I'm currently training a random forest on some data I have and I'm finding that the model performs better on the validation set, and even better on the test set, than on the train set. Here are some details of what I'm doing - please let me know if I've missed any important information and I will add it in.
My question
Am I doing anything obviously wrong and do you have any advice for how I should improve my approach because I just can't believe that I'm doing it right when my model predicts significantly better on unseen data than training data!
Data
My underlying data consists of tables of features describing customer behaviour and a binary target (so this is a binary classification problem). Technically I have one such table per month and I tend to use several months of data to train and then a different month to predict (e.g. Train on Apr, May and Predict on Jun)
Generally this means I end up with a training dataset of about 100k rows and 20 features (I've previously looked into feature selection and found a set of 7 features which seem to perform best, so have been using these lately). My prediction set generally has around 50k rows.
My dataset is heavily unbalanced (approximately 2% incidence of target feature), so I'm using oversampling techniques - more on that below.
Method
I've searched around online quite a lot and this has led me to the following approach:
Take scaleable (continuous) features in the training data and standardise them (currently using sklearn StandardScaler)
Take categorical features and encode them into separate binary columns (one-hot) using Pandas get_dummies function
Remove 10% of the training data to form a validation set (I'm currently using a random seed in this process for comparability whilst I vary different things such as hyperparameters in the model)
Take the remaining 90% of training data and perform a grid search across a few parameters of the RandomForestClassifier() (currently min_samples_split, max_depth, n_estimators and max_features)
Within each hyperparameter combination from the grid I perform kfold validation with 5 folds and using a random state
Within each fold I oversample my minority class for training data only (sometimes using imbalanced-learn's RandomOverSampler() and sometimes using SMOTE() from the same package), train the model on the training data and then apply the model to the kth fold and record performance metrics (precision, recall, F1 and AUC)
Once I've been through 5 folds on each hyperparameter combination I find the best F1 score (and best precision if two combinations are tied on F1 score) and retrain a random forest on the entire 90% training data using those hyperparameters. During this step I use the same oversampling technique as I did in the kfold process
I then use this model to make predictions on the 10% of training data that I put aside earlier as a validation set, evaluating the same metrics as above
Finally I have a test set, which is actually based on data from another month, which I apply the already trained model to and evaluate the same metrics
Outcome
At the moment I'm finding that my training set achieves an F1 score of around 30%, the validation set is consistently slightly higher than this at around 36% (mostly driven by a much better precision than the training data e.g. 60% vs. 30%) and then the testing set is getting an F1 score of between 45% and 50% which is again driven by a better precision (around 65%)
Notes
Please do ask about any details I haven't mentioned; I've had my stuck in this for weeks and so have doubtless omitted some details
I've had a brief look (not a systematic analysis) of the stability of metrics between folds in the kfold validation and it seems that they aren't varying very much, so I'm fairly happy with the stability of the model here
I'm actually performing the grid search manually rather than using a Python pipeline because try as I might I couldn't get imbalanced-learn's Pipeline function to work with the oversampling functions and so I run a loop with combinations of hyperparameters, but I'm confident that this isn't impacting the results I've talked about above in an adverse way
When I apply the final model to the prediction data (and get an F1 score around 45%) I also apply it back to the training data itself out of interest and get F1 scores around 90% - 100%. I suppose this is to be expected as the model is trained and predicts on almost exactly the same data (except the 10% holdout validation set)
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 trying to learn about decision trees (and other models) and I came across cross validation, now I first thought that cross validation was used to determine the optimal parameters for the model. For example the optimal max_tree_depth in decision tree classification or the optimal number_of_neighbors in k_nearest_neighbor classification. But as I am looking at some examples I think this might be wrong.
Is this wrong?
Cross-validation is used to determine the accuracy of your model in a more accurate way for example in a n-fold cross validation you divide you data into n partitions and use n-1 parts as train set and 1 part as test set and repeat this for all partitions each partition gets to be test set once) then you average results to get a better estimation of your model's accuracy
==> to see learning curves
I am trying a random forest regressor for a machine learning problem (price estimation of spatial points). I have a sample of spatial points in a city. The sample is not randomly drawn since there are very few observations downtown. And I want to estimate prices for all addresses in the city.
I have a good cross validation score (absolute mean squared error) an also a good test score after splitting the training set. But predictions are very bad.
What could explain this results ?
I plotted the learning curve (link above) : cross validation score increases with number of instances (that sounds logical), training score remains high (should it decrease ?) ... What do these learning curves show ? And in general how do we "read" learning curves ?
Moreover, I suppose that the sample is not representative. I tried to make the dataset for which I want predictions spatially similar to the training set by drawing whitout replacement according to proportions of observations in each district for the training set. But this didn't change the result. How can I handle this non representativity ?
Thanks in advance for any help
There are a few common cases that pop up when looking at training and cross-validation scores:
Overfitting: When your model has a very high training score but a poor cross-validation score. Generally this occurs when your model is too complex, allowing it to fit the training data exceedingly well but giving it poor generalization to the validation dataset.
Underfitting: When neither the training nor the cross-validation scores are high. This occurs when your model is not complex enough.
Ideal fit: When both the training and cross-validation scores are fairly high. You model not only learns to represent the training data, but it generalizes well to new data.
Here's a nice graphic from this Quora post showing how model complexity and error relate to the type a fit a model exhibits.
In the plot above, the errors for a given complexity are the errors found at equilibrium. In contrast, learning curves show how the score progresses throughout the entire training process. Generally you never want to see the score decreasing during training, as this usually means your model is diverging. But the difference between the training and validation scores as they move forward in time (towards equilibrium) indicates how well your model is fitting.
Notice that even when you have an ideal fit (middle of complexity axis) it is common to see a training score that's higher than the cross-validation score, since the model's parameters are updated using the training data. But since you're getting poor predictions, and since validation score is ~10% lower than training score (assuming the score is out of 1), I would guess that your model is overfitting and could benefit from less complexity.
To answer your second point, models will generalize better if the training data is a better representation of validation data. So when splitting the data into training and validation sets, I recommend finding a way to randomly segregate the data. For example, you could generate a list of all the points in the city, iterate of the list, and for each point draw from a uniform distribution to decide which dataset that point belongs to.
Let's say that I have a data file like:
Index,product_buying_date,col1,col2
0,2013-01-16,34,Jack
1,2013-01-12,43,Molly
2,2013-01-21,21,Adam
3,2014-01-09,54,Peirce
4,2014-01-17,38,Goldberg
5,2015-01-05,72,Chandler
..
..
2000000,2015-01-27,32,Mike
with some more data and I have a target variable y. Assume something as per your convenience.
Now I am aware that we divide the data into 2 parts i.e. Train and Test. And then we divide Train into 70:30, build the model with 70% and validate it with 30%. We tune the parameters so that model does not get overfit. And then predict with the Test data. For example: I divide 2000000 into two equal parts. 1000000 is train and I divide it in validate i.e. 30% of 1000000 which is 300000 and 70% is where I build the model i.e. 700000.
QUESTION: Is the above logic depending upon how the original data splits?
Generally we shuffle the data and then break it into train, validate and test. (train + validate = Train). (Please don't confuse here)
But what if the split is alternate. Like When I divide it in Train and Test first, I give even rows to Test and odd rows to Train. (Here data is initially sort on the basis of 'product_buying_date' column so when i split it in odd and even rows it gets uniformly split.
And when I build the model with Train I overfit it so that I get maximum AUC with Test data.
QUESTION: Isn't overfitting helping in this case?
QUESTION: Is the above logic depending upon how the original data
splits?
If dataset is large(hundred of thousand), you can randomly split the data and you should not have any problem but if dataset is small then you can adopt the different approaches like cross-validation to generate the data set. Cross-validation states that you split you make n number of training-validation set out of your Training set.
suppose you have 2000 data points, you split like
1000 - Training dataset
1000 - testing dataset.
5-cross validation would mean that you would make five 800/200 training/validation dataset.
QUESTION: Isn't overfitting helping in this case?
Number one rule of the machine learning is that, you don't touch the test data set. It's a holly data set that should not be touched.
If you overfit the test data to get maximum AUC score then there won't be any meaning of validation dataset. Foremost aim of any ml algorithm is to reduce the generalization error i.e. algorithm should be able to perform good on unseen data. If you would tune your algorithm with testing data. you won't be able to meet this criteria. In cross-validation also you do not touch your testing set. you select your algorithm. tune its parameter with validation dataset and after you have done with that apply your algorithm to test dataset which is your final score.