I have a CNN that is performing very well (96% accuracy, 1.~ loss) on training data but poorly (50% accuracy, 3.5 loss) on testing data.
The telltale signature of overfitting is when your validation loss starts increasing, while your training loss continues decreasing, i.e.:
(Image adapted from Wikipedia entry on overfitting)
Here are some other plots indicating overfitting (source):
See also the SO thread How to know if underfitting or overfitting is occuring?.
Clearly, your loss plot does exhibit such behavior, so yes, you are indeed overfitting.
On the contrary, the plot you have linked to in a comment:
does not exhibit such behavior, hence here you are not actually overfitting (you just have reached a saturation point, beyond which your validation error is not further improving).
96% accuracy suggests you have a really close fit to your training data. 50% accuracy on testing data shows that your model cannot account for the noise/variability of the data being studied. This looks like textbook overfitting.
You seem to be calling your validation data your test data. Maybe you can better partition your data?
Related
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.
I am using resnet50 to classify pictures of flowers from a Kaggle dataset. I would like to clarify some things about my results.
epoch train_loss valid_loss error_rate time
0 0.205352 0.226580 0.077546 02:01
1 0.148942 0.205224 0.074074 02:01
These are the last two epochs of training. As you can see, the second epoch shows some overfitting because the train_loss is a good margin lower than the validation loss. Despite the overfitting, the error_rate and the validation loss decreased. I am wondering whether the model had actually improved in spite of the overfitting. Is it better to use the model from epoch 0 or epoch 1 for unseen data? Thank you!
Sadly, "overfitting" is a much abused term nowadays, used to mean almost everything linked to suboptimal performance; nevertheless, and practically speaking, overfitting means something very specific: its telltale signature is when your validation loss starts increasing, while your training loss continues decreasing, i.e.:
(Image adapted from Wikipedia entry on overfitting)
It's clear than nothing of the sorts happens in your case; the "margin" between your training and validation loss is another story altogether (it is called generalization gap), and does not signify overfitting.
Thus, in principle, you have absolutely no reason at all to choose a model with higher validation loss (i.e. your first one) instead of one with a lower validation loss (your second one).
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.
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.