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.
Related
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)
I am reading the a deep learning with python book.
After reading chapter 4, Fighting Overfitting, I have two questions.
Why might increasing the number of epochs cause overfitting?
I know increasing increasing the number of epochs will involve more attempts at gradient descent, will this cause overfitting?
During the process of fighting overfitting, will the accuracy be reduced ?
I'm not sure which book you are reading, so some background information may help before I answer the questions specifically.
Firstly, increasing the number of epochs won't necessarily cause overfitting, but it certainly can do. If the learning rate and model parameters are small, it may take many epochs to cause measurable overfitting. That said, it is common for more training to do so.
To keep the question in perspective, it's important to remember that we most commonly use neural networks to build models we can use for prediction (e.g. predicting whether an image contains a particular object or what the value of a variable will be in the next time step).
We build the model by iteratively adjusting weights and biases so that the network can act as a function to translate between input data and predicted outputs. We turn to such models for a number of reasons, often because we just don't know what the function is/should be or the function is too complex to develop analytically. In order for the network to be able to model such complex functions, it must be capable of being highly-complex itself. Whilst this complexity is powerful, it is dangerous! The model can become so complex that it can effectively remember the training data very precisely but then fail to act as an effective, general function that works for data outside of the training set. I.e. it can overfit.
You can think of it as being a bit like someone (the model) who learns to bake by only baking fruit cake (training data) over and over again – soon they'll be able to bake an excellent fruit cake without using a recipe (training), but they probably won't be able to bake a sponge cake (unseen data) very well.
Back to neural networks! Because the risk of overfitting is high with a neural network there are many tools and tricks available to the deep learning engineer to prevent overfitting, such as the use of dropout. These tools and tricks are collectively known as 'regularisation'.
This is why we use development and training strategies involving test datasets – we pretend that the test data is unseen and monitor it during training. You can see an example of this in the plot below (image credit). After about 50 epochs the test error begins to increase as the model has started to 'memorise the training set', despite the training error remaining at its minimum value (often training error will continue to improve).
So, to answer your questions:
Allowing the model to continue training (i.e. more epochs) increases the risk of the weights and biases being tuned to such an extent that the model performs poorly on unseen (or test/validation) data. The model is now just 'memorising the training set'.
Continued epochs may well increase training accuracy, but this doesn't necessarily mean the model's predictions from new data will be accurate – often it actually gets worse. To prevent this, we use a test data set and monitor the test accuracy during training. This allows us to make a more informed decision on whether the model is becoming more accurate for unseen data.
We can use a technique called early stopping, whereby we stop training the model once test accuracy has stopped improving after a small number of epochs. Early stopping can be thought of as another regularisation technique.
More attempts of decent(large number of epochs) can take you very close to the global minima of the loss function ideally, Now since we don't know anything about the test data, fitting the model so precisely to predict the class labels of the train data may cause the model to lose it generalization capabilities(error over unseen data). In a way, no doubt we want to learn the input-output relationship from the train data, but we must not forget that the end goal is for the model to perform well over the unseen data. So, it is a good idea to stay close but not very close to the global minima.
But still, we can ask what if I reach the global minima, what can be the problem with that, why would it cause the model to perform badly on unseen data?
The answer to this can be that in order to reach the global minima we would be trying to fit the maximum amount of train data, this will result in a very complex model(since it is less probable to have a simpler spatial distribution of the selected number of train data that is fortunately available with us). But what we can assume is that a large amount of unseen data(say for facial recognition) will have a simpler spatial distribution and will need a simpler Model for better classification(I mean the entire world of unseen data, will definitely have a pattern that we can't observe just because we have an access small fraction of it in the form of training data)
If you incrementally observe points from a distribution(say 50,100,500, 1000 ...), we will definitely find the structure of the data complex until we have observed a sufficiently large number of points (max: the entire distribution), but once we have observed enough points we can expect to observe the simpler pattern present in the data that can be easily classified.
In short, a small fraction of train data should have a complex structure as compared to the entire dataset. And overfitting to the train data may cause our model to perform worse on the test data.
One analogous example to emphasize the above phenomenon from day to day life is as follows:-
Say we meet N number of people till date in our lifetime, while meeting them we naturally learn from them(we become what we are surrounded with). Now if we are heavily influenced by each individual and try to tune to the behaviour of all the people very closely, we develop a personality that closely resembles the people we have met but on the other hand we start judging every individual who is unlike me -> unlike the people we have already met. Becoming judgemental takes a toll on our capability to tune in with new groups since we trained very hard to minimize the differences with the people we have already met(the training data). This according to me is an excellent example of overfitting and loss in genralazition capabilities.
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)
When developing a neural net one typically partitions training data into Train, Test, and Holdout datasets (many people call these Train, Validation, and Test respectively. Same things, different names). Many people advise selecting hyperparameters based on performance in the Test dataset. My question is: why? Why not maximize performance of hyperparameters in the Train dataset, and stop training the hyperparameters when we detect overfitting via a drop in performance in the Test dataset? Since Train is typically larger than Test, would this not produce better results compared to training hyperparameters on the Test dataset?
UPDATE July 6 2016
Terminology change, to match comment below. Datasets are now termed Train, Validation, and Test in this post. I do not use the Test dataset for training. I am using a GA to optimize hyperparameters. At each iteration of the outer GA training process, the GA chooses a new hyperparameter set, trains on the Train dataset, and evaluates on the Validation and Test datasets. The GA adjusts the hyperparameters to maximize accuracy in the Train dataset. Network training within an iteration stops when network overfitting is detected (in the Validation dataset), and the outer GA training process stops when overfitting of the hyperparameters is detected (again in Validation). The result is hyperparameters psuedo-optimized for the Train dataset. The question is: why do many sources (e.g. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/JMLRdropout.pdf, Section B.1) recommend optimizing the hyperparameters on the Validation set, rather than the Train set? Quoting from Srivasta, Hinton, et al (link above): "Hyperparameters were tuned on the validation set such that the best validation error was produced..."
The reason is that developing a model always involves tuning its configuration: for example, choosing the number of layers or the size of the layers (called the hyper-parameters of the model, to distinguish them from the parameters, which are the network’s weights). You do this tuning by using as a feedback signal the performance of the model on the validation data. In essence, this tuning is a form of learning: a search for a good configuration in some parameter space. As a result, tuning the configuration of the model based on its performance on the validation set can quickly result in overfitting to the validation set, even though your model is never directly trained on it.
Central to this phenomenon is the notion of information leaks. Every time you tune a hyperparameter of your model based on the model’s performance on the validation set, some information about the validation data leaks into the model. If you do this only once, for one parameter, then very few bits of information will leak, and your validation set will remain reliable to evaluate the model. But if you repeat this many times—running one experiment, evaluating on the validation set, and modifying your model as a result—then you’ll leak an increasingly significant amount of information about the validation set into the model.
At the end of the day, you’ll end up with a model that performs artificially well on the validation data, because that’s what you optimized it for. You care about performance on completely new data, not the validation data, so you need to use a completely different, never-before-seen dataset to evaluate the model: the test dataset. Your model shouldn’t have had access to any information about the test set, even indirectly. If anything about the model has been tuned based on test set performance, then your measure of generalization will be flawed.
There are two things you are missing here. First, minor, is that test set is never used to do any training. This is a purpose of validation (test is just to asses your final, testing performance). The major missunderstanding is what it means "to use validation set to fit hyperparameters". This means exactly what you describe - to train a model with a given hyperparameters on the training set, and use validation to simply check if you are overfitting (you use it to estimate generalization) , but you do not really "train" on them, you simply check your scores on this subset (which, as you noticed - is way smaller).
You cannot "stop training hyperparamters" because this is not a continuous process, usually hyperparameters are just "possible sets of values", and you have to simply test lots of them, there is no valid way of defining a direct trainingn procedure between actual metric you are interested in (like accuracy) and hyperparameters (like size of the hidden layer in NN or even C parameter in SVM), as the functional link between these two is not differentiable, is highly non convex and in general "ugly" to optimize. If you can define a nice optimization procedure in terms of a hyperparameter than it is usually not called a hyperparameter but a parameter, the crucial distinction in this naming convention is what makes it hard to optimize directly - we call hyperparameter a parameter, than cannot be directly optimized against thus you need a "meta method" (like simply testing on validation set) to select it.
However, you can define a "nice" meta optimization protocol for hyperparameters, but this will still use validation set as an estimator, for example Bayesian optimization of hyperparameters does exactly this - it tries to fit a function saying how well is you model behaving in the space of hyperparameters, but in order to have any "training data" for this meta-method, you need validation set to estimate it for any given set of hyperparameters (input to your meta method)
simple answer: we do
In the case of a simple feedforward neural network you do have to select e.g. layer and unit count per layer, regularization (and non-continuous parameters like topology if not feedforward and loss function) in the beginning and you would optimize on those.
So, in summary you optimize:
ordinary parameters only during training but not during validation
hyperparameters during training and during validation
It is very important not to touch the many ordinary parameters (weights and biases) during validation. That's because there are thousands of degrees of freedom in them which means they can learn the data you train them on. But then the model doesn't generalize to new data as well (even when that new data originated from the same distribution). You usually only have very few degrees of freedom in the hyperparameters which usually control the rigidity of the model (regularization).
This holds true for other machine learning algorithms like decision trees, forests, etc as well.
Is anyone here who is familiar with echo state networks? I created an echo state network in c#. The aim was just to classify inputs into GOOD and NOT GOOD ones. The input is an array of double numbers. I know that maybe for this classification echo state network isn't the best choice, but i have to do it with this method.
My problem is, that after training the network, it cannot generalize. When i run the network with foreign data (not the teaching input), i get only around 50-60% good result.
More details: My echo state network must work like a function approximator. The input of the function is an array of 17 double values, and the output is 0 or 1 (i have to classify the input into bad or good input).
So i have created a network. It contains an input layer with 17 neurons, a reservoir layer, which neron number is adjustable, and output layer containing 1 neuron for the output needed 0 or 1. In a simpler example, no output feedback is used (i tried to use output feedback as well, but nothing changed).
The inner matrix of the reservoir layer is adjustable too. I generate weights between two double values (min, max) with an adjustable sparseness ratio. IF the values are too big, it normlites the matrix to have a spectral radius lower then 1. The reservoir layer can have sigmoid and tanh activaton functions.
The input layer is fully connected to the reservoir layer with random values. So in the training state i run calculate the inner X(n) reservor activations with training data, collecting them into a matrix rowvise. Using the desired output data matrix (which is now a vector with 1 ot 0 values), i calculate the output weigths (from reservoir to output). Reservoir is fully connected to the output. If someone used echo state networks nows what im talking about. I ise pseudo inverse method for this.
The question is, how can i adjust the network so it would generalize better? To hit more than 50-60% of the desired outputs with a foreign dataset (not the training one). If i run the network again with the training dataset, it gives very good reults, 80-90%, but that i want is to generalize better.
I hope someone had this issue too with echo state networks.
If I understand correctly, you have a set of known, classified data that you train on, then you have some unknown data which you subsequently classify. You find that after training, you can reclassify your known data well, but can't do well on the unknown data. This is, I believe, called overfitting - you might want to think about being less stringent with your network, reducing node number, and/or training based on a hidden dataset.
The way people do it is, they have a training set A, a validation set B, and a test set C. You know the correct classification of A and B but not C (because you split up your known data into A and B, and C are the values you want the network to find for you). When training, you only show the network A, but at each iteration, to calculate success you use both A and B. So while training, the network tries to understand a relationship present in both A and B, by looking only at A. Because it can't see the actual input and output values in B, but only knows if its current state describes B accurately or not, this helps reduce overfitting.
Usually people seem to split 4/5 of data into A and 1/5 of it into B, but of course you can try different ratios.
In the end, you finish training, and see what the network will say about your unknown set C.
Sorry for the very general and basic answer, but perhaps it will help describe the problem better.
If your network doesn't generalize that means it's overfitting.
To reduce overfitting on a neural network, there are two ways:
get more training data
decrease the number of neurons
You also might think about the features you are feeding the network. For example, if it is a time series that repeats every week, then one feature is something like the 'day of the week' or the 'hour of the week' or the 'minute of the week'.
Neural networks need lots of data. Lots and lots of examples. Thousands. If you don't have thousands, you should choose a network with just a handful of neurons, or else use something else, like regression, that has fewer parameters, and is therefore less prone to overfitting.
Like the other answers here have suggested, this is a classic case of overfitting: your model performs well on your training data, but it does not generalize well to new test data.
Hugh's answer has a good suggestion, which is to reduce the number of parameters in your model (i.e., by shrinking the size of the reservoir), but I'm not sure whether it would be effective for an ESN, because the problem complexity that an ESN can solve grows proportional to the logarithm of the size of the reservoir. Reducing the size of your model might actually make the model not work as well, though this might be necessary to avoid overfitting for this type of model.
Superbest's solution is to use a validation set to stop training as soon as performance on the validation set stops improving, a technique called early stopping. But, as you noted, because you use offline regression to compute the output weights of your ESN, you cannot use a validation set to determine when to stop updating your model parameters---early stopping only works for online training algorithms.
However, you can use a validation set in another way: to regularize the coefficients of your regression! Here's how it works:
Split your training data into a "training" part (usually 80-90% of the data you have available) and a "validation" part (the remaining 10-20%).
When you compute your regression, instead of using vanilla linear regression, use a regularized technique like ridge regression, lasso regression, or elastic net regression. Use only the "training" part of your dataset for computing the regression.
All of these regularized regression techniques have one or more "hyperparameters" that balance the model fit against its complexity. The "validation" dataset is used to set these parameter values: you can do this using grid search, evolutionary methods, or any other hyperparameter optimization technique. Generally speaking, these methods work by choosing values for the hyperparameters, fitting the model using the "training" dataset, and measuring the fitted model's performance on the "validation" dataset. Repeat N times and choose the model that performs best on the "validation" set.
You can learn more about regularization and regression at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares#Regularized_versions, or by looking it up in a machine learning or statistics textbook.
Also, read more about cross-validation techniques at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics).