I was wondering how the cross validation process can improve a model. I am totally new to this field and keen to learn.
I understood the principle of cross-validation but don't understand how it improves a model. Let's say the model is divided into 4 folds than if I train my model on the 3 first fourth and test on the last one the model is gonna train well. But when I repeat this step by training the model on the last 3 fourth and test on the first one, most of the training data has already been "reviewed" by the model? The model won't improve with data already seen right? Is it a "mean" of the models made with the different training data sets?
Thank you in advance for your time!
Cross validation doesn't actually improve the model, but helps you to accurately score it's performance.
Let's say at the beginning of your training you divide your data into 80% train and 20% test sets. Then you train on the said 80% and test on 20% and get the performance metric.
The problem is, when separating the data in the beginning, you did so hopefully randomly, or otherwise arbitrary, and as a result, the model performance you obtained is somehow relying on the pseudo-random number generator you've used or your judgement.
So instead you divide your data into, for example, 5 random equal sets. Then you take set 1, put it aside, train on sets 2-5, test on set 1 and record the performance metric. Then you put aside set 2, and train a fresh (not trained) model on sets 1, 3-5, test on set 2, record the metric and so on.
After 5 sets you will have 5 performance metrics. If you take their average (of the most appropriate kind) it would be a better representation of your model performance, because you are 'averaging out' the random effects of data splitting.
I think it is explained well in this blog with some code in Python.
With 4-fold cross-validation you are effectively training 4 different models. There's no dependency between the models and one does not train on top of the other.
What will happen later depends on the implementation. Typically you can access all models that were trained and it's left to you what to do with that.
Related
I am trying to understand the process of model evaluation and validation in machine learning. Specifically, in which order and how the training, validation and test sets must be used.
Let's say I have a dataset and I want to use linear regression. I am hesitating among various polynomial degrees (hyper-parameters).
In this wikipedia article, it seems to imply that the sequence should be:
Split data into training set, validation set and test set
Use the training set to fit the model (find the best parameters: coefficients of the polynomial).
Afterwards, use the validation set to find the best hyper-parameters (in this case, polynomial degree) (wikipedia article says: "Successively, the fitted model is used to predict the responses for the observations in a second dataset called the validation dataset")
Finally, use the test set to score the model fitted with the training set.
However, this seems strange to me: how can you fit your model with the training set if you haven't chosen yet your hyper-parameters (polynomial degree in this case)?
I see three alternative approachs, I am not sure if they would be correct.
First approach
Split data into training set, validation set and test set
For each polynomial degree, fit the model with the training set and give it a score using the validation set.
For the polynomial degree with the best score, fit the model with the training set.
Evaluate with the test set
Second approach
Split data into training set, validation set and test set
For each polynomial degree, use cross-validation only on the validation set to fit and score the model
For the polynomial degree with the best score, fit the model with the training set.
Evaluate with the test set
Third approach
Split data into only two sets: the training/validation set and the test set
For each polynomial degree, use cross-validation only on the training/validation set to fit and score the model
For the polynomial degree with the best score, fit the model with the training/validation set.
Evaluate with the test set
So the question is:
Is the wikipedia article wrong or am I missing something?
Are the three approaches I envisage correct? Which one would be preferrable? Would there be another approach better than these three?
The Wikipedia article is not wrong; according to my own experience, this is a frequent point of confusion among newcomers to ML.
There are two separate ways of approaching the problem:
Either you use an explicit validation set to do hyperparameter search & tuning
Or you use cross-validation
So, the standard point is that you always put aside a portion of your data as test set; this is used for no other reason than assessing the performance of your model in the end (i.e. not back-and-forth and multiple assessments, because in that case you are using your test set as a validation set, which is bad practice).
After you have done that, you choose if you will cut another portion of your remaining data to use as a separate validation set, or if you will proceed with cross-validation (in which case, no separate and fixed validation set is required).
So, essentially, both your first and third approaches are valid (and mutually exclusive, i.e. you should choose which one you will go with). The second one, as you describe it (CV only in the validation set?), is certainly not (as said, when you choose to go with CV you don't assign a separate validation set). Apart from a brief mention of cross-validation, what the Wikipedia article actually describes is your first approach.
Questions of which approach is "better" cannot of course be answered at that level of generality; both approaches are indeed valid, and are used depending on the circumstances. Very loosely speaking, I would say that in most "traditional" (i.e. non deep learning) ML settings, most people choose to go with cross-validation; but there are cases where this is not practical (most deep learning settings, again loosely speaking), and people are going with a separate validation set instead.
What Wikipedia means is actually your first approach.
1 Split data into training set, validation set and test set
2 Use the
training set to fit the model (find the best parameters: coefficients
of the polynomial).
That just means that you use your training data to fit a model.
3 Afterwards, use the validation set to find the best hyper-parameters
(in this case, polynomial degree) (wikipedia article says:
"Successively, the fitted model is used to predict the responses for
the observations in a second dataset called the validation dataset")
That means that you use your validation dataset to predict its values with the previously (on the training set) trained model to get a score of how good your model performs on unseen data.
You repeat step 2 and 3 for all hyperparameter combinations you want to look at (in your case the different polynomial degrees you want to try) to get a score (e.g. accuracy) for every hyperparmeter combination.
Finally, use the test set to score the model fitted with the training
set.
Why you need the validation set is pretty well explained in this stackexchange question
https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/18339/why-use-both-validation-set-and-test-set
In the end you can use any of your three aproaches.
approach:
is the fastest because you only train one model for every hyperparameter.
also you don't need as much data as for the other two.
approach:
is slowest because you train for k folds k classifiers plus the final one with all your training data to validate it for every hyperparameter combination.
You also need a lot of data because you split your data three times and that first part again in k folds.
But here you have the least variance in your results. Its pretty unlikely to get k good classifiers and a good validation result by coincidence. That could happen more likely in the first approach. Cross Validation is also way more unlikely to overfit.
approach:
is in its pros and cons in between of the other two. Here you also have less likely overfitting.
In the end it will depend on how much data you have and if you get into more complex models like neural networks, how much time/calculationpower you have and are willing to spend.
Edit As #desertnaut mentioned: Keep in mind that you should use training- and validationset as training data for your evaluation with the test set. Also you confused training with validation set in your second approach.
I am trying to understand the process of model evaluation and validation in machine learning. Specifically, in which order and how the training, validation and test sets must be used.
Let's say I have a dataset and I want to use linear regression. I am hesitating among various polynomial degrees (hyper-parameters).
In this wikipedia article, it seems to imply that the sequence should be:
Split data into training set, validation set and test set
Use the training set to fit the model (find the best parameters: coefficients of the polynomial).
Afterwards, use the validation set to find the best hyper-parameters (in this case, polynomial degree) (wikipedia article says: "Successively, the fitted model is used to predict the responses for the observations in a second dataset called the validation dataset")
Finally, use the test set to score the model fitted with the training set.
However, this seems strange to me: how can you fit your model with the training set if you haven't chosen yet your hyper-parameters (polynomial degree in this case)?
I see three alternative approachs, I am not sure if they would be correct.
First approach
Split data into training set, validation set and test set
For each polynomial degree, fit the model with the training set and give it a score using the validation set.
For the polynomial degree with the best score, fit the model with the training set.
Evaluate with the test set
Second approach
Split data into training set, validation set and test set
For each polynomial degree, use cross-validation only on the validation set to fit and score the model
For the polynomial degree with the best score, fit the model with the training set.
Evaluate with the test set
Third approach
Split data into only two sets: the training/validation set and the test set
For each polynomial degree, use cross-validation only on the training/validation set to fit and score the model
For the polynomial degree with the best score, fit the model with the training/validation set.
Evaluate with the test set
So the question is:
Is the wikipedia article wrong or am I missing something?
Are the three approaches I envisage correct? Which one would be preferrable? Would there be another approach better than these three?
The Wikipedia article is not wrong; according to my own experience, this is a frequent point of confusion among newcomers to ML.
There are two separate ways of approaching the problem:
Either you use an explicit validation set to do hyperparameter search & tuning
Or you use cross-validation
So, the standard point is that you always put aside a portion of your data as test set; this is used for no other reason than assessing the performance of your model in the end (i.e. not back-and-forth and multiple assessments, because in that case you are using your test set as a validation set, which is bad practice).
After you have done that, you choose if you will cut another portion of your remaining data to use as a separate validation set, or if you will proceed with cross-validation (in which case, no separate and fixed validation set is required).
So, essentially, both your first and third approaches are valid (and mutually exclusive, i.e. you should choose which one you will go with). The second one, as you describe it (CV only in the validation set?), is certainly not (as said, when you choose to go with CV you don't assign a separate validation set). Apart from a brief mention of cross-validation, what the Wikipedia article actually describes is your first approach.
Questions of which approach is "better" cannot of course be answered at that level of generality; both approaches are indeed valid, and are used depending on the circumstances. Very loosely speaking, I would say that in most "traditional" (i.e. non deep learning) ML settings, most people choose to go with cross-validation; but there are cases where this is not practical (most deep learning settings, again loosely speaking), and people are going with a separate validation set instead.
What Wikipedia means is actually your first approach.
1 Split data into training set, validation set and test set
2 Use the
training set to fit the model (find the best parameters: coefficients
of the polynomial).
That just means that you use your training data to fit a model.
3 Afterwards, use the validation set to find the best hyper-parameters
(in this case, polynomial degree) (wikipedia article says:
"Successively, the fitted model is used to predict the responses for
the observations in a second dataset called the validation dataset")
That means that you use your validation dataset to predict its values with the previously (on the training set) trained model to get a score of how good your model performs on unseen data.
You repeat step 2 and 3 for all hyperparameter combinations you want to look at (in your case the different polynomial degrees you want to try) to get a score (e.g. accuracy) for every hyperparmeter combination.
Finally, use the test set to score the model fitted with the training
set.
Why you need the validation set is pretty well explained in this stackexchange question
https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/18339/why-use-both-validation-set-and-test-set
In the end you can use any of your three aproaches.
approach:
is the fastest because you only train one model for every hyperparameter.
also you don't need as much data as for the other two.
approach:
is slowest because you train for k folds k classifiers plus the final one with all your training data to validate it for every hyperparameter combination.
You also need a lot of data because you split your data three times and that first part again in k folds.
But here you have the least variance in your results. Its pretty unlikely to get k good classifiers and a good validation result by coincidence. That could happen more likely in the first approach. Cross Validation is also way more unlikely to overfit.
approach:
is in its pros and cons in between of the other two. Here you also have less likely overfitting.
In the end it will depend on how much data you have and if you get into more complex models like neural networks, how much time/calculationpower you have and are willing to spend.
Edit As #desertnaut mentioned: Keep in mind that you should use training- and validationset as training data for your evaluation with the test set. Also you confused training with validation set in your second approach.
For a class project, I designed a neural network to approximate sin(x), but ended up with a NN that just memorized my function over the data points I gave it. My NN took in x-values with a batch size of 200. Each x-value was multiplied by 200 different weights, mapping to 200 different neurons in my first layer. My first hidden layer contained 200 neurons, each one a linear combination of the x-values in the batch. My second hidden layer also contained 200 neurons, and my loss function was computed between the 200 neurons in my second layer and the 200 values of sin(x) that the input mapped to.
The problem is, my NN perfectly "approximated" sin(x) with 0 loss, but I know it wouldn't generalize to other data points.
What did I do wrong in designing this neural network, and how can I avoid memorization and instead design my NN's to "learn" about the patterns in my data?
It is same with any machine learning algorithm. You have a dataset based on which you try to learn "the" function f(x), which actually generated the data. In real life datasets, it is impossible to get the original function from the data, and therefore we approximate it using something g(x).
The main goal of any machine learning algorithm is to predict unseen data as best as possible using the function g(x).
Given a dataset D you can always train a model, which will perfectly classify all the datapoints (you can use a hashmap to get 0 error on the train set), but which is overfitting or memorization.
To avoid such things, you yourself have to make sure that the model does not memorise and learns the function. There are a few things which can be done. I am trying to write them down in an informal way (with links).
Train, Validation, Test
If you have large enough dataset, use Train, Validation, Test splits. Split the dataset in three parts. Typically 60%, 20% and 20% for Training, Validation and Test, respectively. (These numbers can vary based on need, also in case of imbalanced data, check how to get stratified partitions which preserve the class ratios in every split). Next, forget about the Test partition, keep it somewhere safe, don't touch it. Your model, will be trained using the Training partition. Once you have trained the model, evaluate the performance of the model using the Validation set. Then select another set of hyper-parameter configuration for your model (eg. number of hidden layer, learaning algorithm, other parameters etc.) and then train the model again, and evaluate based on Validation set. Keep on doing this for several such models. Then select the model, which got you the best validation score.
The role of validation set here is to check what the model has learned. If the model has overfit, then the validation scores will be very bad, and therefore in the above process you will discard those overfit models. But keep in mind, although you did not use the Validation set to train the model, directly, but the Validation set was used indirectly to select the model.
Once you have selected a final model based on Validation set. Now take out your Test set, as if you just got new dataset from real life, which no one has ever seen. The prediction of the model on this Test set will be an indication how well your model has "learned" as it is now trying to predict datapoints which it has never seen (directly or indirectly).
It is key to not go back and tune your model based on the Test score. This is because once you do this, the Test set will start contributing to your mode.
Crossvalidation and bootstrap sampling
On the other hand, if your dataset is small. You can use bootstrap sampling, or k-fold cross-validation. These ideas are similar. For example, for k-fold cross-validation, if k=5, then you split the dataset in 5 parts (also be carefull about stratified sampling). Let's name the parts a,b,c,d,e. Use the partitions [a,b,c,d] to train and get the prediction scores on [e] only. Next, use the partitions [a,b,c,e] and use the prediction scores on [d] only, and continue 5 times, where each time, you keep one partition alone and train the model with the other 4. After this, take an average of these scores. This is indicative of that your model might perform if it sees new data. It is also a good practice to do this multiple times and perform an average. For example, for smaller datasets, perform a 10 time 10-folds cross-validation, which will give a pretty stable score (depending on the dataset) which will be indicative of the prediction performance.
Bootstrap sampling is similar, but you need to sample the same number of datapoints (depends) with replacement from the dataset and use this sample to train. This set will have some datapoints repeated (as it was a sample with replacement). Then use the missing datapoins from the training dataset to evaluate the model. Perform this multiple times and average the performance.
Others
Other ways are to incorporate regularisation techniques in the classifier cost function itself. For example in Support Vector Machines, the cost function enforces conditions such that the decision boundary maintains a "margin" or a gap between two class regions. In neural networks one can also do similar things (although it is not same as in SVM).
In neural network you can use early stopping to stop the training. What this does, is train on the Train dataset, but at each epoch, it evaluates the performance on the Validation dataset. If the model starts to overfit from a specific epoch, then the error for Training dataset will keep on decreasing, but the error of the Validation dataset will start increasing, indicating that your model is overfitting. Based on this one can stop training.
A large dataset from real world tends not to overfit too much (citation needed). Also, if you have too many parameters in your model (to many hidden units and layers), and if the model is unnecessarily complex, it will tend to overfit. A model with lesser pameter will never overfit (though can underfit, if parameters are too low).
In the case of you sin function task, the neural net has to overfit, as it is ... the sin function. These tests can really help debug and experiment with your code.
Another important note, if you try to do a Train, Validation, Test, or k-fold crossvalidation on the data generated by the sin function dataset, then splitting it in the "usual" way will not work as in this case we are dealing with a time-series, and for those cases, one can use techniques mentioned here
First of all, I think it's a great project to approximate sin(x). It would be great if you could share the snippet or some additional details so that we could pin point the exact problem.
However, I think that the problem is that you are overfitting the data hence you are not able to generalize well to other data points.
Few tricks that might work,
Get more training points
Go for regularization
Add a test set so that you know whether you are overfitting or not.
Keep in mind that 0 loss or 100% accuracy is mostly not good on training set.
I have 3.25 years of time-based data and I'm using scikit-learn's RandomForestClassifier to try and classify live data as it comes in. My dataset has roughly 75,000 rows and 1,100 columns, and my train/test split is the first 3 years for train (66,000 rows), and the last 0.25 years (3 months or 9,000 rows) for test.
Since there's variability each time you train, I don't always see good precision on classifying the test data...but sometimes I do. So what I've tried doing is re-training the classifier over and over until I do see good precision on classifying the test data, then save that version to disk for use in live classification as new data comes in.
Some may say this is over-fitting the model to the test data...which is likely true, but I have decided that, due to randomness in training, finding a good fit on the first iteration versus the 100th makes no difference, because the iteration in which a good fit occurs happens completely by chance. Hence my determination to keep re-training until I find a good fit.
What I've seen is that I can find a fit that will have good/stable precision for the entire 3 months of the test period, but then when I use that model to classify live data as it comes in for the 4th month it's not stable, and the precision is drastically worse.
Question 1: how could a model have great/stable precision for 3 months straight but then flounder in the 4th month?
Question 2: how can I change or augment my setup or process to achieve classification precision stability on live data?
If you do this approach, you need another test set.
What you are doing is validation. There is indeed a big risk of overfitting to the test set.
Split your data into three parts: 80% training, 10% validation, 10% test.
Train multiple classifiers, keep the one that performs best on the validation set. Use the test set to verify that you indeed have a working classifier. If the performance on the validation set and test set differs a lot, that is very bad news (test this on all your classifiers!)
I am working with a dataset which contains 12 attributes including the timestamp and one attribute as the output. Also it has about 4000 rows. Besides there is no duplication in the records. I am trying to train a random forest to predict the output. For this purpose I created two different datasets:
ONE: Randomly chose 80% of data for the training and the other 20% for the testing.
TWO: Sort the dataset based on timestamp and then the first 80% for the training and the last 20% for the testing.
Then I removed the timestamp attribute from the both dataset and used the other 11 attributes for the training and the testing (I am sure the timestamp should not be part of the training).
RESULT: I am getting totally different result for these two datasets. For the first one AUC(Area under the curve) is 85%-90% (I did the experiment several times) and for the second one is 45%-50%.
I do appreciate if someone can help me to know
why I have this huge difference.
Also I need to have the test dataset with the latest timestamps (same as the dataset in the second experiment). Is there anyway to select data from the rest of the dataset for the training to improve the
training.
PS: I already test the random selection from the first 80% of the timestamp and it doesn't improved the performance.
First of all, it is not clear how exactly you're testing. Second, either way, you are doing the testing wrong.
RESULT: I am getting totally different result for these two datasets. For the first one AUC(Area under the curve) is 85%-90% (I did the experiment several times) and for the second one is 45%-50%.
Is this for the training set or the test set? If the test set, that means you have poor generalization.
You are doing it wrong because you are not allowed to tweak your model so that it performs well on the same test set, because it might lead you to a model that does just that, but that generalizes badly.
You should do one of two things:
1. A training-validation-test split
Keep 60% of the data for training, 20% for validation and 20% for testing in a random manner. Train your model so that it performs well on the validation set using your training set. Make sure you don't overfit: the performance on the training set should be close to that on the validation set, if it's very far, you've overfit your training set. Do not use the test set at all at this stage.
Once you're happy, train your selected model on the training set + validation set and test it on the test set you've held out. You should get acceptable performance. You are not allowed to tweak your model further based on the results you get on this test set, if you're not happy, you have to start from scratch.
2. Use cross validation
A popular form is 10-fold cross validation: shuffle your data and split it into 10 groups of equal or almost equal size. For each of the 10 groups, train on the other 9 and test on the remaining one. Average your results on the test groups.
You are allowed to make changes on your model to improve that average score, just run cross validation again after each change (make sure to reshuffle).
Personally I prefer cross validation.
I am guessing what happens is that by sorting based on timestamp, you make your algorithm generalize poorly. Maybe the 20% you keep for testing differ significantly somehow, and your algorithm is not given a chance to capture this difference? In general, your data should be sorted randomly in order to avoid such issues.
Of course, you might also have a buggy implementation.
I would suggest you try cross validation and see what results you get then.