Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

How to remove nodes from TensorFlow graph?

I need to write a program where part of the TensorFlow nodes need to keep being there storing some global information(mainly variables and summaries) while the other part need to be changed/reorganized as program runs.

The way I do now is to reconstruct the whole graph in every iteration. But then, I have to store and load those information manually from/to checkpoint files or numpy arrays in every iteration, which makes my code really messy and error prone.

I wonder if there is a way to remove/modify part of my computation graph instead of reset the whole graph?

like image 489
Lifu Huang Avatar asked Jun 03 '16 09:06

Lifu Huang


People also ask

What is Graph execution in TensorFlow?

function guide. Tracing captures the TensorFlow operations into a graph, and print is not captured in the graph. That graph is then executed for all three calls without ever running the Python code again.

What is TF Reset_default_graph?

reset_default_graph() tf.reset_default_graph() 기존에 생성된 graph를 모두 삭제하고, reset시켜 중복되는 것을 막아준다.


1 Answers

Changing the structure of TensorFlow graphs isn't really possible. Specifically, there isn't a clean way to remove nodes from a graph, so removing a subgraph and adding another isn't practical. (I've tried this, and it involves surgery on the internals. Ultimately, it's way more effort than it's worth, and you're asking for maintenance headaches.)

There are some workarounds.

Your reconstruction is one of them. You seem to have a pretty good handle on this method, so I won't harp on it, but for the benefit of anyone else who stumbles upon this, a very similar method is a filtered deep copy of the graph. That is, you iterate over the elements and add them in, predicated on some condition. This is most viable if the graph was given to you (i.e., you don't have the functions that built it in the first place) or if the changes are fairly minor. You still pay the price of rebuilding the graph, but sometimes loading and storing can be transparent. Given your scenario, though, this probably isn't a good match.

Another option is to recast the problem as a superset of all possible graphs you're trying to evaluate and rely on dataflow behavior. In other words, build a graph which includes every type of input you're feeding it and only ask for the outputs you need. Good signs this might work are: your network is parametric (perhaps you're just increasing/decreasing widths or layers), the changes are minor (maybe including/excluding inputs), and your operations can handle variable inputs (reductions across a dimension, for instance). In your case, if you have only a small, finite number of tree structures, this could work well. You'll probably just need to add some aggregation or renormalization for your global information.

A third option is to treat the networks as physically split. So instead of thinking of one network with mutable components, treat the boundaries between fixed and changing pieces are inputs and outputs of two separate networks. This does make some things harder: for instance, backprop across both is now ugly (which it sounds like might be a problem for you). But if you can avoid that, then two networks can work pretty well. It ends up feeling a lot like dealing with a separate pretraining phase, which you many already be comfortable with.

Most of these workarounds have a fairly narrow range of problems that they work for, so they might not help in your case. That said, you don't have to go all-or-nothing. If partially splitting the network or creating a supergraph for just some changes works, then it might be that you only have to worry about save/restore for a few cases, which may ease your troubles.

Hope this helps!

like image 157
rdadolf Avatar answered Oct 16 '22 03:10

rdadolf