I use the tensorflow to train a simple two-layer RNN on my data set. The training curve is shown as follows:
where, the x-axis is the steps(in one step, a batch_size number of samples is used to update the net parameters), the y-axis is the accuracy. The red, green, blue line is the accuracy in training set, validation set, and the test set, respectively. It seems the training curve is not smooth and have some corrupt change. Is it reasonable?
Have you tried gradient clipping, Adam optimizer and learning rate decay?
From my experience, gradient clipping can prevent exploding gradients, Adam optimizer can converge faster, and learning rate decay can improve generalization.
Have you shuffled the training data?
In addition, visualizing the distribution of weights also helps debugging the model.
It's absolutely OK since you are using SGD. General trend is that your accuracy increases as number of used minibatches increases, however, some minibatches could significantly 'differ' from most of the others, therefore accuracy could be poor on them.
The fact that your test and validation accuracy drops horribly at times 13 and 21 is suspicious. E.g. 13 drops the test score below epoch 1.
This implies your learning rate is probably too large: a single mini-batch shouldn't cause that amount of weight change.
Related
I am training a model, and using the original learning rate of the author (I use their github too), I get a validation loss that keeps oscillating a lot, it will decrease but then suddenly jump to a large value and then decrease again, but never really converges as the lowest it gets is 2 (while training loss converges to 0.0 something - much below 1)
At each epoch I get the training accuracy and at the end, the validation accuracy. Validation accuracy is always greater than the training accuracy.
When I test on real test data, I get good results, but I wonder if my model is overfitting. I expect a good model's val loss to converge in a similar fashion with training loss, but this doesn't happen and the fact that the val loss oscillates to very large values at times worries me.
Adjusting the learning rate and scheduler etc etc, I got the val loss and training loss to a downward fashion with less oscilliation, but this time my test accuracy remains low (as well as training and validation accuracies)
I did try a couple of optimizers (adam, sgd, adagrad) with step scheduler and also the pleateu one of pytorch, I played with step sizes etc. but it didn't really help, neither did clipping gradients.
Is my model overfitting?
If so, how can I reduce the overfitting besides data augmentation?
If not (I read some people on quora said it is nothing to worry about, though I would think it must be overfitting), how can I justify it? Even if I would get similar results for a k-fold experiment, would it be good enough? I don't feel it would justify the oscilliating. How should I proceed?
The training loss at each epoch is usually computed on the entire training set.
The validation loss at each epoch is usually computed on one minibatch of the validation set, so it is normal for it to be more noisey.
Solution: You can report the Exponential Moving Average of the validation loss across different epochs to have less fluctuations.
It is not overfitting since your validation accuracy is not less than the training accuracy. In fact, it sounds like your model is underfitting since your validation accuracy > training accuracy.
My training data consists of about ~700 unique samples (this is for a regression problem). The data is not shuffled, so the first N samples have the same label (say, the value 1.25), then the next M samples have a the same label (say, 2.99), etc. In total there's around 15 unique labels.
I'm using a simple CNN, as the input is an image (64x64x3). Even with no dropout or any other form of regularization, I can't get the training loss to stabilize close to zero.
What is this pattern of the learning loss an indication of? (gray line is the training loss, orange line is the validation loss).
The only indication you can get from such pattern is that the learning rate is too large, you should decrease it until the loss starts to decrease.
It seems that your learning rate is
too large, making your parameters oscillate wildly.
Things that I recommend at that point would be to:
Decrease your initial learning rate
Try another optimizer with some sort of learning rate decay (e.g. ADAM which worked good for me in such cases)
When I execute the cifar10 model as described at https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/deep_cnn I achieve 86% accuracy after approx 4 hours using a single GPU , when I utilize 2 GPU's the accuracy drops to 84% but reaching 84% accuracy is faster on 2 GPU's than 1.
My intuition is
that average_gradients function as defined at https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/tutorials/image/cifar10/cifar10_multi_gpu_train.py returns a less accurate gradient value as an average of gradients will be less accurate than the actual gradient value.
If the gradients are less accurate then the parameters than control the function that is learned as part of training is less accurate. Looking at the code (https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/tutorials/image/cifar10/cifar10_multi_gpu_train.py) why is averaging the gradients over multiple GPU's less accurate than computing the gradient on a single GPU ?
Is my intuition of averaging the gradients producing a less accurate value correct ?
Randomness in the model is described as :
The images are processed as follows:
They are cropped to 24 x 24 pixels, centrally for evaluation or randomly for training.
They are approximately whitened to make the model insensitive to dynamic range.
For training, we additionally apply a series of random distortions to artificially increase the data set size:
Randomly flip the image from left to right.
Randomly distort the image brightness.
Randomly distort the image contrast.
src : https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/deep_cnn
Does this have an effect on training accuracy ?
Update :
Attempting to investigate this further, the loss function value training with different number of GPU's.
Training with 1 GPU : loss value : .7 , Accuracy : 86%
Training with 2 GPU's : loss value : .5 , Accuracy : 84%
Shouldn't the loss value be lower for higher for higher accuracy, not vice versa ?
In the code you linked, using the function average_gradient with 2 GPUs is exactly equivalent (1) to simply using 1 GPU with twice the batch size.
You can see it in the definition:
grad = tf.concat(axis=0, values=grads)
grad = tf.reduce_mean(grad, 0)
Using a larger batch size (given the same number of epochs) can have any kind of effect on your results.
Therefore, if you want to do exactly equivalent (1) calculations in 1-GPU or 2-GPU cases, you may want to halve the batch size in the latter case. (People sometimes avoid doing it, because smaller batch sizes may also make the computation on each GPU slower, in some cases)
Additionally, one needs to be careful with learning rate decay here. If you use it, you want to make sure the learning rate is the same in the nth epoch in both 1-GPU and 2-GPU cases -- I'm not entirely sure this code is doing the right thing here. I tend to print the learning rate in the logs, something like
print sess.run(lr)
should work here.
(1) Ignoring issues related to pseudo-random numbers, finite precision or data set sizes not divisible by the batch size.
There is a decent discussion of this here (not my content). Basically when you distribute SGD, you have to communicate gradients back and forth somehow between workers. This is inherently imperfect, and so your distributed SGD typically diverges from a sequential, single-worker SGD at least to some degree. It is also typically faster, so there is a trade off.
[Zhang et. al., 2015] proposes one method for distributed SGD called elastic-averaged SGD. The paper goes through a stability analysis characterizing the behavior of the gradients under different communication constraints. It gets a little heavy, but it might shed some light on why you see this behavior.
Edit: regarding whether the loss should be lower for the higher accuracy, it is going to depend on a couple of things. First, I am assuming that you are using softmax cross-entropy for your loss (as stated in the deep_cnn tutorial you linked), and assuming accuracy is the total number of correct predictions divided by the total number of samples. In this case, a lower loss on the same dataset should correlate to a higher accuracy. The emphasis is important.
If you are reporting loss during training but then report accuracy on your validation (or testing) dataset, it is possible for these two to be only loosely correlated. This is because the model is fitting (minimizing loss) to a certain subset of your total samples throughout the training process, and then tests against new samples that it has never seen before to verify that it generalizes well. The loss against this testing/validation set could be (and probably is) higher than the loss against the training set, so if the two numbers are being reported from different sets, you may not be able to draw comparisons like "loss for 1 GPU case should be lower since its accuracy is lower".
Second, if you are distributing the training then you are calculating losses across multiple workers (I believe), but only one accuracy at the end, again against a testing or validation set. Maybe the loss being reported is the best loss seen by any one worker, but overall the average losses were higher.
Basically I do not think we have enough information to decisively say why the loss and accuracy do not seem to correlate the way you expect, but there are a number of ways this could be happening, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
I've also encountered this issue.
See Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hour from Facebook which addresses the same issue. The suggested solution is simply to scale up the learning rate by k (after some reasonable warm-up epochs) for k GPUs.
In practice I've found out that simply summing up the gradients from the GPUs (rather than averaging them) and using the original learning rate sometimes does the job as well.
My team is training a CNN in Tensorflow for binary classification of damaged/acceptable parts. We created our code by modifying the cifar10 example code. In my prior experience with Neural Networks, I always trained until the loss was very close to 0 (well below 1). However, we are now evaluating our model with a validation set during training (on a separate GPU), and it seems like the precision stopped increasing after about 6.7k steps, while the loss is still dropping steadily after over 40k steps. Is this due to overfitting? Should we expect to see another spike in accuracy once the loss is very close to zero? The current max accuracy is not acceptable. Should we kill it and keep tuning? What do you recommend? Here is our modified code and graphs of the training process.
https://gist.github.com/justineyster/6226535a8ee3f567e759c2ff2ae3776b
Precision and Loss Images
A decrease in binary cross-entropy loss does not imply an increase in accuracy. Consider label 1, predictions 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 at timesteps 1, 2, 3 and classification threshold 0.5. timesteps 1 and 2 will produce a decrease in loss but no increase in accuracy.
Ensure that your model has enough capacity by overfitting the training data. If the model is overfitting the training data, avoid overfitting by using regularization techniques such as dropout, L1 and L2 regularization and data augmentation.
Last, confirm your validation data and training data come from the same distribution.
Here are my suggestions, one of the possible problems is that your network start to memorize data, yes you should increase regularization,
update:
Here I want to mention one more problem that may cause this:
The balance ratio in the validation set is much far away from what you have in the training set. I would recommend, at first step try to understand what is your test data (real-world data, the one your model will face in inference time) descriptive look like, what is its balance ratio, and other similar characteristics. Then try to build such a train/validation set almost with the same descriptive you achieve for real data.
Well, I faced the similar situation when I used Softmax function in the last layer instead of Sigmoid for binary classification.
My validation loss and training loss were decreasing but accuracy of both remained constant. So this gave me lesson why sigmoid is used for binary classification.
I have run deep learning models(CNN's) using tensorflow. Many times during the epoch, i have observed that both loss and accuracy have increased, or both have decreased. My understanding was that both are always inversely related. What could be scenario where both increase or decrease simultaneously.
The loss decreases as the training process goes on, except for some fluctuation introduced by the mini-batch gradient descent and/or regularization techniques like dropout (that introduces random noise).
If the loss decreases, the training process is going well.
The (validation I suppose) accuracy, instead, it's a measure of how good the predictions of your model are.
If the model is learning, the accuracy increases. If the model is overfitting, instead, the accuracy stops to increase and can even start to decrease.
If the loss decreases and the accuracy decreases, your model is overfitting.
If the loss increases and the accuracy increase too is because your regularization techniques are working well and you're fighting the overfitting problem. This is true only if the loss, then, starts to decrease whilst the accuracy continues to increase.
Otherwise, if the loss keep growing your model is diverging and you should look for the cause (usually you're using a too high learning rate value).
I think the top-rated answer is incorrect.
I will assume you are talking about cross-entropy loss, which can be thought of as a measure of 'surprise'.
Loss and accuracy increasing/decreasing simultaneously on the training data tells you nothing about whether your model is overfitting. This can only be determined by comparing loss/accuracy on the validation vs. training data.
If loss and accuracy are both decreasing, it means your model is becoming more confident on its correct predictions, or less confident on its incorrect predictions, or both, hence decreased loss. However, it is also making more incorrect predictions overall, hence the drop in accuracy. Vice versa if both are increasing. That is all we can say.
I'd like to add a possible option here for all those who struggle with a model training right now.
If your validation data is a bit dirty, you might experience that in the beginning of the training the validation loss is low as well as the accuracy, and the more you train your network, the accuracy increases with the loss side by side. The reason why it happens, because it finds the possible outliers of your dirty data and gets a super high loss there. Therefore, your accuracy will grow as it guesses more data right, but the loss grows with it.
This is just what I think based on the math behind the loss and the accuracy,
Note :-
I expect your data is categorical
Your models output :-
[0.1,0.9,0.9009,0.8] (used to calculate loss)
Maxed output :-
[0,0,1,0] (used to calculate acc )
Expected output :-
[0,1,0,0]
Lets clarify what loss and acc calculates :
Loss :- The overall error of y and ypred
Acc :- Just if y and maxed(ypred) is equal
So in a overall our model almost nailed it , resulting in a low loss
But in maxed output no overall is seen its just that they should completely match ,
If they completely match :-
1
else:
0
Thus resulting in a low accuracy too
Try to check mae of the model
remove regularization
check if your are using correct loss
You should check your class index (both train and valid) in training process. It might be sorted in different ways. I have this problem in colab.