I have a dataset that exhibited heteroskedasticity (on BPtest for simple regression model), so I ran a WLS regression on the same.
Conducting BPtest for heteroskedasticity on the WLS model still rejects the null hypothesis (Homoskedasticity). However, I'm not sure whether the test is relevant after transforming the data with the weights of WLS regression. Am I doing something wrong?
Related
I write a custom gym environment, and trained with PPO provided by stable-baselines3. The ep_rew_mean recorded by tensorboard is as follow:
the ep_rew_mean curve for total 100 million steps, each episode has 50 steps
As shown in the figure, the reward is around 15.5 after training, and the model converges. However, I use the function evaluate_policy() for the trained model, and the reward is much smaller than the ep_rew_mean value. The first value is mean reward, the second value is std of reward:
4.349947246664763 1.1806464511030819
the way I use function evaluate_policy() is:
mean_reward, std_reward = evaluate_policy(model, env, n_eval_episodes=10000)
According to my understanding, the initial environment is randomly distributed in an area when using reset() fuction, so there should not be overfitting problem.
I have also tried different learning rate or other parameters, and this problem is not solved.
I have checked my environment, and I think there is no error.
I have searched on the internet, read the doc of stable-baselines3 and issues on github, but did not find the solution.
evaluate_policy has deterministic to True by default (https://stable-baselines3.readthedocs.io/en/master/common/evaluation.html).
If you sample from the distribution during training, it may help to evaluate the policy without it selecting the actions with an argmax (by passing in deterministic=False).
I have a quick question regarding logistic regression output.
My code (in Stata):
logit pass i.experience, or
pass is a binary variabel determining whether the test is passed or not, experience is a categorical variabel consisting of 3 different experience-groups. Reference group = experience=0 (no experience).
If ORs shows <1 for all experience-groups (p<0.01) I conclude that:
having (any) experience = smaller change of passing the test, compared
to having no experience.
My question: can I also turn this interpretation around, and conclude that:
Non-experienced are more likely to pass the test, compared
to student with experience
?
Thanks.
Recently, I have worked on quantization aware training on tf1.x to push the model to Coral Dev Board. However, when I finished training the model, why is my min max of my 2 outputs fake quantization is the same?
Should it be different when one's maximum target is 95 and one is 2pi?
I have figured out the problem. It is the problem when that part of the model is not really trained QAT. This happens for the output node that somehow forgets to QAT when training. The -6 and 6 values come from the default source of the quantization of tf1.x as mention here
To overcome the problem, we should provide some op to trigger the QAT for the output nodes. In my regression case, I add a dummy op: tf.maximum(output,0) in the model to make the node QAT. If your output is strictly between 0-1, applying "sigmoid" activation at output instead of relu can also solve the problems.
When I run the catboost regressor my training and test plots diverge with weird kinks at ~1000 iterations. The plot is appended below and my regressor setup is as follows:
cat_model=CatBoostRegressor(iterations=2500, depth=4, learning_rate=0.01, loss_function='RMSE', thread_count=-1, use_best_model = True, random_seed=12, random_strength=10, rsm=0.5)
I tried different values of leaf_estimation_iterations & bagging_temperature but did not get any success. Any suggestions on what i should try to get better results.
Model Fit Plot
The diverge is normal. you will always perform better on the train set, as the model overfits the training set, and your objective is to regulate it with the validation set.
First I would recommend to read on bias vs variance tradeoff for a general intuition on how to tackle this issue.
specifically for catboost, you would like to regularize the training procedure so it would generalize better.
you can start with adding more data, and set higher l2_leaf_reg parameter.
The official documentation have much more good suggestions on model tuning:
https://catboost.ai/docs/concepts/parameter-tuning.html
I am trying to implement a CNN in Tensorflow (quite similar architecture to VGG), which then splits into two branches after the first fully connected layer. It follows this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01697
Each of the two branches of the network outputs a set of 32 numbers. I want to write a joint loss function, which will take 3 inputs:
The predictions of branch 1 (y)
The predictions of branch 2 (alpha)
The labels Y (ground truth) (q)
and calculate a weighted loss, as in the image below:
Loss function definition
q_hat = tf.divide(tf.reduce_sum(tf.multiply(alpha, y),0), tf.reduce_sum(alpha,0))
loss = tf.abs(tf.subtract(q_hat, q))
I understand the fact that I need to use the tf functions in order to implement this loss function. Having implemented the above function, the network is training, but once trained, it is not outputting the expected results.
Has anyone ever tried combining outputs of two branches of a network in one joint loss function? Is this something TensorFlow supports? Maybe I am making a mistake somewhere here? Any help whatsoever would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if you would like me to add any further details.
From TensorFlow perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a "regular" CNN graph and a "branched" graph. For TensorFlow, it is just a graph that needs to be executed. So, TensorFlow certainly supports this. "Combining two branches into joint loss" is also nothing special. In fact, it is "good" that loss depends on both branches. It means that when you ask TensorFlow to compute loss, it will have to do the forward pass through both branches, which is what you want.
One thing I noticed is that your code for loss is different than the image. Your code appears to do this https://ibb.co/kbEH95