I have a very complex LSTM based neural network model which I'm training on Quora Duplicate Question pairs. There are approximately 400 000 sentence pairs in the original dataset. It would take a lot of processing power and computation time to train on the entire (or 80%) dataset. Would it be unwise if I choose a random subset of the dataset (say 8000 pairs only) for training and 2000 for testing? Would it have a severe impact on the performance? Is always "more the data, better the model" true?
As a Rule of Thumb, Deep Neural Networks usually benefit from more data.
If you have a well described model and properly engineered your inputs, you will lose if you chose a smaller subset of your dataset.
However, you could always evaluate this by using metrics. Check how your loss decreases at every sample size, starting from your 8000 pairs.
For big problems, you always have to keep in mind that computation time is usually also big.
Related
I'm training a CNN (one using a series of ConvTranspose2D in pytorch) that uses input data from JSON to constitute an image. Unlike natural language, the input data can be in any order, as it contains info about various sprites in a scene.
In my first attempts to train the model, I didn't change the order of the input data (meaning, on each epoch, each sprite was represented in the same place in the input data). The model learned for about 10 epochs, but then there started to be divergence between the training loss (which continued to go down) and the test loss. So classic overfitting.
I tried to solve this by doing a form of data augmentation where the output data (in this case an image) stayed the same but I shuffled the order of the input data. As I have around 400 sprites, the maximum shuffling is 400!, so theoretically this can vastly expand the amount of training data. For example, instead of 100k JSON documents corresponding to 100K images, by shuffling the order of sprites in the input data, you have 400!*100000 training data points. In practice of course this amount of data is impractical, so I went with around 2m data points for an initial test. The issue I ran into here was that the model was not learning at all - after getting to a certain loss very quickly (after the first few mini-batches), it didn't learn at all for around 4 epochs. So classic underfitting.
Like Goldilocks, I'd like to find "just right" between the initial overfitting and subsequent underfitting. I'm wondering other strategies I could try out. One idea I had was letting the model train on a predetermined order of sprites (the overfitting case) and then, once overfitting starts (ie two straight epochs with divergence between the test and training loss) shuffling the data. I can also play with changing the model, although it can only be so big because of constraints with the hardware and the fact that inference needs to happen in under 20ms.
Are there any papers or techniques that are recommended in this scenario where data augmentation can lead to vastly more data points but results in a model ceasing to learn? Thanks in advance for any tips!
I am trying to save a bunch of trained random forest classifiers in order to reuse them later. For this, I am trying to use pickle or joblib. The problem I encounter is, that the saved files get huge. This seems to be correlated to the amount of data that I use for training (which is several 10-millions of samples per forest, leading to dumped files in the order of up to 20GB!).
Is the RF classifier itself saving the training data in its structure? If so, how could I take the structure apart and only save the necessary parameters for later predictions? Sadly, I could not find anything on the subject of size yet.
Thanks for your help!
Baradrist
Here's what I did in a nutshell:
I trained the (fairly standard) RF on a large dataset and saved the trained forest afterwards, trying both pickle and joblib (also with the compress-option set to 3).
X_train, y_train = ... some data
classifier = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=24, max_depth=10)
classifier.fit(X_train, y_train)
pickle.dump(classifier, open(path+'classifier.pickle', 'wb'))
or
joblib.dump(classifier, path+'classifier.joblib', compress=True)
Since the saved files got quite big (5GB to nearly 20GB, compressed aprox. 1/3 of this - and I will need >50 such forests!) and the training takes a while, I experimented with different subsets of the training data. Depending on the size of the train set, I found different sizes for the saved classifier, making me believe that information about the training is pickled/joblibed as well. This seems unintuitive to me, as for predictions, I only need the information of all the trained weak predictors (decision trees) which should be steady and since the number of trees and the max depth is not too high, they should also not take up that much space. And certainly not more due to a larger training set.
All in all, I suspect that the structure is containing more than I need. Yet, I couldn't find a good answer on how to exclude these parts from it and save only the necessary information for my future predictions.
I ran into a similar issue and I also thought in the beginning that the model was saving unnecessary information or that the serialization was introducing some redundancy. It turns out in fact that decision trees are indeed memory hungry structures that consists of multiple arrays of length given by the total number of nodes. Nodes in general grow with the size of data (and parameters like max_depth cannot effectively used to limit growth since the reasonable values still have room to generate huge number of nodes). See details in this answer but the gist is:
a single decision tree can easy grow to a few MBs (example above has a 5MB decision tree for 100K data and a 50MB decision tree for 1M data)
a random forest commonly contains at least 100 such decision tree and for the example above you would have models in the range of 0.5/5GB
compression is usually not enough to reduce to reasonable sizes (1/2, 1/3 are usual ranges)
Other notes:
using a different algorithm models might remain of a more manageable size (e.g. with xgboost I saw much smaller serialized models)
it is probably possible to "prune" some of the data used by decision trees if you only plan it to reuse it for prediction. In particular I imagine the array of impurity and possible those on n_samples might not be needed but I have not checked.
with respect to you hypothesis that the random forest is saving the data on which it is trained: not it is not and the data itself would likely be one or more order of magnitude smaller than the final model
so in principle another strategy if you have a reproducible training pipeline could be to save the data instead of the model and retrain on purpose, but this is only possible if you can spare the time to retrain (for example if in a use case where you have a long running service which has the model in memory and you serialize the model in order to have a backup for when the model goes down)
there are probably also other options to limit growth of random forest, the best one I have found until now is in this answer, where the suggestion is to work with min_samples_leaf to set it as a percentage of data
I’m working with different types of financial data inputs for my models and I would like to know more about normalization of them.
In particular, working with some technical indicators, I’ve normalized them to have a range between 0 and 1.
Others were normalized to have a range between -1 and 1.
What is your experience with mixed normalized data?
Could it be acceptable to have these two ranges or is it always better to have the training dataset with a single range i.e. [0 1]?
It is important to note that when we discuss data normalization, we are usually referring to the normalization of continuous data. Categorical data (usually) doesn't require the former.
Furthermore, not all ML methods need you to normalize data for them to function well. Examples of such methods include Random Forests and Gradient Boosting Machines. Others, however, do. For instance, Support Vector Machines and Neural Networks.
The reasons for input data normalization are dependent on the methods themselves. For SVMs, data normalization is done to ensure that input features are given equal importance in influencing the model's decisions. For neural networks, we normalize data to allow the gradient descent process to converge smoothly.
Finally, to answer your question, if you are working with continuous data and using a neural network to model your data, just make sure that the normalized data's values are close to each other (even if they are not the same range) because that is what determines the ease with which the gradient descent process converges. If you are working with an SVM, it would be better to normalize your data to a single range, so that all features may be given equal importance by the similarity/ distance function that your SVM uses. In other cases, the need for data normalization, whatever the ranges, may be removed entirely. Ultimately, it depends on the modeling technique you are using!
Credit to #user3666197 for the helpful feedback in the comments.
Currently I am using the convolutional neural networks to solve the binary classification problem. The data I use is 2D-images and the number of training data is only about 20,000-30,000. In deep learning, it is generally known that overfitting problems can arise if the model is too complex relative to the amount of the training data. So, to prevent overfitting, the simplified model or transfer learning is used.
Previous developers in the same field did not use high-capacity models (high-capacity means a large number of model parameters) due to the small amount of training data. Most of them used small-capacity models and transfer learning.
But, when I was trying to train the data on high-capacity models (based on ResNet50, InceptionV3, DenseNet101) from scratch, which have about 10 million to 20 million parameters in, I got a high accuracy in the test set.
(Note that the training set and the test set were exclusively separated, and I used early stopping to prevent overfitting)
In the ImageNet image classification task, the training data is about 10 million. So, I also think that the amount of my training data is very small compared to the model capacity.
Here I have two questions.
1) Even though I got high accuracy, is there any reason why I should not use a small amount of data on the high-capacity model?
2) Why does it perform well? Even if there is a (very) large gap between the amount of data and the number of model parameters, the techniques like early stopping overcome the problems?
1) You're completely right that small amounts of training data can be problematic when working with a large model. Given that your ultimate goal is to achieve a "high accuracy" this theoretical limitation shouldn't bother you too much if the practical performance is satisfactory for you. Of course, you might always do better but I don't see a problem with your workflow if the score on the test data is legit and you're happy with it.
2) First of all, I believe ImageNet consists of 1.X million images so that puts you a little closer in terms of data. Here are a few ideas I can think of:
Your problem is easier to solve than ImageNet
You use image augmentation to synthetically increase your image data
Your test data is very similar to the training data
Also, don't forget that 30,000 samples means (30,000 * 224 * 224 * 3 =) 4.5 billion values. That should make it quite hard for a 10 million parameter network to simply memorize your data.
3) Welcome to StackOverflow
I read from several sources that implicitly suggest batchnorm being turned off for inference but I have no definite answer for this.
Most common is to use a moving average of mean and std for your batch normalization as used by Keras for example (https://github.com/keras-team/keras/blob/master/keras/layers/normalization.py). If you just turn it off the network will perform worse on the same data, due to changes in how the images are processed.
This is done by storing the average mean and the average std of all the batches used during training the network. Then in inference this moving average is used for normalization.