My validation set is having high accuracy for classification. But low on test data as data is not balanced. Please suggest here.
What could be the reason for getting high accuracy on the validation set but low accuracy on the test set?
It sounds like you are overfitting on the test set, but it is impossible to say for sure, as your question only barely describes what you are doing. What kind of problem do you have? Multi-label, multi-class? Or something more simple? How do you measure accuracy? How many classes? Which framework do you use?
Take a good look at your data and its distributions. If they are unbalanced, balance them before training. There is no point in doing vanilla training of a network on two classes, if the distribution is 1:99. You must address this issue, either via re-balancing your dataset (e.g., by oversampling the underrepresented class) or by suitably modifying your loss function.
Assuming the issue is not balancing but overfitting, use data augmentation and regularization. Some possible things to try are to reduce the model capacity (fewer parameters) and to add something like dropout and/or weight decay.
Related
I am building a predictive model, on which I predict if a client will subscribe again or not. I already have the dataset and the problem is that it is imbalanced ( the NOs are more then the YESs). I believe that my model is biased, but when I check the accuracy on the training set and the testing set with the predictions made the accuracy is really close (0.8879 on training set and 0.8868 on the test set). The reason why I am confused, is if my model is biased why do I have the accuracy of training and test set close? Or is my model not biased?
Quick response: Yes, your model is very likely to predict everything as the Majority Class.
Let's think of it in a simpler way. You have an optimizer in the training process, who tries to maximize the accuracy (minimize the misclassification). Suppose you have a training set of 1000 images, and you have only 10 tigers in that dataset, and you intend to learn a classifier to distinguish tigers vs non-tigers.
What the optimizer is very likely to do is to predict always non-tiger for every single image. Why? cause it is a much simpler model and easier(likelier in a simpler space) to achieve, and also it gets to 99% accuracy!
I suggest you read more about imbalanced data problems( This one seems to be a good one to start https://machinelearningmastery.com/what-is-imbalanced-classification/) Depending on the problem you are to solve, you might one try to down-sampling, or over-sampling or more advanced solutions, like changing the loss functions and metrics, using F1 or AUC and/or doing ranking instead of classification.
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.
I am using the random forest.My test accuracy is 70% on the other hand train accuracy is 34% ? what to do ? How can I solve this problem.
Test accuracy should not be higher than train since the model is optimized for the latter. Ways in which this behavior might happen:
you did not use the same source dataset for test. You should do a proper train/test split in which both of them have the same underlying distribution. Most likely you provided a completely different (and more agreeable) dataset for test
an unreasonably high degree of regularization was applied. Even so there would need to be some element of "test data distribution is not the same as that of train" for the observed behavior to occur.
The other answers are correct in most cases. But I'd like to offer another perspective. There are specific training regimes that could cause the training data to be harder for the model to learn - for instance, adversarial training or adding Gaussian noise to the training examples. In these cases, the benign test accuracy could be higher than train accuracy, because benign examples are easier to evaluate. This isn't always a problem, however!
If this applies to you, and the gap between train and test accuracies is larger than you'd like (~30%, as in your question, is a pretty big gap), then this indicates that your model is underfitting to the harder patterns, so you'll need to increase the expressibility of your model. In the case of random forests, this might mean training the trees to a higher depth.
First you should check the data that is used for training. I think there is some problem with the data, the data may not be properly pre-processed.
Also, in this case, you should try more epochs. Plot the learning curve to analyze when the model is going to converge.
You should check the following:
Both training and validation accuracy scores should increase and loss should decrease.
If there is something wrong in step 1 after any particular epoch, then train your model until that epoch only, because your model is over-fitting after that.
The title says it all: Should a neural network be able to have a perfect train accuracy? Mine saturates at ~0.9 accuracy and I am wondering if that indicates a problem with my network or the training data.
Training instances: ~4500 sequences with an average length of 10 elements.
Network: Bi-directional vanilla RNN with a softmax layer on top.
Perfect accuracy on training data is usually a sign of a phenomenon called overfitting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting) and the model may generalize poorly to unseen data. So, no, probably this alone is not an indication that there is something wrong (you could still be overfitting but it is not possible to tell from the information in your question).
You should check the accuracy of the NN on the validation set (data your network has not seen during training) and judge its generalizability. usually it's an iterative process where you train many networks with different configurations in parallel and see which one performs best on the validation set. Also see cross validation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics))
If you have low measurement noise, a model may still not get zero training error. This could be for many reasons including that the model is not flexible enough to capture the true underlying function (which can be a complicated, high-dimensional, non-linear function). You can try increasing the number of hidden layers and nodes but you have to be careful about the same things like overfitting and only judge based on evaluation through cross validation.
You can definitely get a 100% accuracy on training datasets by increasing model complexity but I would be wary of that.
You cannot expect your model to be better on your test set than on your training set. This means if your training accuracy is lower than the desired accuracy, you have to change something. Most likely you have to increase the number of parameters of your model.
The reason why you might be ok with not having a perfect training accuracy is (1) the problem of overfitting (2) training time. The more complex your model is, the more likely is overfitting.
You might want to have a look at Structural Risc Minimization:
(source: svms.org)
I understand the intuitive meaning of overfitting and underfitting. Now, given a particular machine learning model that is trained upon the training data, how can you tell if the training overfitted or underfitted the data? Is there a quantitative way to measure these factors?
Can we look at the error and say if it has overfit or underfit?
I believe the easiest approach is to have two sets of data. Training data and validation data. You train the model on the training data as long as the fitness of the model on the training data is close to the fitness of the model on the validation data. When the models fitness is increasing on the training data but not on the validation data then you're overfitting.
The usual way, I think, is known as cross-validation. The idea is to split the training set into several pieces, known as folds, then pick one at a time for evaluation and train on the remaining ones.
It does not, of course, measure the actual overfitting or underfitting, but if you can vary the complexity of the model, e.g. by changing the regularization term, you can find the optimal point. This is as far as one can go with just training and testing, I think.
You don't look at the error on the training data, but on the validation data only.
A common way of testing is to try different model complexities, and see how the error changes with model complexity. Usually these have a typical curve. In the beginning, the errors quickly improve. Then there is saturation (where the model is good), then they start decreasing again, but not because of being a better model, but because of overfitting. You want to be on the low complexity end of the plateau, the simplest model that provides a reasonable generalization.
The existing answers are not strictly speaking wrong, but they are not complete. Yes, you do need a validation set, but an important issue here is that you do not simply look at the model error on the validation set and try to minimize it. It will lead to overfitting all the same, because you will effectively be fitting on a validation set that way. The right approach is not minimizing the error on your sets, but making an error independent from which training and validation sets you use. If error on validation set is significantly different (doesn't matter if it is worse, or better), then the model is overfit. Also, certainly, this should be done in a cross-validation way when you train on some random set and then validate on another random set.