Mercurial > pylearn
view doc/v2_planning/dataset.txt @ 1049:ff9361e39c97
remark on fiding tools
author | Dumitru Erhan <dumitru.erhan@gmail.com> |
---|---|
date | Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:24:28 -0400 |
parents | 1b61cbe0810b |
children | a474fabd1f37 |
line wrap: on
line source
Discussion of Function Specification for Dataset Types ====================================================== Some talking points from the September 2 meeting: * Datasets as views/tasks (Pascal Vincent's idea): our dataset specification needs to be flexible enough to accommodate different (sub)tasks and views of the same underlying data. * Datasets as probability distributions from which one can sample. * That's not something I would consider to be a dataset-related problem to tackle now: a probability distribution in Pylearn would probably be a different kind of beast, and it should be easy enough to have a DatasetToDistribution class for instance, that would take care of viewing a dataset as a probability distribution. -- OD * Our specification should allow transparent handling of infinite datasets (or simply datasets which cannot fit in memory) * GPU/buffering issues. Commiteee: DE, OB, OD, AB, PV Leader: DE Some ideas from existing ML libraries: - PyML: notion of dataset containers: VectorDataSet, SparseDataSet, KernelData, PairDataSet, Aggregate. Ultimately, the learner decides - mlpy: very primitive notions of data - (still going through the other ones) A few things that our dataset containers should support at a minimum: - streams, possibly infinite - task/views of the data for different problems - indexing & slicing - pairs or triples or etc of examples - a 'distance/gram matrix' container (imagine that the data is given to you as a distance matrix) - multi-dimensional time-series (again, maybe with pairs/triples, maybe given to you as a distance matrix over time) Another question to consider is the following: how tight should it integrate with Theano? Do we want to be able to store data as shared variables or just have an option for that? Theano + GPU constrains things that we can do (in terms of sizes, buffering, etc): these are things we need to think about, but it's not clear whether we should aim for building them into the interface. Task views of the data for different problems: How can we achieve this? Should we simply have a set of standard dataset descriptors ('classification', 'regression', 'multi-label', 'density_estimation') and have a set_view method that changes the current dataset view type? There is then the question of how to approach the design of a Dataset class from an OOP perspective. So far, my (Dumi's) idea is to have an almost 'abstract class' Dataset that doesn't implement any methods except a few setters/getters. The reason to have the methods listed that way is to have a common 'specification', but classes that inherit from Dataset need not implement every single method (only the ones that are relevant) and can obviously implement other methods as appropriate. The reason to have a common specification (as abstract as it might be) is to, well, have a common specification that would make our code clearer and cleaner. An example of what I (Dumi) am thinking in terms of concrete API: class Dataset: def __init__(self): self.type = None self.in_memory = None self.inputs = None # list of filepaths, or objects in memory, or... self.outputs = None def get_example(self,example_index): raise NotImplementedError() def get_next_example(self): raise NotImplementedError() def get_batch(self,batch_index): raise NotImplementedError() def get_next_batch(self): raise NotImplementedError() def get_slice(self,slice_object): raise NotImplementedError() def set_view(self,view_type): self.view_type = view_type self.n_classes = None def set_n_classes(self,n_classes): self.n_classes = n_classes def set_batch_size(self,batch_size): self.batch_size = batch_size You will note that there is no notion of train/valid/test in this class: I think we should just have a train dataset, a valid one and a test one instead or (if it's in one big file or infinite stream) just handle the split ourselves (via slicing, for instance). I (Dumi) am of the opinion that it keeps things cleaner, but the specification does not preclude more fine-grained 'splitting' of the data. A concrete implementation would look like this (we would have one class per dataset that we use, and the class declaration contains essentially everything there is to know about the dataset): class MNIST(Dataset): def __init__(self,inputs=['train_x.npy'],outputs=['train_y.npy']): self.type='standard_xy' self.in_memory = True self.inputs = inputs # load them or create self.outputs = outputs self.set_view('classification') self.set_n_classes(10) self.set_batch_size(20) self.n_batches = self._compute_n_batches() def get_batch(self,batch_index): x,y = self._fetch_batch(batch_index) if self.view_type == 'classification': return x,numpy.int32(y) elif self.view_type == 'density_estimation': return x else: raise NotImplementedError() def shared_data(self): shared_x = theano.shared(numpy.asarray(self.inputs, dtype=theano.config.floatX)) shared_y = theano.shared(numpy.asarray(self.outputs, dtype=theano.config.floatX)) return shared_x, T.cast(shared_y, 'int32') def _compute_n_batches(self): pass def _fetch_batch(self,batch_index): pass But nothing stops you from defining get_train_batch, get_valid_batch and stuff like that! So we'd use it as: train_mnist = MNIST(inputs = ['train_x.npy'], outputs = ['train_y.npy']) valid_mnist = MNIST(inputs = ['valid_x.npy'], outputs = ['valid_y.npy']) x,y = train_mnist.get_batch(0) train_mnist.set_view('density_estimation') x = train_mnist.get_batch(0) or mnist_data = MNIST(inputs = ['x.npy'], outputs = ['y.npy']) batches_train = range(int(mnist_data.n_batches*0.8)) batches_valid = range(int(mnist_data.n_batches*0.8),mnist_data.n_batches) xt,yt = mnist_data.get_batch(batches_train[0]) xv,yv = mnist_data.get_batch(batches_valid[0])