I did some forecasting (stock) for my thesis. I only used a fix amount of 600 Samples (can't change that). Because of the small dataset i only did a Train and Test Split (no validation etc.). I found some settings where i get very good results (MAPE and R2) for both train and test. But i only have the loss curve of the train set. I am wondering if that is enough, or is it a must to have both train and validation loss-curve?
Because of that thought, i split it three ways (10% holdout test), and 70% train and 20% Validation. There i have both loss-curves, and i get good results for the MAPE score (around 3-5 %for all three) in Train Val and Test, only the R2 is bad in the val-set (0,7 and in train/test 0,95)
So can i use the first option, and only use the train-loss-curve?
I do not think a validation set will be necessary in this case if you are only training on a single data model. To my understanding, the validation set would be more useful if you are training on multiple various models, and that would help you decide which is the best fit.
https://machinelearningmastery.com/difference-test-validation-datasets/
Related
I'm finetuning a t5-base model following this notebook.
However, the loss of both validation set and training set decreases very slowly. I changed the learning_rate to a larger number, but it did not help. Eventually, the bleu score on the validation set was low (around 13.7), and the translation quality was low as well.
***** Running Evaluation *****
Num examples = 1000
Batch size = 32
{'eval_loss': 1.06500244140625, 'eval_bleu': 13.7229, 'eval_gen_len': 17.564, 'eval_runtime': 16.7915, 'eval_samples_per_second': 59.554, 'eval_steps_per_second': 1.906, 'epoch': 5.0}
If I use the "Helsinki-NLP/opus-mt-en-ro" model, the loss decreases properly, and at the end, the finetuned model works pretty well.
How to fine-tune t5-base properly? Did I miss something?
I think the metrics shown in the tutorial are for the already trained EN>RO opus-mt model which was then fine-tuned. I don't see the before and after comparison of the metrics for it, so it is hard to tell how much of a difference that fine-tuning really made.
You generally shouldn't expect the same results from fine-tuning T5 which is not a (pure) machine translation model. More important is the difference in metrics before and after the fine-tuning.
Two things I could imagine having gone wrong with your training:
Did you add the proper T5 prefix to the input sequences ("translate English to Romanian: ") for both your training and your evaluation? If you did not you might have been training a new task from scratch and not use the bit of pre-training the model did on MT to Romanian (and German and perhaps some other ones). You can see how that affects the model behavior for example in this inference demo: Language used during pretraining and Language not used during pretraining.
If you chose a relatively small model like t5-base but you stuck with the num_train_epochs=1 in the tutorial your train epoch number is probably a lot too low to make a noticable difference. Try increasing the epochs for as long as you get significant performance boosts from it, in the example this is probably the case for at least the first 5 to 10 epochs.
I actually did something very similar to what you are doing before for EN>DE (German). I fine-tuned both opus-mt-en-de and t5-base on a custom dataset of 30.000 samples for 10 epochs. opus-mt-en-de BLEU increased from 0.256 to 0.388 and t5-base from 0.166 to 0.340, just to give you an idea of what to expect. Romanian/the dataset you use might be more of a challenge for the model and result in different scores though.
I'm training catboost on a dataset made of 41k observations and ~60 features. The dataset is a longitudinal series (9 years) that is spatially distributed. At the moment I'm just using random resampling of data, ignoring spatial and temporal dependencies. The model selection is performed using a 5 folds CV and some data are used as external test/held out set.
Best result I get with catboost is with following hps:
mtry=37, min_n = 458, tree_depth = 10, learn rate = 0.05
training AUC = .962
internal validation AUC = .867
external test AUC = .870
The difference between the training and test AUC is quite big and this suggests overfitting.
A second hp configuration, instead, reduces the difference between the training and test set but the test performance decreases as well.
mtry=19, min_n = 976, tree_depth = 8, learn rate = 0.0003
training AUC = .846
internal validation AUC = .841
external test AUC = .836
I'd be tempted to go with the first hps configuration since it gives me the best result on the test set. On the other hand the second result seems more robust to me, since training and test performance are quite similar. In addition the second result might be closer to the "true" performance I can get using spatial or temporal blocked resampling strategy.
Then my question is should I be concerned about differences between training and test set or as long as the test performance doesn't decrease (overfitting consequence) I shouldn't care about it and pick the first hps configuration?
Your intuition that "the second result might be closer to the 'true' result" is good. In a scenario where a model is overfitting, take even the performance on a validation and test set with a grain of salt. It could be that the pattern the model memorized for training still performs well on validation and test for now, but is a strong signal that the model is inflexible to variance, which in most cases is likely to occur with time.
Therefore, yes, you should be concerned about differences between training and test, and not simply select the model which has the best test performance. The difference in test performance between these two models is relatively small. Based on the little I know of what you have tried, I'd suggest iterating more to see if you can recapture a few points of accuracy while still eliminating the overfitting.
I built a 3D image classification model with CNN for my research. I only have 5000 images and used 4500 images for training and 500 image for test set.
I tried different architectures and parameters for the training and
the F1 score and the accuracy on the training sets were as high as 0.9. It was fortunate that I didn't have to spend a lot of time to find these settings for the high accuracy.
Now I applied this model for the test set and I got a quite satisfying prediction with F1 score of 0.8~0.85.
My question here is, is it necessary to do validation? When I was taking a machine learning course back then, I was taught to use a validation set for tuning hyper parameters. One reason why I did not do k-fold cross validation is because I do not have much data and wanted to use as many training data as possible. And my model shows a quite good prediction on the test set. Can my model still convince people as long as the accuracy/f1 score/ROC are good enough? Or can I try to convince people only by doing k-fold cross validation without making and testing on a test set separately?
Thank you!
unfortunately i think that the single result won't be enough. This is due to the fact that your result could be just pure luck.
Using a 10 fold CV you use 90% of your data (4500 images) for training and the remaining 10% for testing. So basically you are not using less images in the training with the advantage of more reliable results.
The validation scheme proposed by Martin is already a good one but if you are looking for something more robust you should use a nested cross validation:
Split the data-set in K folds
The i-th training set is composed by {1,2,..,K} \ i folds.
Split the training set in N folds.
Set a hyper-parameter values grid
For each hyper-parameter set of values:
train on {1,2,..,N} \ j folds and test on the j-th fold;
Iterate for all the N folds and compute the average F-score.
Choose the set of hyper-parameters that maximize your metric.
Train the model using the i-th training set and the optimal set of hyper-parameters and test on the i-th fold.
Repeat for all the K folds and compute the average metrics.
The average metrics could be not sufficient to prove the stability of the method so it's advisable to provide also the confidence interval or the variance of the results.
Finally, to have a really stable validation of your method, you could consider to substitute the initial K-fold cross validation with a re-sampling procedure. Instead of splitting the data in K fold you resample the dataset at random using 90% of the samples as training and 10% of samples for testing. Repeat this M times with M>K. If the computation is fast enough you can consider to do this 20-50 or 100 times.
A cross validation dataset is used to adjust hyperparameters. You should never touch the test set, except when you are finished with everything!
As suggested in the comments, I recommend k-fold cross validation (e.g. k=10):
Split your dataset into k=10 sets
For i=1..10: Use sets {1, 2,..., 10} \ i as a training set (and to find the hyper parameters) and set i to evaluate.
Your final score is the average among those k=10 evaluation scores.
I used 10-fold cross validation in Weka.
I know this usually means that the data is split in 10 parts, 90% training, 10% test and that this is alternated 10 times.
I am wondering on what Weka calculates the resulting AUC. Is it the average of all 10 test sets? Or (and I hope this is true), does it use a holdout test set? I can't seem to find a description of this in the weka book.
Weka averages the test results. And this is a better approach then the holdout set, I don't understand why you would hope for such approach. If you hold out the test set (of what size?) your test would not be statisticaly significant, It would only say, that for best chosen parameters on the training data you achieved some score on arbitrary small part of data. The whole point of cross validation (as the evaluation technique) is to use all the data as training and as testing in turns, so the resulting metric is approximation of the expected value of the true evaluation measure. If you use the hold out test it would not converge to expected value (at least not in a reasonable time) and what is even more important - you would have to choose another constant (how big hold out set and why?) and reduce the number of samples used for training (while cross validation has been developed due to the problem with to small datasets for both training and testing).
I performed cross validation on my own (made my own random folds and created 10 classifiers) and checked the average AUC. I also checked to see if the entire dataset was used to report the AUC (similar as to when Weka outputs a decision tree under 10-fold).
The AUC for the credit dataset with a naive Bayes classifier as found by...
10-fold weka = 0.89559
10-fold mine = 0.89509
original train = 0.90281
There is a slight discrepancy between my average AUC and Weka's, but this could be from a failure in replicating the folds (although I did try to control the seeds).
I've always thought from what I read that cross validation is performed like this:
In k-fold cross-validation, the original sample is randomly
partitioned into k subsamples. Of the k subsamples, a single subsample
is retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the
remaining k − 1 subsamples are used as training data. The
cross-validation process is then repeated k times (the folds), with
each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The
k results from the folds then can be averaged (or otherwise combined)
to produce a single estimation
So k models are built and the final one is the average of those.
In Weka guide is written that each model is always built using ALL the data set. So how does cross validation in Weka work ? Is the model built from all data and the "cross-validation" means that k fold are created then each fold is evaluated on it and the final output results is simply the averaged result from folds?
So, here is the scenario again: you have 100 labeled data
Use training set
weka will take 100 labeled data
it will apply an algorithm to build a classifier from these 100 data
it applies that classifier AGAIN on
these 100 data
it provides you with the performance of the
classifier (applied to the same 100 data from which it was
developed)
Use 10 fold CV
Weka takes 100 labeled data
it produces 10 equal sized sets. Each set is divided into two groups: 90 labeled data are used for training and 10 labeled data are used for testing.
it produces a classifier with an algorithm from 90 labeled data and applies that on the 10 testing data for set 1.
It does the same thing for set 2 to 10 and produces 9 more classifiers
it averages the performance of the 10 classifiers produced from 10 equal sized (90 training and 10 testing) sets
Let me know if that answers your question.
I would have answered in a comment but my reputation still doesn't allow me to:
In addition to Rushdi's accepted answer, I want to emphasize that the models which are created for the cross-validation fold sets are all discarded after the performance measurements have been carried out and averaged.
The resulting model is always based on the full training set, regardless of your test options. Since M-T-A was asking for an update to the quoted link, here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20170519110106/http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/wekalist/2009-December/046633.html/. It's an answer from one of the WEKA maintainers, pointing out just what I wrote.
I think I figured it out. Take (for example) weka.classifiers.rules.OneR -x 10 -d outmodel.xxx. This does two things:
It creates a model based on the full dataset. This is the model that is written to outmodel.xxx. This model is not used as part of cross-validation.
Then cross-validation is run. cross-validation involves creating (in this case) 10 new models with the training and testing on segments of the data as has been described. The key is the models used in cross-validation are temporary and only used to generate statistics. They are not equivalent to, or used for the model that is given to the user.
Weka follows the conventional k-fold cross validation you mentioned here. You have the full data set, then divide it into k nos of equal sets (k1, k2, ... , k10 for example for 10 fold CV) without overlaps. Then at the first run, take k1 to k9 as training set and develop a model. Use that model on k10 to get the performance. Next comes k1 to k8 and k10 as training set. Develop a model from them and apply it to k9 to get the performance. In this way, use all the folds where each fold at most 1 time is used as test set.
Then Weka averages the performances and presents that on the output pane.
once we've done the 10-cross-validation by dividing data in 10 segments & create Decision tree and evaluate, what Weka does is run the algorithm an eleventh time on the whole dataset. That will then produce a classifier that we might deploy in practice. We use 10-fold cross-validation in order to get an evaluation result and estimate of the error, and then finally we do classification one more time to get an actual classifier to use in practice.
During kth cross validation, we will going to have different Decision tree but final one is created on whole datasets. CV is used to see if we have overfitting or large variance issue.
According to "Data Mining with Weka" at The University of Waikato:
Cross-validation is a way of improving upon repeated holdout.
Cross-validation is a systematic way of doing repeated holdout that actually improves upon it by reducing the variance of the estimate.
We take a training set and we create a classifier
Then we’re looking to evaluate the performance of that classifier, and there’s a certain amount of variance in that evaluation, because it’s all statistical underneath.
We want to keep the variance in the estimate as low as possible.
Cross-validation is a way of reducing the variance, and a variant on cross-validation called “stratified cross-validation” reduces it even further.
(In contrast to the the “repeated holdout” method in which we hold out 10% for the testing and we repeat that 10 times.)
So how does cross validation in Weka work ?:
With cross-validation, we divide our dataset just once, but we divide into k pieces, for example , 10 pieces. Then we take 9 of the pieces and use them for training and the last piece we use for testing. Then with the same division, we take another 9 pieces and use them for training and the held-out piece for testing. We do the whole thing 10 times, using a different segment for testing each time. In other words, we divide the dataset into 10 pieces, and then we hold out each of these pieces in turn for testing, train on the rest, do the testing and average the 10 results.
That would be 10-fold cross-validation. Divide the dataset into 10 parts (these are called “folds”);
hold out each part in turn;
and average the results.
So each data point in the dataset is used once for testing and 9 times for training.
That’s 10-fold cross-validation.