As of at present, deep studying’s best successes have taken place within the realm of supervised studying, requiring tons and many annotated coaching information. Nonetheless, information doesn’t (usually) include annotations or labels. Additionally, *unsupervised studying* is enticing due to the analogy to human cognition.

On this weblog to this point, we have now seen two main architectures for unsupervised studying: variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks. Lesser recognized, however interesting for conceptual in addition to for efficiency causes are *normalizing flows* (Jimenez Rezende and Mohamed 2015). On this and the subsequent submit, we’ll introduce flows, specializing in easy methods to implement them utilizing *TensorFlow Likelihood* (TFP).

In distinction to earlier posts involving TFP that accessed its performance utilizing low-level `$`

-syntax, we now make use of tfprobability, an R wrapper within the type of `keras`

, `tensorflow`

and `tfdatasets`

. A be aware concerning this bundle: It’s nonetheless beneath heavy improvement and the API could change. As of this writing, wrappers don’t but exist for all TFP modules, however all TFP performance is accessible utilizing `$`

-syntax if want be.

## Density estimation and sampling

Again to unsupervised studying, and particularly considering of variational autoencoders, what are the principle issues they offer us? One factor that’s seldom lacking from papers on generative strategies are footage of super-real-looking faces (or mattress rooms, or animals …). So evidently *sampling* (or: era) is a crucial half. If we will pattern from a mannequin and acquire real-seeming entities, this implies the mannequin has discovered one thing about how issues are distributed on the planet: it has discovered a *distribution*.

Within the case of variational autoencoders, there may be extra: The entities are speculated to be decided by a set of distinct, disentangled (hopefully!) latent components. However this isn’t the idea within the case of normalizing flows, so we’re not going to elaborate on this right here.

As a recap, how can we pattern from a VAE? We draw from (z), the latent variable, and run the decoder community on it. The consequence ought to – we hope – seem like it comes from the empirical information distribution. It shouldn’t, nonetheless, look *precisely* like every of the gadgets used to coach the VAE, or else we have now not discovered something helpful.

The second factor we could get from a VAE is an evaluation of the plausibility of particular person information, for use, for instance, in anomaly detection. Right here “plausibility” is obscure on goal: With VAE, we don’t have a way to compute an precise density beneath the posterior.

What if we wish, or want, each: era of samples in addition to density estimation? That is the place *normalizing flows* are available in.

## Normalizing flows

A *circulation* is a sequence of differentiable, invertible mappings from information to a “good” distribution, one thing we will simply pattern from and use to calculate a density. Let’s take as instance the canonical method to generate samples from some distribution, the exponential, say.

We begin by asking our random quantity generator for some quantity between 0 and 1:

This quantity we deal with as coming from a *cumulative chance distribution* (CDF) – from an *exponential* CDF, to be exact. Now that we have now a worth from the CDF, all we have to do is map that “again” to a worth. That mapping `CDF -> worth`

we’re searching for is simply the inverse of the CDF of an exponential distribution, the CDF being

[F(x) = 1 – e^{-lambda x}]

The inverse then is

[

F^{-1}(u) = -frac{1}{lambda} ln (1 – u)

]

which implies we could get our exponential pattern doing

```
lambda <- 0.5 # choose some lambda
x <- -1/lambda * log(1-u)
```

We see the CDF is definitely a *circulation* (or a constructing block thereof, if we image most flows as comprising a number of transformations), since

- It maps information to a uniform distribution between 0 and 1, permitting to evaluate information chance.
- Conversely, it maps a chance to an precise worth, thus permitting to generate samples.

From this instance, we see why a circulation ought to be invertible, however we don’t but see why it ought to be *differentiable*. It will change into clear shortly, however first let’s check out how flows can be found in `tfprobability`

.

## Bijectors

TFP comes with a treasure trove of transformations, referred to as `bijectors`

, starting from easy computations like exponentiation to extra advanced ones just like the discrete cosine remodel.

To get began, let’s use `tfprobability`

to generate samples from the traditional distribution.

There’s a bijector `tfb_normal_cdf()`

that takes enter information to the interval ([0,1]). Its inverse remodel then yields a random variable with the usual regular distribution:

Conversely, we will use this bijector to find out the (log) chance of a pattern from the traditional distribution. We’ll verify towards an easy use of `tfd_normal`

within the `distributions`

module:

```
x <- 2.01
d_n <- tfd_normal(loc = 0, scale = 1)
d_n %>% tfd_log_prob(x) %>% as.numeric() # -2.938989
```

To acquire that very same log chance from the bijector, we add two elements:

- Firstly, we run the pattern by the
`ahead`

transformation and compute log chance beneath the uniform distribution. - Secondly, as we’re utilizing the uniform distribution to find out chance of a traditional pattern, we have to observe how chance modifications beneath this transformation. That is carried out by calling
`tfb_forward_log_det_jacobian`

(to be additional elaborated on beneath).

```
b <- tfb_normal_cdf()
d_u <- tfd_uniform()
l <- d_u %>% tfd_log_prob(b %>% tfb_forward(x))
j <- b %>% tfb_forward_log_det_jacobian(x, event_ndims = 0)
(l + j) %>% as.numeric() # -2.938989
```

Why does this work? Let’s get some background.

## Likelihood mass is conserved

Flows are based mostly on the precept that beneath transformation, chance mass is conserved. Say we have now a circulation from (x) to (z):

[z = f(x)]

Suppose we pattern from (z) after which, compute the inverse remodel to acquire (x). We all know the chance of (z). What’s the chance that (x), the reworked pattern, lies between (x_0) and (x_0 + dx)?

This chance is (p(x) dx), the density instances the size of the interval. This has to equal the chance that (z) lies between (f(x)) and (f(x + dx)). That new interval has size (f'(x) dx), so:

[p(x) dx = p(z) f'(x) dx]

Or equivalently

[p(x) = p(z) * dz/dx]

Thus, the pattern chance (p(x)) is set by the bottom chance (p(z)) of the reworked distribution, multiplied by how a lot the circulation stretches house.

The identical goes in larger dimensions: Once more, the circulation is concerning the change in chance quantity between the (z) and (y) areas:

[p(x) = p(z) frac{vol(dz)}{vol(dx)}]

In larger dimensions, the Jacobian replaces the spinoff. Then, the change in quantity is captured by absolutely the worth of its determinant:

[p(mathbf{x}) = p(f(mathbf{x})) bigg|detfrac{partial f({mathbf{x})}}{partial{mathbf{x}}}bigg|]

In apply, we work with log chances, so

[log p(mathbf{x}) = log p(f(mathbf{x})) + log bigg|detfrac{partial f({mathbf{x})}}{partial{mathbf{x}}}bigg| ]

Let’s see this with one other `bijector`

instance, `tfb_affine_scalar`

. Beneath, we assemble a mini-flow that maps a couple of arbitrary chosen (x) values to double their worth (`scale = 2`

):

```
x <- c(0, 0.5, 1)
b <- tfb_affine_scalar(shift = 0, scale = 2)
```

To match densities beneath the circulation, we select the traditional distribution, and have a look at the log densities:

```
d_n <- tfd_normal(loc = 0, scale = 1)
d_n %>% tfd_log_prob(x) %>% as.numeric() # -0.9189385 -1.0439385 -1.4189385
```

Now apply the circulation and compute the brand new log densities as a sum of the log densities of the corresponding (x) values and the log determinant of the Jacobian:

```
z <- b %>% tfb_forward(x)
(d_n %>% tfd_log_prob(b %>% tfb_inverse(z))) +
(b %>% tfb_inverse_log_det_jacobian(z, event_ndims = 0)) %>%
as.numeric() # -1.6120857 -1.7370857 -2.1120858
```

We see that because the values get stretched in house (we multiply by 2), the person log densities go down.

We are able to confirm the cumulative chance stays the identical utilizing `tfd_transformed_distribution()`

:

```
d_t <- tfd_transformed_distribution(distribution = d_n, bijector = b)
d_n %>% tfd_cdf(x) %>% as.numeric() # 0.5000000 0.6914625 0.8413447
d_t %>% tfd_cdf(y) %>% as.numeric() # 0.5000000 0.6914625 0.8413447
```

Up to now, the flows we noticed had been static – how does this match into the framework of neural networks?

## Coaching a circulation

On condition that flows are bidirectional, there are two methods to consider them. Above, we have now largely careworn the inverse mapping: We would like a easy distribution we will pattern from, and which we will use to compute a density. In that line, flows are typically referred to as “mappings from information to noise” – *noise* largely being an isotropic Gaussian. Nonetheless in apply, we don’t have that “noise” but, we simply have information.

So in apply, we have now to *be taught* a circulation that does such a mapping. We do that through the use of `bijectors`

with trainable parameters.

We’ll see a quite simple instance right here, and go away “actual world flows” to the subsequent submit.

The instance is predicated on half 1 of Eric Jang’s introduction to normalizing flows. The principle distinction (other than simplification to indicate the essential sample) is that we’re utilizing keen execution.

We begin from a two-dimensional, isotropic Gaussian, and we wish to mannequin information that’s additionally regular, however with a imply of 1 and a variance of two (in each dimensions).

```
library(tensorflow)
library(tfprobability)
tfe_enable_eager_execution(device_policy = "silent")
library(tfdatasets)
# the place we begin from
base_dist <- tfd_multivariate_normal_diag(loc = c(0, 0))
# the place we wish to go
target_dist <- tfd_multivariate_normal_diag(loc = c(1, 1), scale_identity_multiplier = 2)
# create coaching information from the goal distribution
target_samples <- target_dist %>% tfd_sample(1000) %>% tf$solid(tf$float32)
batch_size <- 100
dataset <- tensor_slices_dataset(target_samples) %>%
dataset_shuffle(buffer_size = dim(target_samples)[1]) %>%
dataset_batch(batch_size)
```

Now we’ll construct a tiny neural community, consisting of an affine transformation and a nonlinearity.

For the previous, we will make use of `tfb_affine`

, the multi-dimensional relative of `tfb_affine_scalar`

.

As to nonlinearities, at present TFP comes with `tfb_sigmoid`

and `tfb_tanh`

, however we will construct our personal parameterized ReLU utilizing `tfb_inline`

:

```
# alpha is a learnable parameter
bijector_leaky_relu <- operate(alpha) {
tfb_inline(
# ahead remodel leaves constructive values untouched and scales adverse ones by alpha
forward_fn = operate(x)
tf$the place(tf$greater_equal(x, 0), x, alpha * x),
# inverse remodel leaves constructive values untouched and scales adverse ones by 1/alpha
inverse_fn = operate(y)
tf$the place(tf$greater_equal(y, 0), y, 1/alpha * y),
# quantity change is 0 when constructive and 1/alpha when adverse
inverse_log_det_jacobian_fn = operate(y) {
I <- tf$ones_like(y)
J_inv <- tf$the place(tf$greater_equal(y, 0), I, 1/alpha * I)
log_abs_det_J_inv <- tf$log(tf$abs(J_inv))
tf$reduce_sum(log_abs_det_J_inv, axis = 1L)
},
forward_min_event_ndims = 1
)
}
```

Outline the learnable variables for the affine and the PReLU layers:

```
d <- 2 # dimensionality
r <- 2 # rank of replace
# shift of affine bijector
shift <- tf$get_variable("shift", d)
# scale of affine bijector
L <- tf$get_variable('L', c(d * (d + 1) / 2))
# rank-r replace
V <- tf$get_variable("V", c(d, r))
# scaling issue of parameterized relu
alpha <- tf$abs(tf$get_variable('alpha', listing())) + 0.01
```

With keen execution, the variables have for use contained in the loss operate, so that’s the place we outline the bijectors. Our little circulation now could be a `tfb_chain`

of bijectors, and we wrap it in a *TransformedDistribution* (`tfd_transformed_distribution`

) that hyperlinks supply and goal distributions.

```
loss <- operate() {
affine <- tfb_affine(
scale_tril = tfb_fill_triangular() %>% tfb_forward(L),
scale_perturb_factor = V,
shift = shift
)
lrelu <- bijector_leaky_relu(alpha = alpha)
circulation <- listing(lrelu, affine) %>% tfb_chain()
dist <- tfd_transformed_distribution(distribution = base_dist,
bijector = circulation)
l <- -tf$reduce_mean(dist$log_prob(batch))
# hold observe of progress
print(spherical(as.numeric(l), 2))
l
}
```

Now we will really run the coaching!

```
optimizer <- tf$practice$AdamOptimizer(1e-4)
n_epochs <- 100
for (i in 1:n_epochs) {
iter <- make_iterator_one_shot(dataset)
until_out_of_range({
batch <- iterator_get_next(iter)
optimizer$reduce(loss)
})
}
```

Outcomes will differ relying on random initialization, however you need to see a gentle (if gradual) progress. Utilizing bijectors, we have now really skilled and outlined a little bit neural community.

## Outlook

Undoubtedly, this circulation is just too easy to mannequin advanced information, but it surely’s instructive to have seen the essential ideas earlier than delving into extra advanced flows. Within the subsequent submit, we’ll take a look at *autoregressive flows*, once more utilizing TFP and `tfprobability`

.

*arXiv e-Prints*, Could, arXiv:1505.05770. https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.05770.