Can you tell me which one among the two is a good validation vs train plot?
Both of them are trained with same keras sequential layers, but the second one is trained using more number of samples, i.e. augmented the dataset.
I'm a little bit confused about the zigzags in the first plot, otherwise I think it is better than the second.
In the second plot, there are no zigzags but the validation accuracy tends to be a little high than train, is it overfitting or considerable?
It is an image detection model where the first model's dataset size is 5170 and the second had 9743 samples.
The convolutional layers defined for the model building:
tf.keras.layers.Conv2D(128,(3,3), activation = 'relu', input_shape = (150,150,3)),
tf.keras.layers.MaxPool2D(2,2),
tf.keras.layers.Conv2D(64,(3,3), activation = 'relu'),
tf.keras.layers.MaxPool2D(2,2),
tf.keras.layers.Conv2D(32,(3,3), activation = 'relu'),
tf.keras.layers.MaxPool2D(2,2),
tf.keras.layers.Flatten(),
tf.keras.layers.Dense(512,activation='relu'),
tf.keras.layers.Dropout(0.5),
tf.keras.layers.Dense(128,activation='relu'),
tf.keras.layers.Dropout(0.25),
tf.keras.layers.Dense(1,activation='sigmoid')
Can the model be improved?
From the graphs the second graph where you have more samples is better. The reason is with more samples the model is trained on a much wider probability distribution of images. So when validation is run you have a better chance of correctly classifying the image. You have a lot of dropout in your model. This is good to prevent over fitting, however it will lower the training accuracy relative to the validation accuracy. Your model seems to be doing well. It might improve if you add additional convolution- max pooling layers. Alternative of course is to use transfer learning. I would recommend efficientnetb3. I also recommend using an adjustable learning rate. The Keras callback ReduceLROnPlateau works well for that purpose. Documentation is here.. Code below shows my recommended settings.
rlronp=tf.keras.callbacks.ReduceLROnPlateau(
monitor='val_loss',
factor=0.5,
patience=2,
verbose=1,
mode='auto'
)
in model.fit include callbacks=[rlronp]
Related
As far as I know, cnn's last layers identify objects as a whole, this is irrelevant to the dataset with signatures. Thus, I want to remove them and add additional layers on top of the model, freezing the VGG16 from training. How would the removal of layers potentially affect the model's performance, or should I just leave and delete only dense layers?
I need to add additional layers on top anyway for the school report about the effect of convolutional layers' configurations on the model's performance.
p.s my dataset is really small it contains nearly 700 samples, which is extremely small n i know that(i tried augmenting data)
I have a dataset with Chinese signatures, but I thought that it is better to train it separately//
I am not proficient in this field and I started my acquaintance from deep learning, so pls correct me if you noticed any misconception in my explanation?/
Easiest way is to use VGG with include_top=False, weights='imagenet, and set pooling = max. This will instantiate the model with imagenet weights, the top classification layer is removed and the output of the VGG model is a flat vector you can feed directly into a dense layer. My typical code for this is shown below. In the final layer class_count is the number of classes in the training data.
base_model=tf.keras.applications.VGG16(include_top=False, weights="imagenet",input_shape=img_shape, pooling='max')
x=base_model.output
x=keras.layers.BatchNormalization(axis=-1, momentum=0.99, epsilon=0.001 )(x)
x = Dense(256, kernel_regularizer = regularizers.l2(l = 0.016),activity_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.006),
bias_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.006) ,activation='relu')(x)
x=Dropout(rate=.45, seed=123)(x)
output=Dense(class_count, activation='softmax')(x)
model=Model(inputs=base_model.input, outputs=output)
How would the removal of layers potentially affect the model's performance, or should I just leave and delete only dense layers?
This is hard to answer because what performance are you talking about? VGG16 originally were build to Imagenet problem with 1000 classes, so if you use it without any modifications probably won't work at all.
Now, if you are talking about transfer learning, so yes, the last dense layers could be replaced to classify your dataset, because the model created with cnn layers in VGG16 is a good pattern recognizer. The fully connected layers at the end work as a classifier for this patterns and you should replace it and train it again for your specific problem. VGG16 has 3 dense layers (FC1, FC2 and FC3) at end, keras only allow you to remove all three, so if you want replace just the last one, you will need to remove all three and rebuild the FC1 and FC2.
The key is what you are going to train after that, you could:
Use original weights (imagenet) in cnn layers and start you trainning from that, just finetunning with a small learning rate. A good choice when you dataset is similar to original and you have a good amount of it.
Use original weights (imagenet) in cnn layers, but freeze them, and just training the weights in the dense layers you replaced. A good choice when your dataset is small.
Don't use the original weights and retrain all the model. Usually not a good choice, because you will need to be an expert to tunning the parameters, tons of data and computacional power to make it work.
Im using CNN to classify wireless signal.
Meamwhile I meet some strange problem - when trainset accuray is 80%, I got 79% testset accuracy, but when trianset accuracy is 93%, the testset accuray fall to 71%. Anyone have same problem before?
My net is based on keras + tensorflow.
the detail of net is :
CNN(512,(2,2),tanh)
Batch_normaliztion
flatten()
DNN(512,elu)
DNN(256,elu)
DNN(128,softmax)
opt=adam
loss = mse
THANKS
This would appear to be a case of over fitting.How did you get the training accuracy to go from 80% to 93%? Was it just by running more epochs?.
If over fitting is what is happening add dropout layers to the model. This should improve the validation accuracy but it may take more epochs to achieve the desired training accuracy. Another alternative is to use regularizers in the dense layers.
The more complex your model is the more it is prone to over fitting so you might try running the model with just two dense layers or alternatively reduce the number of nodes in the hidden layers.
I'm working on a short project that involves implementing a character RNN for text generation. My model uses a single LSTM layer with varying units (messing around with between 50 and 500), dropout at a rate of 0.2, and softmax activation. I'm using RMSprop with a learning rate of 0.01.
My issue is that I can't find a good way to characterize the validation loss. I'm using a validation split of 0.3 and I'm finding that the validation loss starts to become constant after only a few epochs (maybe 2-5 or so) while the training loss keeps decreasing. Does validation loss carry much weight in this sort of problem? The purpose of the model is to generate new strings, so quantifying the validation loss with other strings seems... pointless?
It's hard for me to really find the best model since qualitatively I get the sense that the best model is trained for more epochs than it takes for the validation loss to stop changing but also for fewer epochs than it takes for the training loss to start increasing. I would really appreciate any advice you have regarding this problem as well as any general advice about RNN's for text generation, especially regarding dropout and overfitting. Thanks!
This is the code for fitting the model for every epoch. The callback is a custom callback that just prints a few tests. I'm now realizing that history_callback.history['loss'] is probably the training loss isn't it...
for i in range(num_epochs):
history_callback = model.fit(x, y,
batch_size=128,
epochs=1,
callbacks=[print_callback],
validation_split=0.3)
loss_history.append(history_callback.history['loss'])
validation_loss_history.append(history_callback.history['val_loss'])
My intention for this model isn't to replicate sentences from the training data, rather, I'd like to generate sentence from the same distribution that I'm training on.
Yes history_callback.history['loss'] is Training Loss and history_callback.history['val_loss'] is the Validation Loss.
Yes, Validation Loss carries weight in this sort of problem because you just don't want to replicate the sentences which are given during Training but you want to learn the patterns from the Training Data and generate new sentences when it sees a new data.
From the information you mentioned in the question and from the insights identified from comments (thanks to Brian Bartoldson), it is understood that your model is overfitting. In addition to EarlyStopping and dropout, you can try the below mentioned techniques to mitigate overfitting problem.
3.a. Shuffle the Data, by using shuffle=True in model.fit. Code is shown below
3.b. Use recurrent_dropout. For example, If we set the value of Recurrent Dropout as 0.2 in a Recurrent Layer (LSTM), it means that it will consider only 80% of the Time Steps for that Recurrent Layer (LSTM).
3.c. Use Regularization. You can try l1 Regularization or l1_l2 Regularization as well for the arguments, kernel_regularizer, recurrent_regularizer, bias_regularizer, activity_regularizer of the LSTM Layer.
Sample code to use Shuffle, Early Stopping, Recurrent_Dropout, Regularization is shown below:
from tensorflow.keras.regularizers import l2
from tensorflow.keras.models import Sequential
model = Sequential()
Regularizer = l2(0.001)
model.add(tf.keras.layers.LSTM(units = 50, activation='relu',kernel_regularizer=Regularizer ,
recurrent_regularizer=Regularizer , bias_regularizer=Regularizer , activity_regularizer=Regularizer, dropout=0.2, recurrent_dropout=0.3))
callback = tf.keras.callbacks.EarlyStopping(monitor='val_loss', patience=15)
history_callback = model.fit(x, y,
batch_size=128,
epochs=1,
callbacks=[print_callback, callback],
validation_split=0.3, shuffle = True)
Hope this helps. Happy Learning!
My MAE and MSE quite high. But the training data (not including test data 20%) (1030, 23) instances (after applied IQR and Z-score). By the way, all the categorical columns had been fully encoded.
Epoch: 1900, loss:50195632.3010, mae:3622.3535, mse:50195636.0000, val_loss:65308249.2427, val_mae:4636.2290, val_mse:65308244.0000,
Below is my setting for Keras.
model = keras.Sequential([
layers.Dense(64, activation='relu', input_shape=[len(dftrain.keys())]),
layers.Dense(64, activation='relu'),
layers.Dense(1)
])
optimizer = tf.keras.optimizers.RMSprop(0.001)
model.compile(loss='mse',
optimizer=optimizer,
metrics=['mae', 'mse'])
EPOCHS = 2000
history = model.fit(
normed_train_data,
train_labels,
epochs=EPOCHS,
validation_split = 0.2,
verbose=0,
callbacks=[tfdocs.modeling.EpochDots()])
What do you think?
"High" MAE itself is relative and varies according to the data and there could be multiple factors contributing towards it.
If you are getting started, I d recommend you to perform Exploratory Data
Analysis (EDA) and come up with features and also prepare that data for training.
Once you verify the data, try tuning the parameters of the model to suit your usecase. ML is more about experimenting than about coding.
Notebooks like these in Kaggle will help you get started.
Neural Network Model for House Prices
Comprehensive data exploration with Python
There could be many reasons actually. My quick guesses would be your dataset. The data for training. Is it compatible to the model's expectations? (shapes, formats etc.) Like, in case of text classification, are the texts encoded before feeding to the model.
Are the labels correctly, transformed to neural network expectations?
If yes, rest will be on your network definition, are you using the right loss function, layers etc?
Try a basic model architecture for your problem, this basic architecture model can be taken from implementations for the similar problem found on internet. This will give you a good starting point.
The other answers have already mentioned some good points, but another thing you can do is to normalize your data if you haven't already. NNs are highly sensitive to this. Some methods you can try here are Batch Normalization, Standard Scaler or Min-Max Scaler.
Also, if your model is overfitting (training loss decreasing, but not validation loss), consider adding regularization in the form of Dropout between your layers and see if it improves.
These links might be helpful:
link1
link2
I am new to machine learning and stack overflow, I am trying to interpret two graphs from my regression model.
Training error and Validation error from my machine learning model
my case is similar to this guy Very large loss values when training multiple regression model in Keras but my MSE and RMSE are very high.
Is my modeling underfitting? if yes what can I do to solve this problem?
Here is my neural network I used for solving a regression problem
def build_model():
model = keras.Sequential([
layers.Dense(128, activation=tf.nn.relu, input_shape=[len(train_dataset.keys())]),
layers.Dense(64, activation=tf.nn.relu),
layers.Dense(1)
])
optimizer = tf.keras.optimizers.RMSprop(0.001)
model.compile(loss='mean_squared_error',
optimizer=optimizer,
metrics=['mean_absolute_error', 'mean_squared_error'])
return model
and my data set
I have 500 samples, 10 features and 1 target
Quite the opposite: it looks like your model is over-fitting. When you have low error rates for your training set, it means that your model has learned from the data well and can infer the results accurately. If your validation data is high afterwards however, that means that the information learned from your training data is not successfully being applied to new data. This is because your model has 'fit' onto your training data too much, and only learned how to predict well when its based off of that data.
To solve this, we can introduce common solutions to reduce over-fitting. A very common technique is to use Dropout layers. This will randomly remove some of the nodes so that the model cannot correlate with them too heavily - therefor reducing dependency on those nodes and 'learning' more using the other nodes too. I've included an example that you can test below; try playing with the value and other techniques to see what works best. And as a side note: are you sure that you need that many nodes within your dense layer? Seems like quite a bit for your data set, and that may be contributing to the over-fitting as a result too.
def build_model():
model = keras.Sequential([
layers.Dense(128, activation=tf.nn.relu, input_shape=[len(train_dataset.keys())]),
Dropout(0.2),
layers.Dense(64, activation=tf.nn.relu),
layers.Dense(1)
])
optimizer = tf.keras.optimizers.RMSprop(0.001)
model.compile(loss='mean_squared_error',
optimizer=optimizer,
metrics=['mean_absolute_error', 'mean_squared_error'])
return model
Well i think your model is overfitting
There are several ways that can help you :
1-Reduce the network’s capacity Which you can do by removing layers or reducing the number of elements in the hidden layers
2- Dropout layers, which will randomly remove certain features by setting them to zero
3-Regularization
If i want to give a brief explanation on these:
-Reduce the network’s capacity:
Some models have a large number of trainable parameters. The higher this number, the easier the model can memorize the target class for each training sample. Obviously, this is not ideal for generalizing on new data.by lowering the capacity of the network, it's going to learn the patterns that matter or that minimize the loss. But remember،reducing the network’s capacity too much will lead to underfitting.
-regularization:
This page can help you a lot
https://towardsdatascience.com/handling-overfitting-in-deep-learning-models-c760ee047c6e
-Drop out layer
You can use some layer like this
model.add(layers.Dropout(0.5))
This is a dropout layer with a 50% chance of setting inputs to zero.
For more details you can see this page:
https://machinelearningmastery.com/how-to-reduce-overfitting-with-dropout-regularization-in-keras/
As mentioned in the existing answer by #omoshiroiii your model in fact seems to be overfitting, that's why RMSE and MSE are too high.
Your model learned the detail and noise in the training data to the extent that it is now negatively impacting the performance of the model on new data.
The solution is therefore randomly removing some of the nodes so that the model cannot correlate with them too heavily.