I am using cnn to classify images. I have 1000 images to begin my journey. So I use 900 as training dataset and 100 as testing dataset. I got a model of ~70% correctness.
Then I get another 150 images today. so I have two ideas to continue:
(1) Can I combine the previous 100 test data + 900 train data to be a "new" training set so I can have 1000 training data to get a possibly better model? Then I can use the new 150 images as the new "test" data?
(2) Can I combine the new 150 images + 900 train data to be a "new" training set to train a better model and still continue to use the previous 100 test data set to test the new model?
Obviously I am going to try both but I am not sure in theory which one is better... Any comments? thanks.
You should train on as much data as possible if you want the best CNN possible. Theory says that the more training data you have, the closer your test error will be to your training error. That means your CNN will be better at classifying examples it wasn't trained on. On the other hand, you don't want too little test data because you need to be confident in your accuracy measurement. So you should ideally get more training and more testing data.
If your data is IID, then you shouldn't worry about which of the 1150 images are used to train your model.
The only danger of reusing the same test data is that you might change the model (e.g., adding another layer, and/or adding more units to an existing layer) because it gives you a better result on your test data. When you alter your model in response to observations of the test error, you risk overfitting to your data. You can mitigate this problem by using a third data set, known as a validation set, for tweaking your model.
IID: The total 1150 images are independently drawn from an identical distribution. In other words, roughly speaking, there's nothing differentiating the 150 from the 1000 aside from the fact that they're new to you, and each image's selection wasn't affected by the selection of any other image.
It does not matter as long as the new 150 images are from the same distribution as that of the previous 1000 samples.
Related
I have split the dataset ( around 28K images) into 75% trainset and 25% testset. Then I have taken randomly 15% of trainset and randomly 15% of testset to create a validation set. The goal is to classify the images into two categories. The exact image sample can't be shared. But its similar to the one attached. I'm using this model: VGG19 with imagenet weights with last two layers trainable and 4 dense layers appended. I am also using ImageDataGenerator to Augment the images. I trained the model for 30 epochs and found that the training accuracy is 95% and Validation accuracy is 96% and when trained on test dataset it fell down enormously to 75% only.
I have tried regularization and dropout to tackle the overfitting if it is suffering. I have also done one more thing to see what happens if I use the testset as Validation set and test the model on the same testset. The results were: Trainset Acc = 96% and Validation ACC = 96.3% and the testAcc = 68%. I don't understand what should I Do ?
image
First off, you need to make sure that when you split in data, the relative size of every class in the new datasets is equal. It can be imbalanced if that is the distribution of your initial data, but it must have the same imbalance in all datasets after the split.
Now, regarding the split. If you need a train, validation and test sets, they must all be independent of each-other (no-shared samples). This is important if you don't want to cheat yourself with the results that you are getting.
In general, in machine-learning we start from a training set and a test set. For choosing the best model architecture/hyper-parameters, we further divide the training set to get the validation set (the test set should not be touched).
After determining the best architecture/hyper-parameters for our model, we combine the training and validation set and train the best-case model from scratch with the combined full training set. Only now we get to test the results on the test set.
I had faced a similar issue in one of my practice projects.
My InceptionV3 model gave a high training accuracy (99%), a high validation accuracy (95%+) but a very low testing accuracy (55%).
The dataset was a subset of the popular Dogs vs. Cats dataset (https://www.kaggle.com/c/dogs-vs-cats/data), made by me, having 15k images split into 3 folders: train, valid, and test in the ratio of 60:20:20 (9000, 3000, 3000 each halved for cats folder and dogs folder).
The error in my case was actually in my code. It had nothing to do with the model or the data. The model had been defined inside a function and that was creating an untrained instance during the evaluation. Hence, an untrained model was being tested upon on the test dataset. After correcting the errors in my notebook I got a 96%+ testing accuracy.
Links:
https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1-PO1KJYvXdNC8LbvrdL70oG6QbHg_N-e?usp=sharing&fbclid=IwAR2k9ZCXvX_y_UNWpl4ljs1y0P3budKmlOggVrw6xI7ht0cgm03_VeoKVTI
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/3/folders/1h6jVHasLpbGLtu6Vsnpe1tyGCtR7bw_G?fbclid=IwAR3Xtsbm_EZA3TOebm5EfSvJjUmndHrWXm4Iet2fT3BjE6pPJmnqIwW8KWY
tyuhm
Other probable causes:
One possibility is that the testing set would have a different
distribution than the validation set (This could be excluded by
joining all the data, randomizing, and splitting again to train,
test, valid).
To swap valid and test with each other and see if it has an
effect (Sometimes if one set has relatively harder examples).
If the training somehow overfitted on the validation set (Is it
possible that during training, at one or more steps, the model giving the best score on the validation set is chosen).
Images overlapping, lack of shuffling.
In the deep learning world, if something seems way too odd to be
true, or even way too good to be even true, a good guess is that its
probably a bug unless proven otherwise!
It is common practice to augment data (add samples programmatically, such as random crops, etc. in the case of a dataset consisting of images) on both training and test set, or just the training data set?
Only on training. Data augmentation is used to increase the size of the training set and to get more different images.
Technically, you could use data augmentation on the test set to see how the model behaves on such images, but usually, people don't do it.
Data augmentation is done only on training set as it helps the model become more generalize and robust. So there's no point of augmenting the test set.
This answer on stats.SE makes the case for applying crops on the validation / test sets so as to make that input similar the the input in the training set that the network was trained on.
Do it only on the training set. And, of course, make sure that the augmentation does not make the label wrong (e.g. when rotating 6 and 9 by about 180°).
The reason why we use a training and a test set in the first place is that we want to estimate the error our system will have in reality. So the data for the test set should be as close to real data as possible.
If you do it on the test set, you might have the problem that you introduce errors. For example, say you want to recognize digits and you augment by rotating. Then a 6 might look like a 9. But not all examples are that easy. Better be save than sorry.
I would argue that, in some cases, using data augmentation for the validation set can be helpful.
For example, I train a lot of CNNs for medical image segmentation. Many of the augmentation transforms that I use are meant to reduce the image quality so that the network is trained to be robust against such data. If the training set looks bad and the validation set looks nice, it will be hard to compare the losses during training and therefore assessing overfit will be complicated.
I would never use augmentation for the test set unless I'm using test-time augmentation to improve results or estimate aleatoric uncertainty.
In computer vision, you can use data augmentation during test time to obtain different views on the test image. You then have to aggregate the results obtained from each image for example by averaging them.
For example, given this symbol below, changing the point of view can lead to different interpretations :
Some image preprocessing software tools like Roboflow (https://roboflow.com/) apply data augmentation to test data as well. I'd say that if one is dealing with small and rare objects, say, cerebral microbleeds (which are tiny and difficult to spot on magnetic resonance images), augmenting one's test set could be useful. Then you can verify that your model has learned to detect these objects given different orientation and brightness conditions (given that your training data has been augmented in the same way).
The goal of data augmentation is to generalize the model and make it learn more orientation of the images, such that the during testing the model is able to apprehend the test data well. So, it is well practiced to use augmentation technique only for training sets.
The point of adding validation data is to build generalized model so it is nothing but to predict real-world data. inorder to predict real-world data, the validation set should contain real data. There is no problem with augmenting validation data but it won't increase the accuracy of the model.
Here are my two cents:
You train your model on the training data and the validation data: the former to optimize your parameters, and the latter to give you an appropriate stopping condition. The test data is to give you a real-world estimate of how well you can expect your model to perform.
For training, you can augment your training data to increase robustness to various factors including, but not limited to, sampling error, bias between data sources, shifts in global data distribution, positioning, and any other sort of variation you would like to account for.
The validation data should indicate to the training method when the model is most generalizable. By this logic, if you expect to see some variation in real-world data that can be simulated using data augmentation, then by all means, the validation dataset should be augmented.
The test data, on the other hand, should not be augmented, except potentially in special scenarios where data is very limited, and an estimate of real-world performance on test data has too much variance.
You can use augmentation data in training, validation and test sets.
The only thing to avoid is using the same data from the training set in validation or test sets.
For example, if you generate 3 augmented instances from an register of the training data, make sure that no one of these 3 augmented instances accidentally ends up in the validation or test sets.
It turns out that using data from the training set, even augmented data, to validate or test a model is a methodology mistake.
I am trying to over-fit my model over my training data that consists of only a single sample. The training accuracy comes out to be 1.00. But, when I predict the output for my test data which consists of the same single training input sample, the results are not accurate. The model has been trained for 100 epochs and the loss ~ 1e-4.
What could be the possible sources of error?
As mentioned in the comments of your post, it isn't possible to give specific advice without you first providing more details.
Generally speaking, your approach to overfitting a tiny batch (in your case one image) is in essence providing three sanity checks, i.e. that:
backprop is functioning
the weight updates are doing their job
the learning rate is in the correct order of magnitude
As is pointed out by Andrej Karpathy in Lecture 5 of CS231n course at Stanford - "if you can't overfit on a tiny batch size, things are definitely broken".
This means, given your description, that your implementation is incorrect. I would start by checking each of those three points listed above. For example, alter your test somehow by picking several different images or a btach-size of 5 images instead of one. You could also revise your predict function, as that is where there is definitely some discrepancy, given you are getting zero error during training (and so validation?).
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.
I am working with a dataset which contains 12 attributes including the timestamp and one attribute as the output. Also it has about 4000 rows. Besides there is no duplication in the records. I am trying to train a random forest to predict the output. For this purpose I created two different datasets:
ONE: Randomly chose 80% of data for the training and the other 20% for the testing.
TWO: Sort the dataset based on timestamp and then the first 80% for the training and the last 20% for the testing.
Then I removed the timestamp attribute from the both dataset and used the other 11 attributes for the training and the testing (I am sure the timestamp should not be part of the training).
RESULT: I am getting totally different result for these two datasets. For the first one AUC(Area under the curve) is 85%-90% (I did the experiment several times) and for the second one is 45%-50%.
I do appreciate if someone can help me to know
why I have this huge difference.
Also I need to have the test dataset with the latest timestamps (same as the dataset in the second experiment). Is there anyway to select data from the rest of the dataset for the training to improve the
training.
PS: I already test the random selection from the first 80% of the timestamp and it doesn't improved the performance.
First of all, it is not clear how exactly you're testing. Second, either way, you are doing the testing wrong.
RESULT: I am getting totally different result for these two datasets. For the first one AUC(Area under the curve) is 85%-90% (I did the experiment several times) and for the second one is 45%-50%.
Is this for the training set or the test set? If the test set, that means you have poor generalization.
You are doing it wrong because you are not allowed to tweak your model so that it performs well on the same test set, because it might lead you to a model that does just that, but that generalizes badly.
You should do one of two things:
1. A training-validation-test split
Keep 60% of the data for training, 20% for validation and 20% for testing in a random manner. Train your model so that it performs well on the validation set using your training set. Make sure you don't overfit: the performance on the training set should be close to that on the validation set, if it's very far, you've overfit your training set. Do not use the test set at all at this stage.
Once you're happy, train your selected model on the training set + validation set and test it on the test set you've held out. You should get acceptable performance. You are not allowed to tweak your model further based on the results you get on this test set, if you're not happy, you have to start from scratch.
2. Use cross validation
A popular form is 10-fold cross validation: shuffle your data and split it into 10 groups of equal or almost equal size. For each of the 10 groups, train on the other 9 and test on the remaining one. Average your results on the test groups.
You are allowed to make changes on your model to improve that average score, just run cross validation again after each change (make sure to reshuffle).
Personally I prefer cross validation.
I am guessing what happens is that by sorting based on timestamp, you make your algorithm generalize poorly. Maybe the 20% you keep for testing differ significantly somehow, and your algorithm is not given a chance to capture this difference? In general, your data should be sorted randomly in order to avoid such issues.
Of course, you might also have a buggy implementation.
I would suggest you try cross validation and see what results you get then.