I am trying to understand what is the difference between these Adam Optimizer and Gradient Descent Optimizer and which one is the best to use in which situation. I am looking into TF website, but if you know of place where these are explained in a better and easy to understand way, let me know?
AdamOptimizer is using the Adam Optimizer to update the learning rate. Its is an adaptive method compared to the gradient descent which maintains a single learning rate for all weight updates and the learning rate does not change.
Adam has the advantage over the GradientDescent of using the running average (momentum) of the gradients (mean) as well as the running average of the gradient squared.
There is no such thing as which one is the better to use, it is all dependent on your problem, network and data. But generally, Adam has proven itself to be leading and is one of the most commonly used within DL tasks, as it achieves better results and accuracy metrics.
Related
I have a multilabel classification problem, which I am trying to solve with CNNs in Pytorch. I have 80,000 training examples and 7900 classes; every example can belong to multiple classes at the same time, mean number of classes per example is 130.
The problem is that my dataset is very imbalance. For some classes, I have only ~900 examples, which is around 1%. For “overrepresented” classes I have ~12000 examples (15%). When I train the model I use BCEWithLogitsLoss from pytorch with a positive weights parameter. I calculate the weights the same way as described in the documentation: the number of negative examples divided by the number of positives.
As a result, my model overestimates almost every class… Mor minor and major classes I get almost twice as many predictions as true labels. And my AUPRC is just 0.18. Even though it’s much better than no weighting at all, since in this case the model predicts everything as zero.
So my question is, how do I improve the performance? Is there anything else I can do? I tried different batch sampling techniques (to oversample minority class), but they don’t seem to work.
I would suggest either one of these strategies
Focal Loss
A very interesting approach for dealing with un-balanced training data through tweaking of the loss function was introduced in
Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He and Piotr Dollar Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (ICCV 2017).
They propose to modify the binary cross entropy loss in a way that decrease the loss and gradient of easily classified examples while "focusing the effort" on examples where the model makes gross errors.
Hard Negative Mining
Another popular approach is to do "hard negative mining"; that is, propagate gradients only for part of the training examples - the "hard" ones.
see, e.g.:
Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta and Ross Girshick Training Region-based Object Detectors with Online Hard Example Mining (CVPR 2016)
#Shai has provided two strategies developed in the deep learning era. I would like to provide you some additional traditional machine learning options: over-sampling and under-sampling.
The main idea of them is to produce a more balanced dataset by sampling before starting your training. Note that you probably will face some problems such as losing the data diversity (under-sampling) and overfitting the training data (over-sampling), but it might be a good start point.
See the wiki link for more information.
I am training a Transformer. In many of my setups I obtain validation and training loss that look like this:
Then, I understand that I should stop training at around epoch 1. But then the training loss is very high. Is this a problem? Does the value of training loss actually mean anything?
Thanks
Regarding your first question - it is not necessarily a problem that your training loss is high, since there is no threshold for what is considered as a high training loss. It depends on your dataset, your actual test metrics and your business goals.
More specifically, the problems with the value of training loss:
The number isn't intuitive, since the loss objective is a metric optimized for gradient descent (i.e. a differentiable function, usually the log version of it).
You probably have intuitive business metrics (e.g., precision, recall) oriented towards your end goal, which you should use to decide if your model is good or not.
Your train loss is calculated on the training dataset, which is not always representative of a good model, as can be seen in the overfitted model you posted. You shouldn't use this number to make decisions for the goodness of the model.
It depends on what you are trying to achieve. Is 80% accuracy high or low?
Regarding your second question - Technically, the higher the number the worse the model did in converging, so you should always try to lower it (while taking into consideration overfitting).
Comparatively, you can say that one model has a higher loss than another and then try multiple hyperparameters (e.g., dropout, different optimizers) to minimize the point where the validation set diverges.
You are describing overfitting: Your model's expressive power is too strong and it is memorizing the training data, rather than learning useful representations that can generalize to the validation data.
To mitigate this issue, you should apply stronger regularization to your model to prevent it from memorizing and steer it towards useful representations.
regularization methods include (but are not limited to):
Input augmentations
DropOut
Early stopping
Weight decay
I have trained a model and it took me quite a while to find the correct hyperparameters.
The model has now been trained for 15h and it seems to to its job quite well.
When I observed the training and validation loss though, the training loss is somewhat higher than the validation loss. (red curve: training, green: validation)
I use dropout to regularize my model and as far as I have understood, droput is is only applied during training which might be the reason.
Now Iam wondering if I have trained a valid model?
It doesn't seem like the model is heavily underfitted?
Thanks in advance for any advice,
cheers,
M
First, check whether you have good data set, i.e., if it is a classification, then get equal number of images for all classes and get it from same source not from different sources. And regularization, dropout are used for overfitting/High variance so don't worry about these.
Then, I think your model is doing good when you trained your model the initial error between them are different but as you increased the epochs then they both got into some steady path. So it is good. And may be reason for this is as I mentioned above or you should try shuffle them then using train_test_split for getting better distribution of training and validation sets.
A plot of learning curves shows a good fit if:
The plot of training loss decreases to a point of stability.
The plot of validation loss decreases to a point of stability and has a small gap with the training loss.
In your case these conditions are satisfied.
Still if you want to deal with High Bias/underfitting then here are few methods:
Train bigger models
Train longer. Use better optimization techniques
Try different Neural Network Architecture and also hyper parameters
And also you can use cross-validation or GridSearchCV for finding better optimizer or hyper parameters but it may take really long because you have to train it on different parameters each time considering your time which is 15 hours then it might be very long but you will find better parameters and then train on it.
Above all I think your model is doing okay.
If your model underfits, its performance will be lower, similar as in the case of overfitting, because actually it can not learn effectively to get the optimal result, i.e the proper function to fit the given distribution. So you have to use less regularization technique e.g. less dropout to get the optimal result.
Furthermore the sampling can also be crucial, because there can be training-validation subsets where your model performs well on validation set and less effective on training set and vice-versa. This is one of the reason why we use crossvalidation and different sampling methods e.g. stratified k-fold.
I have a multilabel classification problem, which I am trying to solve with CNNs in Pytorch. I have 80,000 training examples and 7900 classes; every example can belong to multiple classes at the same time, mean number of classes per example is 130.
The problem is that my dataset is very imbalance. For some classes, I have only ~900 examples, which is around 1%. For “overrepresented” classes I have ~12000 examples (15%). When I train the model I use BCEWithLogitsLoss from pytorch with a positive weights parameter. I calculate the weights the same way as described in the documentation: the number of negative examples divided by the number of positives.
As a result, my model overestimates almost every class… Mor minor and major classes I get almost twice as many predictions as true labels. And my AUPRC is just 0.18. Even though it’s much better than no weighting at all, since in this case the model predicts everything as zero.
So my question is, how do I improve the performance? Is there anything else I can do? I tried different batch sampling techniques (to oversample minority class), but they don’t seem to work.
I would suggest either one of these strategies
Focal Loss
A very interesting approach for dealing with un-balanced training data through tweaking of the loss function was introduced in
Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He and Piotr Dollar Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (ICCV 2017).
They propose to modify the binary cross entropy loss in a way that decrease the loss and gradient of easily classified examples while "focusing the effort" on examples where the model makes gross errors.
Hard Negative Mining
Another popular approach is to do "hard negative mining"; that is, propagate gradients only for part of the training examples - the "hard" ones.
see, e.g.:
Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta and Ross Girshick Training Region-based Object Detectors with Online Hard Example Mining (CVPR 2016)
#Shai has provided two strategies developed in the deep learning era. I would like to provide you some additional traditional machine learning options: over-sampling and under-sampling.
The main idea of them is to produce a more balanced dataset by sampling before starting your training. Note that you probably will face some problems such as losing the data diversity (under-sampling) and overfitting the training data (over-sampling), but it might be a good start point.
See the wiki link for more information.
I am currently working on a classification problem with two classes in ScikitLearn with the solver adam and activation relu. To explore if my classifier suffers from high bias or high variance, I plotted the learning curve with Scikitlearns build-in function:
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/auto_examples/model_selection/plot_learning_curve.html
I am using a Group-K_Fold crossvalidation with 8 splits.
However, I found that my learning curve is strongly dependent on the batch size of my classifier:
https://imgur.com/a/FOaWKN1
Is it supposed to be like this? I thought learning curves are tackling the accuracy scores dependent on the portion of training data independent from any batches/ epochs? Can I actually use this build-in function for batch methods? If yes, which batch size should I choose (full batch or batch size= number of training examples or something in between) and what diagnosis do I get from this? Or how do you usually diagnose bias/ variance problems of a neural network classifier?
Help would be really appreciated!
Yes, the learning curve depends on the batch size.
The optimal batch size depends on the type of data and the total volume of the data.
In ideal case batch size of 1 will be best, but in practice, with big volumes of data, this approach is not feasible.
I think you have to do that through experimentation because you can’t easily calculate the optimal value.
Moreover, when you change the batch size you might want to change the learning rate as well so you want to keep the control over the process.
But indeed having a tool to find the optimal (memory and time-wise) batch size is quite interesting.
What is Stochastic Gradient Descent?
Stochastic gradient descent, often abbreviated SGD, is a variation of the gradient descent algorithm that calculates the error and updates the model for each example in the training dataset.
The update of the model for each training example means that stochastic gradient descent is often called an online machine learning algorithm.
What is Batch Gradient Descent?
Batch gradient descent is a variation of the gradient descent algorithm that calculates the error for each example in the training dataset, but only updates the model after all training examples have been evaluated.
One cycle through the entire training dataset is called a training epoch. Therefore, it is often said that batch gradient descent performs model updates at the end of each training epoch.
What is Mini-Batch Gradient Descent?
Mini-batch gradient descent is a variation of the gradient descent algorithm that splits the training dataset into small batches that are used to calculate model error and update model coefficients.
Implementations may choose to sum the gradient over the mini-batch or take the average of the gradient which further reduces the variance of the gradient.
Mini-batch gradient descent seeks to find a balance between the robustness of stochastic gradient descent and the efficiency of batch gradient descent. It is the most common implementation of gradient descent used in the field of deep learning.
Source: https://machinelearningmastery.com/gentle-introduction-mini-batch-gradient-descent-configure-batch-size/