So I trying to perform a 4-fold cross validation on my training set. I have divided my training data into four quarters. I use three quarters for training and one quarter for validation. I repeat this three more times till all the quarters are given a chance to be the validation set, atleast once.
Now after training I have four caffemodels. I test the models on my validation sets. I am getting different accuracy in each case. How should I proceed from here? Should I just choose the model with the highest accuracy?
Maybe it is a late reply, but in any case...
The short answer is that, if the performances of the four models are similar and good enough, then you re-train the model on all the data available, because you don't want to waste any of them.
The n-fold cross validation is a practical technique to get some insights on the learning and generalization properties of the model you are trying to train, when you don't have a lot of data to start with. You can find details everywhere on the web, but I suggest the open-source book Introduction to Statistical Learning, Chapter 5.
The general rule says that after you trained your n models, you average the prediction error (MSE, accuracy, or whatever) to get a general idea of the performance of that particular model (in your case maybe the network architecture and learning strategy) on that dataset.
The main idea is to assess the models learned on the training splits checking if they have an acceptable performance on the validation set. If they do not, then your models probably overfitted tha training data. If both the errors on training and validation splits are high, then the models should be reconsidered, since they don't have predictive capacity.
In any case, I would also consider the advice of Yoshua Bengio who says that for the kind of problem deep learning is meant for, you usually have enough data to simply go with a training/test split. In this case this answer on Stackoverflow could be useful to you.
Related
I have a model tuning object that fits multiple models and tunes each one of them to find the best hyperparameter combination for each of the models. I want to perform cross-validation on the model tuning part and this is where I am facing a dilemma.
Let's assume that I am fitting just the one model- a random forest classifier and performing a 5 fold cross-validation. Currently, for the first fold that I leave out, I fit the random forest model and perform the model tuning. I am performing model tuning using the dlib package. I calculate the evaluation metric(accuracy, precision, etc) and select the best hyper-parameter combination.
Now when I am leaving out the second fold, should I be tuning the model again? Because if I do, I will get a different combination of hyperparameters than I did in the first case. If I do this across the five folds, what combination do I select?
The cross validators present in spark and sklearn use grid search so for each fold they have the same hyper-parameter combination and don't have to bother about hyper-parameter combinations changing across folds
Choosing the best hyper-parameter combination that I get when I leave out the first fold and using it for the subsequent folds doesn't sound right because then my entire model tuning is dependent on which fold got left out first. However, if I am getting different hyperparameters each time, which one do I settle on?
TLDR:
If you are performing let's say a derivative based model tuning along with cross-validation, your hyper-parameter combination changes as you iterate over folds. How do you select the best combination then? Generally speaking, how do you use cross-validation with derivative-based model tuning methods.
PS: Please let me know if you need more details
This is more of a comment, but it is too long for this, so I post it as an answer instead.
Cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning are two separate things. Cross Validation is done to get a sense of the out-of-sample prediction error of the model. You can do this by having a dedicated validation set, but this raises the question if you are overfitting to this particular validation data. As a consequence, we often use cross-validation where the data are split in to k folds and each fold is used once for validation while the others are used for fitting. After you have done this for each fold, you combine the prediction errors into a single metric (e.g. by averaging the error from each fold). This then tells you something about the expected performance on unseen data, for a given set of hyperparameters.
Once you have this single metric, you can change your hyperparameter, repeat, and see if you get a lower error with the new hyperparameter. This is the hpyerparameter tuning part. The CV part is just about getting a good estimate of the model performance for the given set of hyperparameters, i.e. you do not change hyperparameters 'between' folds.
I think one source of confusion might be the distinction between hyperparameters and parameters (sometimes also referred to as 'weights', 'feature importances', 'coefficients', etc). If you use a gradient-based optimization approach, these change between iterations until convergence or a stopping rule is reached. This is however different from hyperparameter search (e.g. how many trees to plant in the random forest?).
By the way, I think questions like these should better be posted to the Cross-Validated or Data Science section here on StackOverflow.
The problem is as follows:
I want to use a forecasting algorithm to predict heat demand of a not further specified household during the next 24 hours with a time resolution of only a few minutes within the next three or four hours and lower resolution within the following hours.
The algorithm should be adaptive and learn over time. I do not have much historic data since in the beginning I want the algorithm to be able to be used in different occasions. I only have very basic input like the assumed yearly heat demand and current outside temperature and time to begin with. So, it will be quite general and unprecise at the beginning but learn from its Errors over time.
The algorithm is asked to be implemented in Matlab if possible.
Does anyone know an apporach or an algortihm designed to predict sensible values after a short time by learning and adapting to current incoming data?
Well, this question is quite broad as essentially any algorithm for forcasting or data assimilation could do this task in principle.
The classic approach I would look into first would be Kalman filtering, which is a quite general approach at least once its generalizations to ensemble Filters etc. are taken into account (This is also implementable in MATLAB easily).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
However the more important part than the actual inference algorithm is typically the design of the model you fit to your data. For your scenario you could start with a simple prediction from past values and add daily rhythms, influences of outside temperature etc. The more (correct) information you put into your model a priori the better your model should be at prediction.
For the full mathematical analysis of this type of problem I can recommend this book: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706804
In order to turn this into a calibration problem, we need:
a model that predicts the heat demand depending on inputs and parameters,
observations of the heat demand.
Calibrating this model means tuning the parameters so that the model best predicts the heat demand.
If you go for Python, I suggest to use OpenTURNS, which provides several data assimilation methods, e.g. Kalman filtering (also called BLUE):
https://openturns.github.io/openturns/latest/user_manual/calibration.html
I was reading about cross validation and about how it it is used to select the best model and estimate parameters , I did not really understand the meaning of it.
Suppose I build a Linear regression model and go for a 10 fold cross validation, I think each of the 10 will have different coefficiant values , now from 10 different which should I pick as my final model or estimate parameters.
Or do we use Cross Validation only for the purpose of finding an average error(average of 10 models in our case) and comparing against another model ?
If your build a Linear regression model and go for a 10 fold cross validation, indeed each of the 10 will have different coefficient values. The reason why you use cross validation is that you get a robust idea of the error of your linear model - rather than just evaluating it on one train/test split only, which could be unfortunate or too lucky. CV is more robust as no ten splits can be all ten lucky or all ten unfortunate.
Your final model is then trained on the whole training set - this is where your final coefficients come from.
Cross-validation is used to see how good your models prediction is. It's pretty smart making multiple tests on the same data by splitting it as you probably know (i.e. if you don't have enough training data this is good to use).
As an example it might be used to make sure you aren't overfitting the function. So basically you try your function when you've finished it with Cross-validation and if you see that the error grows a lot somewhere you go back to tweaking the parameters.
Edit:
Read the wikipedia for deeper understanding of how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_%28statistics%29
You are basically confusing Grid-search with cross-validation. The idea behind cross-validation is basically to check how well a model will perform in say a real world application. So we basically try randomly splitting the data in different proportions and validate it's performance. It should be noted that the parameters of the model remain the same throughout the cross-validation process.
In Grid-search we try to find the best possible parameters that would give the best results over a specific split of data (say 70% train and 30% test). So in this case, for different combinations of the same model, the dataset remains constant.
Read more about cross-validation here.
Cross Validation is mainly used for the comparison of different models.
For each model, you may get the average generalization error on the k validation sets. Then you will be able to choose the model with the lowest average generation error as your optimal model.
Cross-Validation or CV allows us to compare different machine learning methods and get a sense of how well they will work in practice.
Scenario-1 (Directly related to the question)
Yes, CV can be used to know which method (SVM, Random Forest, etc) will perform best and we can pick that method to work further.
(From these methods different models will be generated and evaluated for each method and an average metric is calculated for each method and the best average metric will help in selecting the method)
After getting the information about the best method/ or best parameters we can train/retrain our model on the training dataset.
For parameters or coefficients, these can be determined by grid search techniques. See grid search
Scenario-2:
Suppose you have a small amount of data and you want to perform training, validation and testing on data. Then dividing such a small amount of data into three sets reduce the training samples drastically and the result will depend on the choice of pairs of training and validation sets.
CV will come to the rescue here. In this case, we don't need the validation set but we still need to hold the test data.
A model will be trained on k-1 folds of training data and the remaining 1 fold will be used for validating the data. A mean and standard deviation metric will be generated to see how well the model will perform in practice.
I built a hurdle model, and then used that model to predict from known to unknown data points using the predict command. Is there a way to validate the model and these predictions? Do I have to do this in two parts, for example using sensitivity and specificity for the binomial part of the model?
Any other ideas for how to assess the validity of this model?
For validating predictive models, I usually trust Cross-Validation.
In short: With cross-validation you can measure the predictive performance of your model using only the training data (data with known results). Thus you can get a general opinion on how your model works. Cross-validation works quite well for wide variety of different models. The downside is that it can get quite computation heavy.
With large data sets, 10-fold cross-validation is enough. The smaller your dataset is, the more "folds" you have to do (i.e. with very small datasets, you have to do leave-one-out cross-validation)
With cross-validation, you get predictions for the whole data set. You can then compare these predictions to the actual outputs and measure how well your model performed.
Cross-validated results can take a bit to understand in more complicated comparisons, but for your general purpose question "how to assess the validity of the model", the results should be quite easy to use.
I'm attempting to write some code for item based collaborative filtering for product recommendations. The input has buyers as rows and products as columns, with a simple 0/1 flag to indicate whether or not a buyer has bought an item. The output is a list similar items for a given purchased, ranked by cosine similarities.
I am attempting to measure the accuracy of a few different implementations, but I am not sure of the best approach. Most of the literature I find mentions using some form of mean square error, but this really seems more applicable when your collaborative filtering algorithm predicts a rating (e.g. 4 out of 5 stars) instead of recommending which items a user will purchase.
One approach I was considering was as follows...
split data into training/holdout sets, train on training data
For each item (A) in the set, select data from the holdout set where users bought A
Determine which percentage of A-buyers bought one of the top 3 recommendations for A-buyers
The above seems kind of arbitrary, but I think it could be useful for comparing two different algorithms when trained on the same data.
Actually your approach is quiet similar with the literature but I think you should consider to use recall and precision as most of the papers do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall
Moreover if you will use Apache Mahout there is an implementation for recall and precision in this class; GenericRecommenderIRStatsEvaluator
Best way to test a recommender is always to manually verify that the results. However some kind of automatic verification is also good.
In the spirit of a recommendation system, you should split your data in time, and see if you algorithm can predict what future buys the user does. this should be done for all users.
Don't expect that it can predict everything, a 100% correctness is usually a sign of over-fitting.