While training my CNNs I usually aim to maximize the validation accuracy to 1.0 (i.e. 100%). I know that on the other hand it would not make much sense to aim for a training accuracy of 1.0, because we don't want our model to memorize the training data itself.
However, what about a "mixed" approach --
wouldn't it make sense to maximize both training and validation accuracy?
Let's first address what the purpose of validation is:
When we're training a neural net, we are trying to teach the neural net to perform well at a given task for the entire population of input/output pairs in the task. However, it is unrealistic to have the entire dataset, especially for high dimensional inputs such as images. Therefore, we create a training dataset that contains a (hopefully) large amount of that data. We hope when we're training a neural net that by maximizing performance on the training dataset, we maximize performance on the entire dataset. This is called generalization.
How do we know that the neural net is generalizing well? As you mentioned, we don't want to simply memorize the training data. That is where validation accuracy comes in. We feed data that the neural net did not train on through the network to evaluate its performance. Therefore, the purpose of the validations set is to measure the generalization.
You should watch both the training and validation accuracy. The difference between the validation and training accuracy is called the generalization gap, which will tell you how well your neural net is generalizing to new inputs. You want both the training and validation accuracy to be high, and the difference between them to be minimal.
Technically if you could do so, that would be awesome, you wouldn't say a model is over fitting unless there is a gap between validation accuracy and training accuracy, if their values are close, both high or both low, then the model is not over fitting. ideally you want high accuracy on all samples, training, validation and testing, but as I said "IDEALLY". you just don't care as much about training samples.
Related
We were given an assignment in which we were supposed to implement our own neural network, and two other already developed Neural Networks. I have done that and however, this isn't the requirement of the assignment but I still would want to know that what are the steps/procedure I can follow to improve the accuracy of my Models?
I am fairly new to Deep Learning and Machine Learning as a whole so do not have much idea.
The given dataset contains a total of 15 classes (airplane, chair etc.) and we are provided with about 15 images of each class in training dataset. The testing dataset has 10 images of each class.
Complete github repository of my code can be found here (Jupyter Notebook file): https://github.com/hassanashas/Deep-Learning-Models
I tried it out with own CNN first (made one using Youtube tutorials).
Code is as follows,
X_train = X_train/255.0
model = Sequential()
model.add(Conv2D(64, (3, 3), input_shape = X_train.shape[1:]))
model.add(Activation("relu"))
model.add(MaxPooling2D(pool_size=(2, 2)))
model.add(Conv2D(128, (3, 3)))
model.add(Activation("relu"))
model.add(MaxPooling2D(pool_size=(2, 2)))
model.add(Flatten())
model.add(Dense(64))
model.add(Dense(16)) # added 16 because it model.fit gave error on 15
model.add(Activation('softmax'))
For the compiling of Model,
from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import SGD
model.compile(loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy',
optimizer=SGD(learning_rate=0.01),
metrics=['accuracy'])
I used sparse categorical crossentropy because my "y" label was intenger values, ranging from 1 to 15.
I ran this model with following way,
model_fit = model.fit(X_train, y_train, batch_size=32, epochs=30, validation_split=0.1)
It gave me an accuracy of 0.2030 on training dataset and only 0.0733 on the testing dataset (both the datasets are present in the github repository)
Then, I tried out the AlexNet CNN (followed a Youtube tutorial for its code)
I ran the AlexNet on the same dataset for 15 epochs. It improved the accuracy on training dataset to 0.3317, however accuracy on testing dataset was even worse than my own CNN, at only 0.06
Afterwards, I tried out the VGG16 CNN, again following a Youtube Tutorial.
I ran the code on Google Colab for 10 Epochs. It managed to improve to 100% accuracy on training dataset in the 8th epoch. But this model gave the worst accuracy of all three on testing dataset with only 0.0533
I am unable to understand this contrasting behavior of all these models. I have tried out different epoch values, loss functions etc. but the current ones gave the best result relatively. My own CNN was able to get to 100% accuracy when I ran it on 100 epochs (however, it gave very poor results on the testing dataset)
What can I do to improve the performance of these Models? And specifically, what are the few crucial things that one should always try to follow in order to improve efficiency of a Deep Learning Model? I have looked up multiple similar questions on Stackoverflow but almost all of them were working on datasets provided by the tensorflow like mnist dataset and etc. and I didn't find much help from those.
Disclaimer: it's been a few years since I've played with CNNs myself, so I can only pass on some general advice and suggestions.
First of all, I would like to talk about the results you've gotten so far. The first two networks you've trained seem to at least learn something from the training data because they perform better than just randomly guessing.
However: the performance on the test data indicates that the network has not learned anything meaningful because those numbers suggest the network is as good as (or only marginally better than) a random guess.
As for the third network: high accuracy for training data combined with low accuracy for testing data means that your network has overfitted. This means that the network has memorized the training data but has not learned any meaningful patterns.
There's no point in continuing to train a network that has started overfitting. So once the training accuracy increases and testing accuracy decreases for a few epochs consecutively, you can stop training.
Increase the dataset size
Neural networks rely on loads of good training data to learn patterns from. Your dataset contains 15 classes with 15 images each, that is very little training data.
Of course, it would be great if you could get hold of additional high-quality training data to expand your dataset, but that is not always feasible. So a different approach is to artificially expand your dataset. You can easily do this by applying a bunch of transformations to the original training data. Think about: mirroring, rotating, zooming, and cropping.
Remember to not just apply these transformations willy-nilly, they must make sense! For example, if you want a network to recognize a chair, do you also want it to recognize chairs that are upside down? Or for detecting road signs: mirroring them makes no sense because the text, numbers, and graphics will never appear mirrored in real life.
From the brief description of the classes you have (planes and chairs and whatnot...), I think mirroring horizontally could be the best transformation to apply initially. That will already double your training dataset size.
Also, keep in mind that an artificially inflated dataset is never as good as one of the same size that contains all authentic, real images. A mirrored image contains much of the same information as its original, we merely hope it will delay the network from overfitting and hope that it will learn the important patterns instead.
Lower the learning rate
This is a bit of side note, but try lowering the learning rate. Your network seems to overfit in only a few epochs which is very fast. Obviously, lowering the learning rate will not combat overfitting but it will happen more slowly. This means that you can hopefully find an epoch with better overall performance before overfitting takes place.
Note that a lower learning rate will never magically make a bad-performing network good. It's just one way to locate a set of parameters that performs a tad bit better.
Randomize the training data order
During training, the training data is presented in batches to the network. This often happens in a fixed order over all iterations. This may lead to certain biases in the network.
First of all, make sure that the training data is shuffled at least once. You do not want to present the classes one by one, for example first all plane images, then all chairs, etc... This could lead to the network unlearning much of the first class by the end of each epoch.
Also, reshuffle the training data between epochs. This will again avoid potential minor biases because of training data order.
Improve the network design
You've designed a convolutional neural network with only two convolution layers and two fully connected layers. Maybe this model is too shallow to learn to differentiate between the different classes.
Know that the convolution layers tend to first pick up small visual features and then tend to combine these in higher level patterns. So maybe adding a third convolution layer may help the network identify more meaningful patterns.
Obviously, network design is something you'll have to experiment with and making networks overly deep or complex is also a pitfall to watch out for!
What do each of the stages do? I understand that for neural nets in nlp, the train will find the best parameters for the word embedding. But what is the purpose of the evaluation step? What is it supposed to do? How is that different from the prediction phase?
Training, evaluation and prediction are the three main steps of training a model ( basically in any ML framework ) and to move a model from research/development to production.
Training:
A suitable ML architecture is selected based on the problem which needs to be solved. Hyperparameter optimization is carried out to fine-tune the model. The model is then trained on the data for a certain number of epochs. Metrics such as loss, accuracy, MSE are monitored.
Evaluation:
We need to move the model to production. The model in the production
stage will only make inferences and hence we require the best model
possible. So, in order to evaluate or test the model based on some
predefined levels, the evaluation phase is carried out.
Evaluation is mostly carried out on the data which is a subset of the original dataset. Training and evaluations splits are made while preprocessing the data. Metrics are calculated in order to check the performance of the model on the evaluation dataset.
The evaluation data has been never seen by the model as it is not trained on it. Hence, the model's best performance is expected here.
Prediction:
After the testing of the model, we can move it to production. In the production phase, models only make an inference ( predictions ) on the data given to them. No training takes place here.
Even after a thorough examination, the model tends to make
mispredictions. Hence, in the production stage, we can receive
interactive feedback from the users about the performance of the
model.
Now,
But what is the purpose of the evaluation step? What is it supposed to
do? How is that different from the prediction phase?
Evaluation is to make the model better for most cases through which it will come across. Predictions are made to check for other problems which are not related to performance.
I am planning to make small Tensor Flow image classification project, which is expected to run on machines with low processing power, and one of the concerns I was asked about was the time needed to train the model.
The project is still in the conception stage and no clear boundary is made.
But assuming that we will use Tensor flow for Python, with a simple Neural Network for say n images data set, is there a way to estimate or predict the time required to train the model before performing the training given the hardware in use?
I have asked one of my colleagues who works in NN and he said that maybe we could calculate the time needed by measuring the time for the first epoch and making an estimation how many epochs needed afterwards. Is this is a valid way? If yes then is it even possible to estimate the number of epochs needed? And either cases is there a way to calculate it before performing any training?
There is no definite way of finding the number of epochs to which the model converges. It is one of the hyperparameter.
Apart from the type of model you are training, convergence also depends on the distribution of data, and the optimizer you are using.
The rough estimate you can make by looking at the number of parameters you have in your model, check time for one epoch, and get a rough idea from "experience" on the number of epochs. BUT you always have to look at the training and validation loss curves to check for the convergence.
I'm using keras(tensorflow) to train my own CNN model.
As shown in the chart, the train_loss goes down well, but val_loss has big change among each Epoch.
What can be the reason, and what should I do to improve it?
This is typical behavior when training in deep learning. Think about it, your target loss is the training loss, so it is directly affected by the training process and as you said "goes down well". The validation loss is only affected indirectly, so naturally it will be more volatile in comparison.
When you are training, the model is attempting to estimate the real distribution of the data, however all it got is the distribution of the training dataset to rely on (which is similar but not the same).
The big spike at the end of your loss curve might be the result of over-fitting. If you are not using a decaying learning rate during training, I would suggest it.
I'm getting really high variability in both the accuracy and loss between each epoch, as high as 10%. It happens to my accuracy all the time, and my loss when I start adding in dropout. However I really need the dropout, any ideas on how to smooth it out?
It is hard to say anything concrete without knowing what you do. But because you mentioned that your dataset is very small: 500 samples, I say that your 10% performance jumps are not surprising. Still a few ideas:
definitely use a bigger dataset if you can. If it is not possible to collect a bigger dataset, try to augment whatever you have.
try a smaller dropout and see how it goes, try different regularizers (dropout is not the only option)
you data is small, you can afford to run more than 200 iterations
see how your model performs on the test set, it is possible that it just severely overfitted the data
Beside the fact that the data set is very small, during a training with a dropout regularization the loss function is not anymore well defined and I presume the accuracy is also biased. Therefore any tracked metric should be assessed without dropout. It seams that keras does not switch it off while calculating the accuracy during training.