Does my model overfit? I would be sure it overfitted, if the validation loss increased heavily, while the training loss decreased. However the validation loss is nearly stable, so I am not sure. Can you please help?
I assume that you're using different hyperparameters? Perhaps save
the parameters and resume with a different set of hyperparameters.
This comment really depends on how you're doing hyperparameter
optimization.
Try with different training/test splits. It might be idiosyncratic.
Especially with so few epochs.
Depending on how costly it is to train the model and evaluate it,
consider bagging your models, akin to how a random forest operates.
In others words, fit your model to many different train/test splits,
and average the model outputs, either in terms of a majority
classification vote, or an averaging of the predicted probabilities.
In this case, I'd err on the side of a slightly overfit model,
because of the way that averaging can mitigate overfitting. But I
wouldn't train to death either, unless you're going to fit very very
many neural nets, and somehow ensure that you're decorrelating them
akin to the method of random subspaces from random forests.
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.
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.
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)