Related
I'm implementing a Multilayer Perceptron in Keras and using scikit-learn to perform cross-validation. For this, I was inspired by the code found in the issue Cross Validation in Keras
from sklearn.cross_validation import StratifiedKFold
def load_data():
# load your data using this function
def create model():
# create your model using this function
def train_and_evaluate__model(model, data[train], labels[train], data[test], labels[test)):
# fit and evaluate here.
if __name__ == "__main__":
X, Y = load_model()
kFold = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=10)
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
In my studies on neural networks, I learned that the knowledge representation of the neural network is in the synaptic weights and during the network tracing process, the weights that are updated to thereby reduce the network error rate and improve its performance. (In my case, I'm using Supervised Learning)
For better training and assessment of neural network performance, a common method of being used is cross-validation that returns partitions of the data set for training and evaluation of the model.
My doubt is...
In this code snippet:
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
We define, train and evaluate a new neural net for each of the generated partitions?
If my goal is to fine-tune the network for the entire dataset, why is it not correct to define a single neural network and train it with the generated partitions?
That is, why is this piece of code like this?
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
and not so?
model = None
model = create_model()
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
Is my understanding of how the code works wrong? Or my theory?
If my goal is to fine-tune the network for the entire dataset
It is not clear what you mean by "fine-tune", or even what exactly is your purpose for performing cross-validation (CV); in general, CV serves one of the following purposes:
Model selection (choose the values of hyperparameters)
Model assessment
Since you don't define any search grid for hyperparameter selection in your code, it would seem that you are using CV in order to get the expected performance of your model (error, accuracy etc).
Anyway, for whatever reason you are using CV, the first snippet is the correct one; your second snippet
model = None
model = create_model()
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
will train your model sequentially over the different partitions (i.e. train on partition #1, then continue training on partition #2 etc), which essentially is just training on your whole data set, and it is certainly not cross-validation...
That said, a final step after the CV which is often only implied (and frequently missed by beginners) is that, after you are satisfied with your chosen hyperparameters and/or model performance as given by your CV procedure, you go back and train again your model, this time with the entire available data.
You can use wrappers of the Scikit-Learn API with Keras models.
Given inputs x and y, here's an example of repeated 5-fold cross-validation:
from sklearn.model_selection import RepeatedKFold, cross_val_score
from tensorflow.keras.models import *
from tensorflow.keras.layers import *
from tensorflow.keras.wrappers.scikit_learn import KerasRegressor
def buildmodel():
model= Sequential([
Dense(10, activation="relu"),
Dense(5, activation="relu"),
Dense(1)
])
model.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='mse', metrics=['mse'])
return(model)
estimator= KerasRegressor(build_fn=buildmodel, epochs=100, batch_size=10, verbose=0)
kfold= RepeatedKFold(n_splits=5, n_repeats=100)
results= cross_val_score(estimator, x, y, cv=kfold, n_jobs=2) # 2 cpus
results.mean() # Mean MSE
I think many of your questions will be answered if you read about nested cross-validation. This is a good way to "fine tune" the hyper parameters of your model. There's a thread here:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/65128/nested-cross-validation-for-model-selection
The biggest issue to be aware of is "peeking" or circular logic. Essentially - you want to make sure that none of data used to assess model accuracy is seen during training.
One example where this might be problematic is if you are running something like PCA or ICA for feature extraction. If doing something like this, you must be sure to run PCA on your training set, and then apply the transformation matrix from the training set to the test set.
The main idea of testing your model performance is to perform the following steps:
Train a model on a training set.
Evaluate your model on a data not used during training process in order to simulate a new data arrival.
So basically - the data you should finally test your model should mimic the first data portion you'll get from your client/application to apply your model on.
So that's why cross-validation is so powerful - it makes every data point in your whole dataset to be used as a simulation of new data.
And now - to answer your question - every cross-validation should follow the following pattern:
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y
model = training_procedure(train, ...)
score = evaluation_procedure(model, test, ...)
because after all, you'll first train your model and then use it on a new data. In your second approach - you cannot treat it as a mimicry of a training process because e.g. in second fold your model would have information kept from the first fold - which is not equivalent to your training procedure.
Of course - you could apply a training procedure which uses 10 folds of consecutive training in order to finetune network. But this is not cross-validation then - you'll need to evaluate this procedure using some kind of schema above.
The commented out functions make this a little less obvious, but the idea is to keep track of your model performance as you iterate through your folds and at the end provide either those lower level performance metrics or an averaged global performance. For example:
The train_evaluate function ideally would output some accuracy score for each split, which could be combined at the end.
def train_evaluate(model, x_train, y_train, x_test, y_test):
model.fit(x_train, y_train)
return model.score(x_test, y_test)
X, Y = load_model()
kFold = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=10)
scores = np.zeros(10)
idx = 0
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = create_model()
scores[idx] = train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
idx += 1
print(scores)
print(scores.mean())
So yes you do want to create a new model for each fold as the purpose of this exercise is to determine how your model as it is designed performs on all segments of the data, not just one particular segment that may or may not allow the model to perform well.
This type of approach becomes particularly powerful when applied along with a grid search over hyperparameters. In this approach you train a model with varying hyperparameters using the cross validation splits and keep track of the performance on splits and overall. In the end you will be able to get a much better idea of which hyperparameters allow the model to perform best. For a much more in depth explanation see sklearn Model Selection and pay particular attention to the sections of Cross Validation and Grid Search.
I am building a MLP using TensorFlow 2.0. I am plotting the learning curve and also using keras.evaluate on both training and test data to see how well it performed. The code I'm using:
history = model.fit(X_train, y_train, batch_size=32,
epochs=200, validation_split=0.2, verbose=0)
# evaluate the model
eval_result_tr = model.evaluate(X_train, y_train)
eval_result_te = model.evaluate(X_test, y_test)
print("[training loss, training accuracy]:", eval_result_tr)
print("[test loss, test accuracy]:", eval_result_te)
#[training loss, training accuracy]: [0.5734676122665405, 0.9770742654800415]
#[test loss, test accuracy]: [0.7273344397544861, 0.9563318490982056]
#plot the learning rate curve
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.plot(history.history["loss"], label='eğitim')
plt.plot(history.history['val_loss'], label='doğrulama')
plt.xlabel("Öğrenme ivmesi")
plt.ylabel("Hata payı")
plt.title("Temel modelin öğrenme eğrisi")
plt.legend()
The output is:
My question is: How keras.evaluate() calculates the training loss to be 0.5734676122665405? I take the average of history.history["loss"] bu it returns different (0.7975356701016426) value.
Or, am I mistaken to begin with by trying to evaluate the model performance on training data by eval_result_tr = model.evaluate(X_train, y_train)?
For community benefit, adding #Dr. Snoopy's answer here in the answer section.
This has been asked many times before, the loss you see is with
changing weights during training, evaluating outside of training will
use fixed weights, so you will always see a different loss value.
Good morning, I'm new in machine learning and neural networks. I am trying to build a fully connected neural network to solve a regression problem. The dataset is composed by 18 features and 1 label, and all of these are physical quantities.
You can find the code below. I upload the figure of the loss function evolution along the epochs (you can find it below). I am not sure if there is overfitting. Someone can explain me why there is or not overfitting?
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestRegressor
from sklearn.feature_selection import SelectFromModel
from sklearn import preprocessing
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import keras
import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow.keras.models import Sequential
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dense, Dropout, BatchNormalization
from tensorflow.keras.callbacks import EarlyStopping
from keras import optimizers
from sklearn.metrics import r2_score
from keras import regularizers
from keras import backend
from tensorflow.keras import regularizers
from keras.regularizers import l2
# =============================================================================
# Scelgo il test size
# =============================================================================
test_size = 0.2
dataset = pd.read_csv('DataSet.csv', decimal=',', delimiter = ";")
label = dataset.iloc[:,-1]
features = dataset.drop(columns = ['Label'])
y_max_pre_normalize = max(label)
y_min_pre_normalize = min(label)
def denormalize(y):
final_value = y*(y_max_pre_normalize-y_min_pre_normalize)+y_min_pre_normalize
return final_value
# =============================================================================
# Split
# =============================================================================
X_train1, X_test1, y_train1, y_test1 = train_test_split(features, label, test_size = test_size, shuffle = True)
y_test2 = y_test1.to_frame()
y_train2 = y_train1.to_frame()
# =============================================================================
# Normalizzo
# =============================================================================
scaler1 = preprocessing.MinMaxScaler()
scaler2 = preprocessing.MinMaxScaler()
X_train = scaler1.fit_transform(X_train1)
X_test = scaler2.fit_transform(X_test1)
scaler3 = preprocessing.MinMaxScaler()
scaler4 = preprocessing.MinMaxScaler()
y_train = scaler3.fit_transform(y_train2)
y_test = scaler4.fit_transform(y_test2)
# =============================================================================
# Creo la rete
# =============================================================================
optimizer = tf.keras.optimizers.Adam(lr=0.001)
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(60, input_shape = (X_train.shape[1],), activation = 'relu',kernel_initializer='glorot_uniform'))
model.add(Dropout(0.2))
model.add(Dense(60, activation = 'relu',kernel_initializer='glorot_uniform'))
model.add(Dropout(0.2))
model.add(Dense(60, activation = 'relu',kernel_initializer='glorot_uniform'))
model.add(Dense(1,activation = 'linear',kernel_initializer='glorot_uniform'))
model.compile(loss = 'mse', optimizer = optimizer, metrics = ['mse'])
history = model.fit(X_train, y_train, epochs = 100,
validation_split = 0.1, shuffle=True, batch_size=250
)
history_dict = history.history
loss_values = history_dict['loss']
val_loss_values = history_dict['val_loss']
y_train_pred = model.predict(X_train)
y_test_pred = model.predict(X_test)
y_train_pred = denormalize(y_train_pred)
y_test_pred = denormalize(y_test_pred)
plt.figure()
plt.plot((y_test1),(y_test_pred),'.', color='darkviolet', alpha=1, marker='o', markersize = 2, markeredgecolor = 'black', markeredgewidth = 0.1)
plt.plot((np.array((-0.1,7))),(np.array((-0.1,7))),'-', color='magenta')
plt.xlabel('True')
plt.ylabel('Predicted')
plt.title('Test')
plt.figure()
plt.plot((y_train1),(y_train_pred),'.', color='darkviolet', alpha=1, marker='o', markersize = 2, markeredgecolor = 'black', markeredgewidth = 0.1)
plt.plot((np.array((-0.1,7))),(np.array((-0.1,7))),'-', color='magenta')
plt.xlabel('True')
plt.ylabel('Predicted')
plt.title('Train')
plt.figure()
plt.plot(loss_values,'b',label = 'training loss')
plt.plot(val_loss_values,'r',label = 'val training loss')
plt.xlabel('Epochs')
plt.ylabel('Loss Function')
plt.legend()
print("\n\nThe R2 score on the test set is:\t{:0.3f}".format(r2_score(y_test_pred, y_test1)))
print("The R2 score on the train set is:\t{:0.3f}".format(r2_score(y_train_pred, y_train1)))
from sklearn import metrics
# Measure MSE error.
score = metrics.mean_squared_error(y_test_pred,y_test1)
print("\n\nFinal score test (MSE): %0.4f" %(score))
score1 = metrics.mean_squared_error(y_train_pred,y_train1)
print("Final score train (MSE): %0.4f" %(score1))
score2 = np.sqrt(metrics.mean_squared_error(y_test_pred,y_test1))
print(f"Final score test (RMSE): %0.4f" %(score2))
score3 = np.sqrt(metrics.mean_squared_error(y_train_pred,y_train1))
print(f"Final score train (RMSE): %0.4f" %(score3))
EDIT:
I tried alse to do feature importances and to raise n_epochs, these are the results:
Feature Importance:
No Feature Importace:
Looks like you don't have overfitting! Your training and validation curves are descending together and converging. The clearest sign you could get of overfitting would be a deviation between these two curves, something like this:
Since your two curves are descending and are not diverging, it indicates your NN training is healthy.
HOWEVER! Your validation curve is suspiciously below the training curve. This hints a possible data leakage (train and test data have been mixed somehow). More info on a nice an short blog post. In general, you should split the data before any other preprocessing (normalizing, augmentation, shuffling, etc...).
Other causes for this could be some type of regularization (dropout, BN, etc..) that is active while computing the training accuracy and it's deactivated when computing the Validation/Test accuracy.
Overfitting is, when the model does not generalize to other data than the training data. When this happen you will have a very (!) low training loss but a high validation loss. You can think of it this way: if you have N points you can fit a N-1 polynomial such that you have a zero training loss (your model hits all your training points perfectly). But, if you apply that model to some other data, it will most likely produce a very high error (see the image below). Here the red line is our model and the green is the true data (+ noice), and you can see in the last picture we get zero training error. In the first, our model is too simple (high train/high validation error), the second is good (low train/low valuidation error) the third and last is too complex i.e overfitting (very low train/high validation error).
Neural network can work in the same way, so by looking at your training vs validation error, you can conclude if it overfits or not
No, this is not overfitting as your validation loss isn´t increasing.
Nevertheless, if I were you I would be a little bit skeptical. Try to train your model for even more epochs and watch out for the validation loss.
What you definitely should do, is to observe the following:
- are there duplicates or near-duplicates in the data (creates information leakage from train to test validation split)
- are there features that have a causal connection to the target variable
Edit:
Usually, you have some random component in a real-world dataset, so that rules that are observed in train data aren´t 100% true for validation data.
Your plot shows that the validation loss is even more decreasing as train loss decreases. Usually, you get to some point in training, where the rules you observe in train data are too specific to describe the whole data. That´s when overfitting begins. Hence, it is weird, that your validation loss doesn´t increase again.
Please check whether your validation loss approaches zero when you´re training for more epochs. If it´s the case I would check your database very carefully.
Let´s assume, that there is a kind of information leakage from the train set to the validation set (through duplicate records for example). Your model would change the weights to describe very specific rules. When applying your model to new data it would fail miserably since the observed connections are not really general.
Another common data problem is, that features may have an inversed causality.
The thing that validation loss is generally lower than train error is probably depending on dropout and regularization, since it´s applied while training but not for predicting/testing.
I put some emphasis on this because a tiny bug or an error in the data can "fuck up" your whole model.
We have already the trained model but we can't write the part of the program that makes the predictions. We can open the picture but we can't process it with TensorFlow.
Any help would be appreciated. Here is what we already have.
from __future__ import absolute_import, division, print_function, unicode_literals
# Install TensorFlow
import tensorflow as tf
mnist = tf.keras.datasets.mnist
(x_train, y_train), (x_test, y_test) = mnist.load_data()
x_train, x_test = x_train / 255.0, x_test / 255.0
model = tf.keras.models.Sequential([
tf.keras.layers.Flatten(input_shape=(28, 28)),
tf.keras.layers.Dense(128, activation='tanh'), #relu, softmax, tanh
tf.keras.layers.Dropout(0.2),
tf.keras.layers.Dense(10, activation='tanh')
])
model.compile(optimizer='adam',
loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy',
metrics=['accuracy'])
model.fit(x_train, y_train, epochs=5)
model.evaluate(x_test, y_test, verbose=2)
You can use the model object's .predict() method as follows:
import numpy as np
predictions = model.predict([x_test]) # Make prediction
print(np.argmax(predictions[1000])) # Print out the number
Anyway I advice you to study a nice, simple example of how to use tensorflow for classifying handwritten digits by Abdelhakim Ouafi. I'm including the main parts here for future readers for the case, if the link would be available:
Description of the MNIST Handwritten Digit.
The MNIST Handwritten Digit is a dataset for evaluating machine learning and deep learning models on the handwritten digit classification problem, it is a dataset of 60,000 small square 28×28 pixel grayscale images of handwritten single digits between 0 and 9.
Import the TensorFlow library
import tensorflow as tf # Import tensorflow library
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt # Import matplotlib library
Create a variable named mnist, and set it to an object of the MNIST dataset from the Keras library and we’re gonna unpack it to a training dataset (x_train, y_train) and testing dataset (x_test, y_test):
mnist = tf.keras.datasets.mnist # Object of the MNIST dataset
(x_train, y_train),(x_test, y_test) = mnist.load_data() # Load data
Preprocess the data
To make sure that our data was imported correctly, we are going to plot the first image from the training dataset using matplotlib:
plt.imshow(x_train[0], cmap="gray") # Import the image
plt.show() # Plot the image
Before we feed the data into the neural network we need to normalize it by scaling the pixels value in a range from 0 to 1 instead of being from 0 to 255 and that make the neural network needs less computational power:
# Normalize the train dataset
x_train = tf.keras.utils.normalize(x_train, axis=1)
# Normalize the test dataset
x_test = tf.keras.utils.normalize(x_test, axis=1)
Build the model
Now, we are going to build the model or in other words the neural network that will train and learn how to classify these images.
It worth noting that the layers are the most important thing in building an artificial neural network since it will extract the features of the data.
First and foremost, we start by creating a model object that lets you add the different layers.
Second, we are going to flatten the data which is the image pixels in this case. So the images are 28×28 dimensional we need to make it 1×784 dimensional so the input layer of the neural network can read it or deal with it. This is an important concept you need to know.
Third, we define input and a hidden layer with 128 neurons and an activation function which is the relu function.
And the Last thing we create the output layer with 10 neurons and a softmax activation function that will transform the score returned by the model to a value so it will be interpreted by humans.
#Build the model object
model = tf.keras.models.Sequential()
# Add the Flatten Layer
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Flatten())
# Build the input and the hidden layers
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(128, activation=tf.nn.relu))
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(128, activation=tf.nn.relu))
# Build the output layer
model.add(tf.keras.layers.Dense(10, activation=tf.nn.softmax))
Compile the model
Since we finished building the neural network we need to compile the model by adding some few parameters that will tell the neural network how to start the training process.
First, we add the optimizer which will create or in other word update the parameter of the neural network to fit our data.
Second, the loss function that will tell you the performance of your model.
Third, the Metrics which give indicative tests of the quality of the model.
# Compile the model
model.compile(optimizer="adam", loss="sparse_categorical_crossentropy", metrics=["accuracy"])
Train the model
We are ready to train our model, we call the fit subpackage and feed it with the training data and the labeled data that correspond to the training dataset and how many epoch should run or how many times should make a guess.
model.fit(x=x_train, y=y_train, epochs=5) # Start training process
Evaluate the model
Let’s see how the model performs after the training process has finished.
# Evaluate the model performance
test_loss, test_acc = model.evaluate(x=x_test, y=y_test)
# Print out the model accuracy
print('\nTest accuracy:', test_acc)
Evaluating the Model Performance
It shows that the neural network has reached 97.39% accuracy which is pretty good since we train the model just with 5 epochs.
Make predictions
Now, we will start making a prediction by importing the test dataset images.
predictions = model.predict([x_test]) # Make prediction
We are going to make a prediction for numbers or images that the model has never seen before.
For instance, we try to predict the number that corresponds to the image number 1000 in the test dataset:
print(np.argmax(predictions[1000])) # Print out the number
As you see, the prediction is number nine but how we can make sure that this prediction was true? well, we need to plot the image number 1000 in the test dataset using matplotlib:
plt.imshow(x_test[1000], cmap="gray") # Import the image
plt.show() # Show the image
i am trying to build an MLP model that takes a dataset consists of 9 columns
this is a sample (patient number, time in mill/sec., normalization of X Y and Z, kurtosis, skewness, pitch, roll and yaw, label) respectively.
1,15,-0.248010047716,0.00378335508419,-0.0152548459993,-86.3738760481,0.872322164158,-3.51314800063,0
1,31,-0.248010047716,0.00378335508419,-0.0152548459993,-86.3738760481,0.872322164158,-3.51314800063,0
1,46,-0.267422664673,0.0051143782875,-0.0191247001961,-85.7662354031,1.0928406847,-4.08015176908,0
1,62,-0.267422664673,0.0051143782875,-0.0191247001961,-85.7662354031,1.0928406847,-4.08015176908,0
and this is my code, there is no error in my code but the results with and without features are the same .. so i am asking if i used the right way to fed those features into the model.
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense, Dropout, Activation
import numpy as np
from scipy import signal
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd
import itertools
import math
np.random.seed(7)
train = np.loadtxt("featwithsignalsTRAIN.txt", delimiter=",")
test = np.loadtxt("featwithsignalsTEST.txt", delimiter=",")
x_train = train[:,[2,3,4,5,6,7]]
x_test = test[:,[2,3,4,5,6,7]]
y_train = train[:,8]
y_test = test[:,8]
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(500, input_dim=6, activation='relu'))
model.add(Dense(300, activation='relu'))
model.add(Dense(1, activation='sigmoid'))
model.compile(loss='binary_crossentropy' , optimizer='adam', metrics=['accuracy'])
# Fit the model
batch_size = 128
epochs = 10
hist = model.fit(x_train, y_train,
batch_size=batch_size,
epochs=epochs,
verbose=2,
)
avg = np.mean(hist.history['acc'])
print('The Average Testing Accuracy is', avg)
##Evaluate the model
score=model.evaluate(x_test, y_test, verbose=2)
print(score)
There is nothing wrong with your model, but it's possible that your model doesn't learn anything useful. It could be that you are using a learning too high or too small, that you need more epochs, or that simply your features are not useful.
Here are some advices :
You can directly add a validation set to your fit method, which will compute the same metrics on this set at the end of each epoch and will allow you to see if your model learn something useful or if it's just overfitting on the training set without having to wait for the model to finish its training. (make sure you use verbose = 1 or 2 to see the training process).
model.fit( ... , validation_data = (x_test , y_test) , ...)
I see that you used the history callback. A good practice is to see how the accuracy is changing from an epoch to another instead of taking the mean. This allows you to see if your network is effectively learning something. A network rarely converge on the firsts epochs.
Do you have an idea of the 'usefulness' of your feature ? You can get an idea of that by performing an exploratory analysis before creating your model or by fitting a more 'conventional' model (linear regression, decision trees, random forest ...). It's Highly recommended before fitting a neural network, and this also allows you to compare different types of models and to see if you realy need to use neural networks.
If you are sure that your features would at least perform better than a random guess, try playing with the learning rate. A high learnign rate could cause the model to overshoot the minimum, and a learning rate too small could cause the model to learn very slowly or to get stuck in a local minima. You could also try to tune the number of epochs.