    t_mu=None, 
                    t_logvar=None 
                    ):

        ''' 
        @note: Sometimes x_target MUST be provided - e.g. for Denoising, Recolorization 
        @note: x_train will come as a dataflow in case of a generator 
        '''

        # cax = ProgbarLogger(count_mode='samples', stateful_metrics=None)
        
        class MyPrinterCallback(tf.keras.callbacks.Callback):
            # def on_train_batch_begin(self, batch, logs=None):
            #     # Do something on begin of training batch
        
            def on_epoch_end(self, epoch, logs=None):
                # Get overview over available keys 
                #keys = list(logs.keys())
                print("\nEPOCH: {}, Total Loss: {:8.6f}, // reco loss: {:8.6f}, mu Loss: {:8.6f}, logvar loss: {:8.6f}".format(epoch, 
                      logs['loss'], logs['decoder_loss'], logs['decoder_1_loss'], logs['decoder_2_loss'] 
                                            ))
                print()
                #print('EPOCH: {}, Total Loss: {}'.format(epoch, logs['loss']))
                #print('EPOCH: {}, metrics: {}'.format(epoch, logs['metrics']))
        
            def on_epoch_begin(self, epoch, logs=None):
                print('-'*50)
                print('STARTING EPOCH: {}'.format(epoch))
                
        if not b_target_ne_train : 
            x_target = x_train

        # Data are provided from tensors in the Video RAM 
        if not b_use_generator: 

            # Solutions with layer.add_loss or model.add_loss() 
            # Solution with train_step() and GradientTape(): Control is transferred to class VAE  
            if self.solution_type == 0 or self.solution_type == 2 or self.solution_type == 3: 
                self.model.fit(     
                    x_train
                    , x_target
                    , batch_size = batch_size
                    , shuffle = True
                    , epochs = epochs
                    , initial_epoch = initial_epoch
                )
            
            # Solution with transfer of data from the Encoder to the Decoder output layer
            if self.solution_type == 1: 
                self.model.fit(     
                    x_train
                    , {'vae_out_main': x_target, 'vae_out_mu': t_mu, 'vae_out_var':t_logvar}
    #               also working  
    #                , [x_train, t_mu, t_logvar] # we provide some dummy tensors here  
                    , batch_size = batch_size
                    , shuffle = True
                    , epochs = epochs
                    , initial_epoch = initial_epoch
                    #, verbose=1
                    , callbacks=[MyPrinterCallback()]
                )
    
        # If data are provided as a batched dataflow from a generator - e.g. for Celeb A 
        else: 

            # Solution with transfer of data from the Encoder to the Decoder output layer
            if self.solution_type == 1: 
                print("We have no solution yet for solution_type==1 and generators !")
                sys.exit()

            # Solutions with layer.add_loss or model.add_loss() 
            # Solution with train_step() and GradientTape(): Control is transferred to class VAE  
            if self.solution_type == 0 or self.solution_type == 2 or self.solution_type == 3: 
                self.model.fit(     
                    x_train   # coming as a batched dataflow from the outside generator - no batch size required here 
                    , shuffle = True
                    , epochs = epochs
                    , initial_epoch = initial_epoch
                )

As I have not tested a solution for solution_type==1 and generators, yet, I leave the writing of a working code to the reader. Sorry, I did not find the time for experiments. Presently, I use generators only in combination with the add_loss() based solutions and the solution based on train_step() and GradientTape().

Note also that if we use generators they must take care for a flow of target data to. As said: You must not take “x_train” literally in the case of generators. It is more of a continuously created “dataflow” of batches then – both for the training’s input and target data.

Conclusion

In this post I have outlined how we can use the methods train_step() and the tape-context of Tensorflows GradientTape() to control loss contributions and their gradients. Though done for the specific case of the KL-loss of a VAE the general approach should have become clear.

I have added a new class to create a Keras model from a pre-constructed Encoder and Decoder. For convenience reasons we still create the layer structure with our old class “MyVariationalAutoencoder(). But we switch control then to a new instance of a class representing a child class of Keras’ Model. This class uses customized versions of train_step() and GradientTape().

I have added some more flexibility in addition: We can now include a dataflow generator for input data (as images) which do not fit into the VRAM (Video RAM) of our graphics card but into the PC’s standard RAM. We can also switch to MSE for reconstruction losses instead of BCE.

The task of the KL-loss is to compress the data distribution in the latent space and normalize the distribution around certain feature centers there. In the next post
Variational Autoencoder with Tensorflow 2.8 – IX – taming Celeb A by resizing the images and using a generator
we apply this to images of faces. We shall use the “Celeb A” dataset for this purpose. We are going to see that the scaling factor of the KL loss in this case has to be chosen rather big in comparison to simple cases like MNIST. We will also see that chosing a high dimension of the latent space does not really help to create a reasonable face from statistically chosen points in the latent space.

And before I forget it:
Ceterum Censeo: The worst living fascist and war criminal living today is the Putler. He must be isolated at all levels, be denazified and imprisoned. Long live a free and democratic Ukraine!