I use Bidirectional RNN to detect an event of unbalanced occurence. The positive class is 100times less often than the negative class.
While no regularization use I can get 100% accuracy on train set and 30% on validation set.
I turn on l2 regularization and the result is only 30% accuracy on train set too instead of longer learning and 100% accuracy on validation set.
I was thinking that maybe my data is too small so just for experiment I merged train set with test set which I did not use before. Situation was the same as I would use l2 regularization, which I did not now. I get 30% accuracy on train+test and validation.
In use 128hidden units and 80 timesteps in the mentioned experiments
When I increased the number of hidden units to 256 I can again overfit on train+test set to get 100% accuracy but still only 30% on validation set.
I did try so many options for hyperparameters and almost no result. Maybe the weighted cross entropy is causing the problem, in given experiments the weight on positive class is 5. While trying larger weights the results are often worse around 20% of accuracy.
I tried LSTM and GRU cells, no difference.
The best results I got. I tried 2 hidden layers with 256 hidden units, it took around 3 days of computation and 8GB of GPU memory. I got around 40-50% accuracy before it starts overfitting again while l2 regularization was on but no so strong.
Is there some general guideline what to do in this situation? I was not able to find anything.
Too much hidden units can overfit your model. You can try with smaller number of hidden units. As you mentioned, training with more data might improve the performance. If you don't have enough data, you can generate some artificial data. Researchers add distortions to their training data to increase their data size but in a controlled way. This type of strategy is pretty good for image data but certainly if you are dealing with text data, probably you can use some knowledge base that can improve the performance.
There are many works going on using Knowledge-bases to solve NLP and deep learning related tasks.
Related
I am trying to train and test a pytorch GCN model that is supposed to identify person. But the test accuracy is quite jumpy like it gives 49% at 23 epoch then goes below near 45% at 41 epoch. So it's not increasing all the time though loss seems to decrease at every epoch.
My question is not about implementation errors rather I want to know why this happens. I don't think there is something wrong in my coding as I saw SOTA architecture has this type of behavior as well. The author just picked the best result and published saying that their models gives that result.
Is it normal for the accuracy to be jumpy (up-down) and am I just to take the best ever weights that produce that?
Accuracy is naturally more "jumpy", as you put it. In terms of accuracy, you have a discrete outcome for each sample - you either get it right or wrong. This makes it so that the result fluctuate, especially if you have a relatively low number of samples (as you have a higher sampling variance).
On the other hand, the loss function should vary more smoothly. It is based on the probabilities for each class calculated at your softmax layer, which means that they vary continuously. With a small enough learning rate, the loss function should vary monotonically. Any bumps you see are due to the optimization algorithm taking discrete steps, with the assumption that the loss function is roughly linear in the vicinity of the current point.
I am trying to train a neural network to classify words into different categories.
I notice two things:
When I use a smaller batch_size (like 8,16,32) the loss is not decreasing, but rather sporadically varying. When I use a larger batch_size (like 128, 256), the loss is going going down, but very slowly.
More importantly, when I use a larger EPOCH value, my model does a good job at reducing the loss. However I'm using a really large value (EPOCHS = 10000).
Question:
How to get the optimal EPOCH and batch_size values?
There is no way to decide on these values based on some rules. Unfortunately, the best choices depend on the problem and the task. However, I can give you some insights.
When you train a network, you calculate a gradient which would reduce the loss. In order to do that, you need to backpropagate the loss. Now, ideally, you compute the loss based on all of the samples in your data because then you consider basically every sample and you come up with a gradient that would capture all of your samples. In practice, this is not possible due to the computational complexity of calculating gradient on all samples. Because for every update, you have to compute forward-pass for all your samples. That case would be batch_size = N, where N is the total number of data points you have.
Therefore, we use small batch_size as an approximation! The idea is instead of considering all the samples, we say I compute the gradient based on some small set of samples but the thing is I am losing information regarding the gradient.
Rule of thumb:
Smaller batch sizes give noise gradients but they converge faster because per epoch you have more updates. If your batch size is 1 you will have N updates per epoch. If it is N, you will only have 1 update per epoch. On the other hand, larger batch sizes give a more informative gradient but they convergence slower.
That is the reason why for smaller batch sizes, you observe varying losses because the gradient is noisy. And for larger batch sizes, your gradient is informative but you need a lot of epochs since you update less frequently.
The ideal batch size should be the one that gives you informative gradients but also small enough so that you can train the network efficiently. You can only find it by trying actually.
I'm working on a regression problem in pytorch. My target values can be either between 0 to 100 or 0 to 1 (they represent % or % divided by 100).
The data is unbalanced, I have much more data with lower targets.
I've noticed that when I run the model with targets in the range 0-100, it doesn't learn - the validation loss doesn't improve, and the loss on the 25% large targets is very big, much bigger than the std in this group.
However, when I run the model with targets in the range 0-1, it does learn and I get good results.
If anyone can explain why this happens, and if using the ranges 0-1 is "cheating", that will be great.
Also - should I scale the targets? (either if I use the larger or the smaller range).
Some additional info - I'm trying to fine tune bert for a specific task. I use MSEloss.
Thanks!
I think your observation relates to batch normalization. There is a paper written on the subject, an numerous medium/towardsdatascience posts, which i will not list here. Idea is that if you have a no non-linearities in your model and loss function, it doesn't matter. But even in MSE you do have non-linearity, which makes it sensitive to scaling of both target and source data. You can experiment with inserting Batch Normalization Layers into your models, after dense or convolutional layers. In my experience it often improves accuracy.
I am able to get pretty good results from batch gradient descent(batch size 37000) but when i try out mini-batch gradient descent i get very poor results (even with adam and dropout).
In batch gd i'm able to get 100% train and 97% dev/cv accuracy.
Whereas in mini-batch of size 128 i'm getting only around 88% accuracy in both.
The train loss seems to revolve around 1.6 and doesn't decrease with any further iteration but slowly decreases when i increase the batch size(hence improving accuracy).And eventually i arrive at batch size of 37000 for max accuracy.
I tried tweaking alpha but still same accuracy.
I'm training the mnist digits dataset.
What could be the reason? please help
In Batch Gradient Descent, all the training data is taken into consideration to take a single step. In mini batch gradient descent you consider some of data before taking a single step so the model update frequency is higher than batch gradient descent.
But mini-batch gradient descent comes with a cost:
Firstly, mini-batch makes some learning problems from technically untackleable to be tackleable due to the reduced computation demand with smaller batch size.
Secondly, reduced batch size does not necessarily mean reduced gradient accuracy. The training samples many have lots of noises or outliers or biases.
I believe that because of the oscillations in mini-batch you might fell into a local minima. Try to increase the learning rate with mini-batch it may solve the problem. also try to normalize the pictures it may help too.
I found the solution
The lmbda value i used for batch gd (i.e 10) seems to to be too big for mini batch gd.
And by decreasing it to 0.1 , i fixed the problem.
In implementation of densenet model as in CheXNet paper, in section 3.1 it is mentioned that:
Before inputting the images into the network, we downscale the images to 224x224 and normalize based on the mean and standard edviation of images in the ImageNet training set.
Why would we want to normalize new set of images with mean and std of different dataset?
How do we get the mean and std of ImageNet dataset? Is it provided somewhere?
Subtracting the mean centers the input to 0, and dividing by the standard deviation makes any scaled feature value the number of standard deviations away from the mean.
Consider how a neural network learns its weights. C(NN)s learn by continually adding gradient error vectors (multiplied by a learning rate) computed from backpropagation to various weight matrices throughout the network as training examples are passed through.
The thing to notice here is the "multiplied by a learning rate".
If we didn't scale our input training vectors, the ranges of our distributions of feature values would likely be different for each feature, and thus the learning rate would cause corrections in each dimension that would differ (proportionally speaking) from one another. We might be over compensating a correction in one weight dimension while undercompensating in another.
This is non-ideal as we might find ourselves in a oscillating (unable to center onto a better maxima in cost(weights) space) state or in a slow moving (traveling too slow to get to a better maxima) state.
Original Post: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/185853/why-do-we-need-to-normalize-the-images-before-we-put-them-into-cnn
They used mean and std dev of the ImageNet training set because the weights of their model were pretrained on ImageNet (see Model Architecture and Training section of the paper).