When training a neural network with a lot of batches, the model will have "forgotten" the first batches it saw and predict more accurately (also overfit) the samples similar to the last batches it was trained on ?
Is that correct ?
Is there a way to correct that ?
Related
I am doing an image classification task using Keras.
I used the vgg16 architecture, I thought it is easier to do, the task is to classify the image having tumor or not in MRI images.
As usual, I read and make all the images in same shape (224×224×3) and normalised by dividing all the images by 255. Then train test split, test dataset is 25% and training dataset is 75%.
train, test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.25)
Then, I trained and got val_loss as 0.64 and val_accuracy as 0.7261.
I save the trained model in my google drive.
Next day, I used the same procedure, to improve the model performance by loading the saved model.
I didn't change the model architecture, I simply loaded the saved model which scores 0.7261 accuracy.
This time, I got better performance, the val_loss is 0.58 and val_accurqcy is 0.7976.
I wonder how this gets high accuracy. Then, I found that when splitting the dataset, the images will splits in random, and thus some of the test data in the 1st training process will become training data in the 2nd training process. So, the model learns the images and predicted well in 2nd training process.
I have to clarify, is this model is truly learns the tumor patterns or it is like that we train and test the model with same dataset or same image samples.
Thanks
When using train_test_split and validating in different sessions, always set your random seed. Otherwise, you will be using different splits, and leaking data like you stated. The model is not "learning" more, rather is being validated on data that it has already trained on. You will likely get worse real-world performance.
I have used 100000 samples to train a general model in Keras and achieve good performance. Then, for a particular sample, I want to use the trained weights as initialization and continue to optimize the weights to further optimize the loss of the particular sample.
However, the problem occurred. First, I load the trained weight by the keras API easily, then, I evaluate the loss of the one particular sample, and the loss is close to the loss of the validation loss during the training of the model. I think it is normal. However, when I use the trained weight as the inital and further optimize the weight over the one sample by model.fit(), the loss is really strange. It is much higher than the evaluate result and gradually became normal after several epochs.
I think it is strange that, for the same one simple and loading the same model weight, why the model.fit() and model.evaluate() return different results. I used batch normalization layers in my model and I wonder that it may be the reason. The result of model.evaluate() seems normal, as it is close to what I seen in the validation set before.
So what cause the different between fit and evaluation? How can I solve it?
I think your core issue is that you are observing two different loss values during fit and evaluate. This has been extensively discussed here, here, here and here.
The fit() function loss includes contributions from:
Regularizers: L1/L2 regularization loss will be added during training, increasing the loss value
Batch norm variations: during batch norm, running mean and variance of the batch will be collected and then those statistics will be used to perform normalization irrespective of whether batch norm is set to trainable or not. See here for more discussion on that.
Multiple batches: Of course, the training loss will be averaged over multiple batches. So if you take average of first 100 batches and evaluate on the 100th batch only, the results will be different.
Whereas for evaluate, just do forward propagation and you get the loss value, nothing random here.
Bottomline is, you should not compare train and validation loss (or fit and evaluate loss). Those functions do different things. Look for other metrics to check if your model is training fine.
I was writing a neural net to train Resnet on CIFAR-10 dataset.
The paper Deep Residual Learning For Image Recognition mentions training for around 60,000 epochs.
I was wondering - what exactly does an epoch refer to in this case? Is it a single pass through a minibatch of size 128 (which would mean around 150 passes through the entire 50000 image training set?
Also how long is this expected to take to train(assume CPU only, 20-layer or 32-layer ResNet)? With the above definition of an epoch, it seems it would take a very long time...
I was expecting something around 2-3 hours only, which is equivalent to about 10 passes through the 50000 image training set.
The paper never mentions 60000 epochs. An epoch is generally taken to mean one pass over the full dataset. 60000 epochs would be insane. They use 64000 iterations on CIFAR-10. An iteration involves processing one minibatch, computing and then applying gradients.
You are correct in that this means >150 passes over the dataset (these are the epochs). Modern neural network models often take days or weeks to train. ResNets in particular are troublesome due to their massive size/depth. Note that in the paper they mention training the model on two GPUs which will be much faster than on the CPU.
If you are just training some models "for fun" I would recommend scaling them down significantly. Try 8 layers or so; even this might be too much. If you are doing this for research/production use, get some GPUs.
I was doing some research on training deep neural networks using tensorflow. I know how to train a model. My problem is i have to train the same model on 2 different computers with different datasets. Then save the model weights. Later i have to merge the 2 model weight files somehow. I have no idea how to merge them. Is there a function that does this or should the weights be averaged?
Any help on this problem would be useful
Thanks in advance
There is literally no way to merge weights, you cannot average or combine them in any way, as the result will not mean anything. What you could do instead is combine predictions, but for that the training classes have to be the same.
This is not a programming limitation but a theoretical one.
It is better to merge weight updates (gradients) during the training and keep a common set of weights rather than trying to merge the weights after individual trainings have completed. Both individually trained networks may find a different optimum and e.g. averaging the weights may give a network which performs worse on both datasets.
There are two things you can do:
Look at 'data parallel training': distributing forward and backward passes of the training process over multiple compute nodes each of which has a subset of the entire data.
In this case typically:
each node propagates a minibatch forward through the network
each node propagates the loss gradient backwards through the network
a 'master node' collects gradients from minibatches on all nodes and updates the weights correspondingly
and distributes the weight updates back to the compute nodes to make sure each of them has the same set of weights
(there are variants of the above to avoid that compute nodes idle too long waiting for results from others). The above assumes that Tensorflow processes running on the compute nodes can communicate with each other during the training.
Look at https://www.tensorflow.org/deploy/distributed) for more details and an example of how to train networks over multiple nodes.
If you really have train the networks separately, look at ensembling, see e.g. this page: https://mlwave.com/kaggle-ensembling-guide/ . In a nutshell, you would train individual networks on their own machines and then e.g. use an average or maximum over the outputs of both networks as a combined classifier / predictor.
I am training faster rcnn model on fruit dataset using a pretrained model provided in google api(faster_rcnn_inception_resnet_v2_atrous_coco).
I made few changes to the default configuration. (number of classes : 12 fine_tune_checkpoint: path to the pretrained checkpoint model and from_detection_checkpoint: true). Total number of annotated images I have is around 12000.
After training for 9000 steps, the results I got have an accuracy percent below 1, though I was expecting it to be atleast 50% (In evaluation nothing is getting detected as accuracy is almost 0). The loss fluctuates in between 0 and 4.
What should be the number of steps I should train it for. I read an article which says to run around 800k steps but its the number of step when you train from scratch?
FC layers of the model are changed because of the different number of the classes but it should not effect those classes which are already present in the pre-trained model like 'apple'?
Any help would be much appreciated!
You shouldn't look at your training loss to determine when to stop. Instead, you should run your model through the evaluator periodically, and stop training when the evaluation mAP stops improving.