My neural network trainign in pytorch is getting very wierd.
I am training a known dataset that came splitted into train and validation.
I'm shuffeling the data during training and do data augmentation on the fly.
I have those results:
Train accuracy start at 80% and increases
Train loss decreases and stays stable
Validation accuracy start at 30% but increases slowly
Validation loss increases
I have the following graphs to show:
How can you explain that the validation loss increases and the validation accuracy increases?
How can be such a big difference of accuracy between validation and training sets? 90% and 40%?
Update:
I balanced the data set.
It is binary classification. It now has now 1700 examples from class 1, 1200 examples from class 2. Total 600 for validation and 2300 for training.
I still see similar behavior:
**Can it be becuase I froze the weights in part of the network?
**Can it be becuase the hyperparametrs like lr?
I found the solution:
I had different data augmentation for training set and validation set. Matching them also increased the validation accuracy!
If the training set is very large in comparison to the validation set, you are more likely to overfit and learn the training data, which would make generalizing the model very difficult. I see your training accuracy is at 0.98 and your validation accuracy increases at a very slow rate, which would imply that you have overfit your training data.
Try reducing the number of samples in your training set to improve how well your model generalizes to unseen data.
Let me answer your 2nd question first. High accuracy on training data and low accuracy on val/test data indicates the model might not generalize well to infer real cases. That is what the validation process is all about. You need to finetune or even rebuild your model.
With regard to the first question, val loss might not necessarily correspond to the val accuracy. The model makes the prediction based on its model, and loss function calculates the difference between probablities of matrix and the target if you are using CrossEntropy function.
Related
I am new to machine learning, I have built a model that predicts if a client will subscribe in the following month or not. I got 73.4 on the training set and 72.8 on the test set. is it okay? or do I have Overfitting?
It's ok.
Overfitting happens when the accuracy in the training set in higher and the accuracy in the test set is lower (with a marginal difference).
This is what overfitting looks like.
Train accuracy: 99.4%
Test accuracy: 71.4%
You can, however, increase the accuracy using different models and feature engineering
We call it as over-fitting,If the accuracy of training data is abnormally higher (greater than 95%) and accuracy of test data is very low (less than 65%).
In your case,both training and testing accuracy are almost similar.So there is no over-fitting.
Try for more test data and check whether the accuracy is decreasing or not.You can also try to improve the model by
Trying different algorithms
Increasing the size of train data
Trying K-fold cross validation
Hyper parameter tuning
Using Regularization methods
Standardizing feature variables
For PyTorch's tutorial on performing transfer learning for computer vision (https://pytorch.org/tutorials/beginner/transfer_learning_tutorial.html), we can see that there is a higher validation accuracy than training accuracy. Applying the same steps to my own dataset, I see similar results. Why is this the case? Does it have something to do with ResNet 18's architecture?
Assuming there aren't bugs in your code and the train and validation data are in the same domain, then there are a couple reasons why this may occur.
Training loss/acc is computed as the average across an entire training epoch. The network begins the epoch with one set of weights and ends the epoch with a different (hopefully better!) set of weights. During validation you're evaluating everything using only the most recent weights. This means that the comparison between validation and train accuracy is misleading since training accuracy/loss was computed with samples from potentially much worse states of your model. This is usually most noticeable at the start of training or right after the learning rate is adjusted since the network often starts the epoch in a much worse state than it ends. It's also often noticeable when the training data is relatively small (as is the case in your example).
Another difference is the data augmentations used during training that aren't used during validation. During training you randomly crop and flip the training images. While these random augmentations are useful for increasing the ability of your network to generalize they aren't performed during validation because they would diminish performance.
If you were really motivated and didn't mind spending the extra computational power you could get a more meaningful comparison by running the training data back through your network at the end of each epoch using the same data transforms used for validation.
The short answer is that train and validation data are from different distributions, and it's "easier" for model to predict target in validation data then it is for training.
The likely reason for this particular case, as indicated by this answer, is data augmentation during training. This is a way to regularize your model by increasing variability in the training data.
Other architectures can use Dropout (or its modifications), which are deliberately "hurting" training performance, reducing the potential of overfitting.
Notice, that you're using pretrained model, which already contains some information about how to solve classification problem. If your domain is not that different from the data it was trained on, you can expect good performance off-the-shelf.
My question is in continuation to the one asked by another user: What's is the difference between train, validation and test set, in neural networks?
Once learning is over by terminating when the minimum MSE is reached by looking at the validation and train set performance (easy to do so using nntool box in Matlab), then using the trained net structure if the performance of the unseen test set is slightly poor than the training set we have an overfitting problem. I am always encountering this case eventhough the model for which during learning the parameters corresponding to validation and train set having nearly same performance is selected. Then how come the test set performance is worse than the train set?
Training data= Data we use to train our model.
Validation data= Data we use to test our model on every-epoch or on run-time So that we can early stop our model manually because of over-fitting or any other model. Now Suppose I am running 1000 epochs on my model and on 500 epochs I view that my model is giving 90% accuracy on training data and 70% accuracy on validation data. Now I can see that my model is over-fitting. I can manually stop my training and before 1000 epochs complete and tune my model more and than see the behavior.
Testing data= Now after completing my training on model after computing 1000 epochs. I will predict my test data and see the accuracy on test data. its giving 86%
My training accuracy is 90% validation accuracy is 87% and testing accuracy is 86%. this may vary because data in validation set, training set and testing set are totally different. We have 70% samples in training set 10% validation and 20% testing set. Now on my validation my model is predicting 8 images correctly and on testing my model predicting 18 images correctly out of 100. Its normal in real life projects because pixels in every image are varying form the other image thats why a little difference may happen.
In testing set their are more images than validation set that may be one reason. Because more the images more the risk of wrong prediction. e.g on 90% accuracy
my model predict 90 out of 100 correctly but if I increase the image sample to 1000 than my model may predict (850, 800 or 900) images correctly out 1000 on
If we randomly split the data into training data and validation data, and assume the training data and validation data have similar "distributions", i.e. they are both good representations of the whole data set.
In this case, should the validation accuracy always be roughly the same as the training accuracy if there is no overfitting? Or is it possible that, for some cases, there could exist a gap between the training and validation accuracy that is not due to overfitting or bad representation of the validation data?
If such gap exists, how to tell the gap between the training and validation accuracy is caused by overfitting or other reasons?
"Is there anything other than" questions are often hard to answer, but I would argue that a higher accuracy on the training data is always due to overfitting or chance.
The validation accuracy is often higher at the end of an epoch, because the training accuracy is usually calculated as a moving average during the epoch
When using heavy amounts of image augmentation you also sometimes see a better performance on the validation data because it wasn't modified like the training data
These two don't really count and if I understand correctly you're asking for a situation where the training accuracy is higher without overfitting or chance playing a role. I don't think such a reason exists.
Would you please guide me how to interpret the following results?
1) loss < validation_loss
2) loss > validation_loss
It seems that the training loss always should be less than validation loss. But, both of these cases happen when training a model.
Really a fundamental question in machine learning.
If validation loss >> training loss you can call it overfitting.
If validation loss > training loss you can call it some overfitting.
If validation loss < training loss you can call it some underfitting.
If validation loss << training loss you can call it underfitting.
Your aim is to make the validation loss as low as possible.
Some overfitting is nearly always a good thing. All that matters in the end is: is the validation loss as low as you can get it.
This often occurs when the training loss is quite a bit lower.
Also check how to prevent overfitting.
In machine learning and deep learning there are basically three cases
1) Underfitting
This is the only case where loss > validation_loss, but only slightly, if loss is far higher than validation_loss, please post your code and data so that we can have a look at
2) Overfitting
loss << validation_loss
This means that your model is fitting very nicely the training data but not at all the validation data, in other words it's not generalizing correctly to unseen data
3) Perfect fitting
loss == validation_loss
If both values end up to be roughly the same and also if the values are converging (plot the loss over time) then chances are very high that you are doing it right
1) Your model performs better on the training data than on the unknown validation data. A bit of overfitting is normal, but higher amounts need to be regulated with techniques like dropout to ensure generalization.
2) Your model performs better on the validation data. This can happen when you use augmentation on the training data, making it harder to predict in comparison to the unmodified validation samples. It can also happen when your training loss is calculated as a moving average over 1 epoch, whereas the validation loss is calculated after the learning phase of the same epoch.
Aurélien Geron made a good Twitter thread about this phenomenon. Summary:
Regularization is typically only applied during training, not validation and testing. For example, if you're using dropout, the model has fewer features available to it during training.
Training loss is measured after each batch, while the validation loss is measured after each epoch, so on average the training loss is measured ½ an epoch earlier. This means that the validation loss has the benefit of extra gradient updates.
the val set can be easier than the training set. For example, data augmentations often distort or occlude parts of the image. This can also happen if you get unlucky during sampling (val set has too many easy classes, or too many easy examples), or if your val set is too small. Or, the train set leaked into the val set.
If your validation loss is less than your training loss, you have not correctly split the training data. This correctly indicates that the distribution of the training and validation sets is different. It should ideally be the same. MOROVER, Good Fit: In the ideal case, the training and validation losses both drop and stabilize at specified points, indicating an optimal fit, i.e. a model that does neither overfit or underfit.