Technically speaking, given a complex enough network and sufficient amounts of time, is it always possible to overfit any dataset to the point where training error is 0?
Neural networks are universal approximators, which pretty much means that as long as there exists a deterministic mapping f from input to output, there always exists a set of parameters (for large enough network) that give you error which is arbitrarly close to minimal possible error, but:
if dataset is infinite (it is a distribution) then minimal obtainable error (called Bayes risk) can be greater than zero, bur rather some value e (pretty much the measure of "overlap" of different classes/value).
if mapping f is non-deterministic then again there is a non-zero Bayes risk e (this is a mathematical way of saying that a given point can have "multiple" values, with given probabilities)
arbitrarly close does not mean minimal. So even if the minimal error is zero, it does not mean that you just need "big enough" network to get to zero, you might always end up with veeeery small epsilon (but you can decrease it as long as you want). For example a network trained on classification task which has sigmoid/softmax output cannot ever obtain minimal log loss (cross entropy loss), as you can always move your activations "closer to 1" or "closer to 0", but you cannot achieve neither of these.
So from mathematical perspective the answer is no, from practical point of view - under the assumption of finite training set and deterministic mapping - the answer is yes.
In particular when you are asking about accuracy of the classification, and you have finite dataset with unique label per datapoint then it is easy to construct by hand a neural network which has 100% accuracy. However this does not mean minimal possible loss (as described above). Thus from the optimization perspective you are not obtaining "zero error".
Related
I'm pretty sure that the answer is no, but wanted to confirm...
When training a neural network or other learning algorithm, we will compute the cost function J(θ) as an expression of how well our algorithm fits the training data (higher values mean it fits the data less well). When training our algorithm, we generally expect to see J(theta) go down with each iteration of gradient descent.
But I'm just curious, would there ever be a value to computing J(θ) against our test data?
I think the answer is no, because since we only evaluate our test data once, we would only get one value of J(θ), and I think that it is meaningless except when compared with other values.
Your question touches on a very common ambiguity regarding the terminology: one between the validation and the test sets (the Wikipedia entry and this Cross Vaidated post may be helpful in resolving this).
So, assuming that you indeed refer to the test set proper and not the validation one, then:
You are right in that this set is only used once, just at the end of the whole modeling process
You are, in general, not right in assuming that we don't compute the cost J(θ) in this set.
Elaborating on (2): in fact, the only usefulness of the test set is exactly for evaluating our final model, in a set that has not been used at all in the various stages of the fitting process (notice that the validation set has been used indirectly, i.e. for model selection); and in order to evaluate it, we obviously have to compute the cost.
I think that a possible source of confusion is that you may have in mind only classification settings (although you don't specify this in your question); true, in this case, we are usually interested in the model performance regarding a business metric (e.g. accuracy), and not regarding the optimization cost J(θ) itself. But in regression settings it may very well be the case that the optimization cost and the business metric are one and the same thing (e.g. RMSE, MSE, MAE etc). And, as I hope is clear, in such settings computing the cost in the test set is by no means meaningless, despite the fact that we don't compare it with other values (it provides an "absolute" performance metric for our final model).
You may find this and this answers of mine useful regarding the distinction between loss & accuracy; quoting from these answers:
Loss and accuracy are different things; roughly speaking, the accuracy is what we are actually interested in from a business perspective, while the loss is the objective function that the learning algorithms (optimizers) are trying to minimize from a mathematical perspective. Even more roughly speaking, you can think of the loss as the "translation" of the business objective (accuracy) to the mathematical domain, a translation which is necessary in classification problems (in regression ones, usually the loss and the business objective are the same, or at least can be the same in principle, e.g. the RMSE)...
When people try to solve the task of semantic segmentation with CNN's they usually use a softmax-crossentropy loss during training (see Fully conv. - Long). But when it comes to comparing the performance of different approaches measures like intersection-over-union are reported.
My question is why don't people train directly on the measure they want to optimize? Seems odd to me to train on some measure during training, but evaluate on another measure for benchmarks.
I can see that the IOU has problems for training samples, where the class is not present (union=0 and intersection=0 => division zero by zero). But when I can ensure that every sample of my ground truth contains all classes, is there another reason for not using this measure?
Checkout this paper where they come up with a way to make the concept of IoU differentiable. I implemented their solution with amazing results!
It is like asking "why for classification we train log loss and not accuracy?". The reason is really simple - you cannot directly train for most of the metrics, because they are not differentiable wrt. to your parameters (or at least do not produce nice error surface). Log loss (softmax crossentropy) is a valid surrogate for accuracy. Now you are completely right that it is plain wrong to train with something that is not a valid surrogate of metric you are interested in, and the linked paper does not do a good job since for at least a few metrics they are considering - we could easily show good surrogate (like for weighted accuracy all you have to do is weight log loss as well).
Here's another way to think about this in a simple manner.
Remember that it is not sufficient to simply evaluate a metric such as accuracy or IoU while solving a relevant image problem. Evaluating the metric must also help the network learn in which direction the weights must be nudged towards, so that a network can learn effectively over iterations and epochs.
Evaluating this direction is what the earlier comments mean that the errors are differentiable. I suppose that there is nothing about the IoU metrics that the network can use to say: "hey, it's not exactly here, but I have to maybe move my bounding box a little to the left!"
Just a trickle of an explanation, but hope it helps..
I always use mean IOU for training a segmentation model. More exactly, -log(MIOU). Plain -MIOU as a loss function will easily trap your optimizer around 0 because of its narrow range (0,1) and thus its steep surface. By taking its log scale, the loss surface becomes slow and good for training.
I'm currently wondering when to stop training of Deep Autoencoders, especially when it seems to be stuck in a local minimum.
Is it essential to get the training criterium (e.g. MSE) to e.g. 0.000001 and force it to perfectly reconstruct the input or is it okay to keep differences (e.g. stop when the MSE is at about 0.5) depending on the dataset used.
I know that a better reconstruction might lead to better classification results afterwards but is there a "rule of thumb" when to stop? I'm especially interested in rules that have no heuristic character like "if the MSE doesn't get smaller in x iterations".
I don't think it's possible to derive a general rule of thumb for this, as generating NN:s/machine learning is a very problem-specific procedure, and generally, there is no free lunch. How to decide what is a "good" training error to terminate at depends on various problem-specific factors, e.g. the noise in the data. Evaluating your NN only with regard to training sets, with the only objective of minimising the MSE, will many times lead to overfitting. With only the training error as feedback, you might tune your NN to the noise in the training data (hence the overfitting). One method to avoid this is holdout validation. Instead of only training your NN to given data, your divide your data set into a training set, a validation set (and a test set).
Training sets: Training and feedback to NN, will naturally keep decreasing with longer training (at least down to "OK" MSE values for the specific problem).
Validation sets: Evaluate your NN w.r.t. to these, but don't give feedback to your NN/genetic algoritm.
Along with the evaluation-feedback of your training sets you should hence also evaluate the validation set, however without giving feedback to your neural network (NN).
Track the decrease in MSE for training as well as validation sets; generally training error will steadily decrease, whereas, at some point, the validation error will reach a minimum and start to increase with further training. Of course, you cannot know during runtime where this minima occurs, so generally one stores the NN with the lowest validation error, and after this has seemingly not been updated in some time (i.e., in error retrospect: we've passed a minima in validation error), the algorithm is terminated.
See e.g. the following article Neural Network: Train-validate-Test Stopping for details, as well as this SE-statistics thread discussing two different validation methods.
For the training/validation of Deep Autoencoders/Deep Learning, specifically w.r.t. overfitting, I find the article Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting (*) to be valuable.
(*) By H. Srivistava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, R. Salakhutdinov, University of Toronto.
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).
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Why do we have to normalize the input for a neural network?
I understand that sometimes, when for example the input values are non-numerical a certain transformation must be performed, but when we have a numerical input? Why the numbers must be in a certain interval?
What will happen if the data is not normalized?
It's explained well here.
If the input variables are combined linearly, as in an MLP [multilayer perceptron], then it is
rarely strictly necessary to standardize the inputs, at least in theory. The
reason is that any rescaling of an input vector can be effectively undone by
changing the corresponding weights and biases, leaving you with the exact
same outputs as you had before. However, there are a variety of practical
reasons why standardizing the inputs can make training faster and reduce the
chances of getting stuck in local optima. Also, weight decay and Bayesian
estimation can be done more conveniently with standardized inputs.
In neural networks, it is good idea not just to normalize data but also to scale them. This is intended for faster approaching to global minima at error surface. See the following pictures:
Pictures are taken from the coursera course about neural networks. Author of the course is Geoffrey Hinton.
Some inputs to NN might not have a 'naturally defined' range of values. For example, the average value might be slowly, but continuously increasing over time (for example a number of records in the database).
In such case feeding this raw value into your network will not work very well. You will teach your network on values from lower part of range, while the actual inputs will be from the higher part of this range (and quite possibly above range, that the network has learned to work with).
You should normalize this value. You could for example tell the network by how much the value has changed since the previous input. This increment usually can be defined with high probability in a specific range, which makes it a good input for network.
There are 2 Reasons why we have to Normalize Input Features before Feeding them to Neural Network:
Reason 1: If a Feature in the Dataset is big in scale compared to others then this big scaled feature becomes dominating and as a result of that, Predictions of the Neural Network will not be Accurate.
Example: In case of Employee Data, if we consider Age and Salary, Age will be a Two Digit Number while Salary can be 7 or 8 Digit (1 Million, etc..). In that Case, Salary will Dominate the Prediction of the Neural Network. But if we Normalize those Features, Values of both the Features will lie in the Range from (0 to 1).
Reason 2: Front Propagation of Neural Networks involves the Dot Product of Weights with Input Features. So, if the Values are very high (for Image and Non-Image Data), Calculation of Output takes a lot of Computation Time as well as Memory. Same is the case during Back Propagation. Consequently, Model Converges slowly, if the Inputs are not Normalized.
Example: If we perform Image Classification, Size of Image will be very huge, as the Value of each Pixel ranges from 0 to 255. Normalization in this case is very important.
Mentioned below are the instances where Normalization is very important:
K-Means
K-Nearest-Neighbours
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Gradient Descent
When you use unnormalized input features, the loss function is likely to have very elongated valleys. When optimizing with gradient descent, this becomes an issue because the gradient will be steep with respect some of the parameters. That leads to large oscillations in the search space, as you are bouncing between steep slopes. To compensate, you have to stabilize optimization with small learning rates.
Consider features x1 and x2, where range from 0 to 1 and 0 to 1 million, respectively. It turns out the ratios for the corresponding parameters (say, w1 and w2) will also be large.
Normalizing tends to make the loss function more symmetrical/spherical. These are easier to optimize because the gradients tend to point towards the global minimum and you can take larger steps.
Looking at the neural network from the outside, it is just a function that takes some arguments and produces a result. As with all functions, it has a domain (i.e. a set of legal arguments). You have to normalize the values that you want to pass to the neural net in order to make sure it is in the domain. As with all functions, if the arguments are not in the domain, the result is not guaranteed to be appropriate.
The exact behavior of the neural net on arguments outside of the domain depends on the implementation of the neural net. But overall, the result is useless if the arguments are not within the domain.
I believe the answer is dependent on the scenario.
Consider NN (neural network) as an operator F, so that F(input) = output. In the case where this relation is linear so that F(A * input) = A * output, then you might choose to either leave the input/output unnormalised in their raw forms, or normalise both to eliminate A. Obviously this linearity assumption is violated in classification tasks, or nearly any task that outputs a probability, where F(A * input) = 1 * output
In practice, normalisation allows non-fittable networks to be fittable, which is crucial to experimenters/programmers. Nevertheless, the precise impact of normalisation will depend not only on the network architecture/algorithm, but also on the statistical prior for the input and output.
What's more, NN is often implemented to solve very difficult problems in a black-box fashion, which means the underlying problem may have a very poor statistical formulation, making it hard to evaluate the impact of normalisation, causing the technical advantage (becoming fittable) to dominate over its impact on the statistics.
In statistical sense, normalisation removes variation that is believed to be non-causal in predicting the output, so as to prevent NN from learning this variation as a predictor (NN does not see this variation, hence cannot use it).
The reason normalization is needed is because if you look at how an adaptive step proceeds in one place in the domain of the function, and you just simply transport the problem to the equivalent of the same step translated by some large value in some direction in the domain, then you get different results. It boils down to the question of adapting a linear piece to a data point. How much should the piece move without turning and how much should it turn in response to that one training point? It makes no sense to have a changed adaptation procedure in different parts of the domain! So normalization is required to reduce the difference in the training result. I haven't got this written up, but you can just look at the math for a simple linear function and how it is trained by one training point in two different places. This problem may have been corrected in some places, but I am not familiar with them. In ALNs, the problem has been corrected and I can send you a paper if you write to wwarmstrong AT shaw.ca
On a high level, if you observe as to where normalization/standardization is mostly used, you will notice that, anytime there is a use of magnitude difference in model building process, it becomes necessary to standardize the inputs so as to ensure that important inputs with small magnitude don't loose their significance midway the model building process.
example:
√(3-1)^2+(1000-900)^2 ≈ √(1000-900)^2
Here, (3-1) contributes hardly a thing to the result and hence the input corresponding to these values is considered futile by the model.
Consider the following:
Clustering uses euclidean or, other distance measures.
NNs use optimization algorithm to minimise cost function(ex. - MSE).
Both distance measure(Clustering) and cost function(NNs) use magnitude difference in some way and hence standardization ensures that magnitude difference doesn't command over important input parameters and the algorithm works as expected.
Hidden layers are used in accordance with the complexity of our data. If we have input data which is linearly separable then we need not to use hidden layer e.g. OR gate but if we have a non linearly seperable data then we need to use hidden layer for example ExOR logical gate.
Number of nodes taken at any layer depends upon the degree of cross validation of our output.