I've seen in multiple places that you should disable dropout during validation and testing stages and only keep it during the training phase. Is there a reason why that should happen? I haven't been able to find a good reason for that and was just wondering.
One reason I'm asking is because I trained a model with dropout, and the results turned out well - about 80% accuracy. Then, I went on to validate the model but forgot to set the prob to 1 and the model's accuracy went down to about 70%. Is it supposed to be that drastic? And is it as simple as setting the prob to 1 in each dropout layer?
Thanks in advance!
Dropout is a random process of disabling neurons in a layer with chance p. This will make certain neurons feel they are 'wrong' in each iteration - basically, you are making neurons feel 'wrong' about their output so that they rely less on the outputs of the nodes in the previous layer. This is a method of regularization and reduces overfitting.
However, there are two main reasons you should not use dropout to test data:
Dropout makes neurons output 'wrong' values on purpose
Because you disable neurons randomly, your network will have different outputs every (sequences of) activation. This undermines consistency.
However, you might want to read some more on what validation/testing exactly is:
Training set: a set of examples used for learning: to fit the parameters of the classifier In the MLP case, we would use the training set to find the “optimal” weights with the back-prop rule
Validation set: a set of examples used to tune the parameters of a classifier In the MLP case, we would use the validation set to find the “optimal” number of hidden units or determine a stopping point for the back-propagation algorithm
Test set: a set of examples used only to assess the performance of a fully-trained classifier In the MLP case, we would use the test to estimate the error rate after we have chosen the final model (MLP size and actual weights) After assessing the final model on the test set, YOU MUST NOT tune the model any further!
Why separate test and validation sets? The error rate estimate of the final model on validation data will be biased (smaller than the true error rate) since the validation set is used to select the final model After assessing the final model on the test set, YOU MUST NOT tune the model any further!
source : Introduction to Pattern Analysis,Ricardo Gutierrez-OsunaTexas A&M University, Texas A&M University (answer)
So even for validation, how would you determine which nodes you remove if the nodes have a random probability of being disactivated?
Dropout is a method of making bagging practical for ensembles of very many large neural networks.
Along the same line we may remember that using the following false explanation:
For the new data, we can predict their classes by taking the average of the results from all the learners:
Since N is a constant we can just ignore it and the result remains the same, so we should disable dropout during validation and testing.
The true reason is much more complex. It is because of the weight scaling inference rule:
We can approximate p_{ensemble} by evaluating p(y|x) in one model: the model with all units, but with the weights going out of unit i multiplied by the probability of including unit i. The motivation for this modification is to capture the right expected value of the output from that unit. There is not yet any theoretical argument for the accuracy of this approximate inference rule in deep nonlinear networks, but empirically it performs very well.
When we train the model using dropout(for example for one layer) we zero out some outputs of some neurons and scale the others up by 1/keep_prob to keep the expectation of the layer almost the same as before. In the prediction process, we can use dropout but we can only get different predictions each time because we drop the values out randomly, then we need to run the prediction many times to get the expected output. Such a process is time-consuming so we can remove the dropout and the expectation of the layer remains the same.
Reference:
Difference between Bagging and Boosting?
7.12 of Deep Learning
Simplest reason can be, during prediction(test, validation or after production deployment) you want to use the capability of each and every learned neurons and really don't like to skip some of them randomly.
Thats the only reason we set probability as 1 during testing.
There is a Bayesian technique called Monte Carlo dropout in which the dropout would be not disabled during testing. The model will run several times with the same dropout rate(or in one go as a batch), and the mean(line 6 depicted below) and variance(line 7 depicted below) of the results will be calculated to determine the uncertainty.
Here is Uber's application to quantify uncertainty:
Short answer:
Dropouts to bring down over fitting in the training data. They are used as a regularization parameters. So if you have high variance (i.e. look at the difference between training set and validation set accuracy for this) then use drop out on training data, as it won't be good enough to apply dropout on test and validation data as you haven't been sure about the neurons which are going to shut off hence laying off the importance of random neurons which can be important.
Related
I have a neural network for regression prediction means that the output is a real value number in range 0 to 1.
I used drop out for all layers and the errors suddenly increased and never converged.
Is drop out usable for regression task? Because if we disregard some nodes, the last layer will have fewer nodes and the predicted value will definitely very different from the actual value. So the back propagated error will be large and the model will be destroyed. Then Why should we use drop out for regression task in neural networks?
Because if we disregard some nodes, the last layer will have fewer
nodes and the predicted value will definitely very different from the
actual value.
You are correct. Hence most frameworks scale up the number of neurons during training (and don't during prediction time). This simple hack is effective and works well for most cases. However, it doesn't work that well for a regression task. It works well where the outputs of activation can be relative to each other (like softmax). In regression the values are absolute and the small differences in "train" and "prediction" setups do cause mild instabilities on occasions.
It is always best to start with a 0 dropout and then increase it slowly to observe what value gives the best result
I used drop out for all layers and the errors suddenly increased and never converged.
This also happens when you use too many dropouts, especially in regression tasks. Did you tried reducing dropouts?? Also, dropouts is recommended for those layers which has very high number of trainable parameters. Also consider removing dropouts from last layer and then check once.
Consider the training process of deep FF neural network using mini-batch gradient descent. As far as I understand, at each epoch of the training we have different random set of mini-batches. Then iterating over all mini batches and computing the gradients of the NN parameters we will get random gradients at each iteration and, therefore, random directions for the model parameters to minimize the cost function. Let's imagine we fixed the hyperparameters of the training algorithm and started the training process again and again, then we would end up with models, which completely differs from each other, because in those trainings the changes of model parameters were different.
1) Is it always the case when we use such random based training algorithms?
2) If it is so, where is the guaranty that training the NN one more time with the best hyperparameters found during the previous trainings and validations will yield us the best model again?
3) Is it possible to find such hyperparameters, which will always yield the best models?
Neural Network are solving a optimization problem, As long as it is computing a gradient in right direction but can be random, it doesn't hurt its objective to generalize over data. It can stuck in some local optima. But there are many good methods like Adam, RMSProp, momentum based etc, by which it can accomplish its objective.
Another reason, when you say mini-batch, there is at least some sample by which it can generalize over those sample, there can be fluctuation in the error rate, and but at least it can give us a local solution.
Even, at each random sampling, these mini-batch have different-2 sample, which helps in generalize well over the complete distribution.
For hyperparameter selection, you need to do tuning and validate result on unseen data, there is no straight forward method to choose these.
I'm relatively new to Matlab ANN Toolbox. I am training the NN with pattern recognition and target matrix of 3x8670 containing 1s and 0s, using one hidden layer, 40 neurons and the rest with default settings. When I get the simulated output for new set of inputs, then the values are around 0 and 1. I then arrange them in descending order and choose a fixed number(which is known to me) out of 8670 observations to be 1 and rest to be zero.
Every time I run the program, the first row of the simulated output always has close to 100% accuracy and the following rows dont exhibit the same kind of accuracy.
Is there a logical explanation in general? I understand that answering this query conclusively might require the understanding of program and problem, but its made of of several functions to clearly explain. Can I make some changes in the training to get consistence output?
If you have any suggestions please share it with me.
Thanks,
Nishant
Your problem statement is not clear for me. For example, what you mean by: "I then arrange them in descending order and choose a fixed number ..."
As I understand, you did not get appropriate output from your NN as compared to the real target. I mean, your output from NN is difference than target. If so, there are different possibilities which should be considered:
How do you divide training/test/validation sets for training phase? The most division should be assigned to training (around 75%) and rest for test/validation.
How is your training data set? Can it support most scenarios as you expected? If your trained data set is not somewhat similar to your test data sets (e.g., you have some new records/samples in the test data set which had not (near) appear in the training phase, it explains as 'outlier' and NN cannot work efficiently with these types of samples, so you need clustering approach not NN classification approach), your results from NN is out-of-range and NN cannot provide ideal accuracy as you need. NN is good for those data set training, where there is no very difference between training and test data sets. Otherwise, NN is not appropriate.
Sometimes you have an appropriate training data set, but the problem is training itself. In this condition, you need other types of NN, because feed-forward NNs such as MLP cannot work with compacted and not well-separated regions of data very well. You need strong function approximation such as RBF and SVM.
I am having some issues with using neural network. I am using a non linear activation function for the hidden layer and a linear function for the output layer. Adding more neurons in the hidden layer should have increased the capability of the NN and made it fit to the training data more/have less error on training data.
However, I am seeing a different phenomena. Adding more neurons is decreasing the accuracy of the neural network even on the training set.
Here is the graph of the mean absolute error with increasing number of neurons. The accuracy on the training data is decreasing. What could be the cause of this?
Is it that the nntool that I am using of matlab splits the data randomly into training,test and validation set for checking generalization instead of using cross validation.
Also I could see lots of -ve output values adding neurons while my targets are supposed to be positives. Could it be another issues?
I am not able to explain the behavior of NN here. Any suggestions? Here is the link to my data consisting of the covariates and targets
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wcj2y6x6jd2vzm/data.mat
I am unfamiliar with nntool but I would suspect that your problem is related to the selection of your initial weights. Poor initial weight selection can lead to very slow convergence or failure to converge at all.
For instance, notice that as the number of neurons in the hidden layer increases, the number of inputs to each neuron in the visible layer also increases (one for each hidden unit). Say you are using a logit in your hidden layer (always positive) and pick your initial weights from the random uniform distribution between a fixed interval. Then as the number of hidden units increases, the inputs to each neuron in the visible layer will also increase because there are more incoming connections. With a very large number of hidden units, your initial solution may become very large and result in poor convergence.
Of course, how this all behaves depends on your activation functions and the distributio of the data and how it is normalized. I would recommend looking at Efficient Backprop by Yann LeCun for some excellent advice on normalizing your data and selecting initial weights and activation functions.
I'm implementing a neural network for a supervised classification task in MATLAB.
I have a training set and a test set to evaluate the results.
The problem is that every time I train the network for the same training set I get very different results (sometimes I get a 95% classification accuracy and sometimes like 60%) for the same test set.
Now I know this is because I get different initial weights and I know that I can use 'seed' to set the same initial weights but the question is what does this say about my data and what is the right way to look at this? How do I define the accuracy I'm getting using my designed ANN? Is there a protocol for this (like running the ANN 50 times and get an average accuracy or something)?
Thanks
Make sure your test set is large enough compared to the training set (e.g. 10% of the overall data) and check it regarding diversity. If your test set only covers very specific cases, this could be a reason. Also make sure you always use the same test set. Alternatively you should google the term cross-validation.
Furthermore, observing good training set accuracy while observing bad test set accuracy is a sign for overfitting. Try to apply regularization like a simple L2 weight decay (simply multiply your weight matrices with e.g. 0.999 after each weight update). Depending on your data, Dropout or L1 regularization could also help (especially if you have a lot of redundancies in your input data). Also try to choose a smaller network topology (fewer layers and/or fewer neurons per layer).
To speed up training, you could also try alternative learning algorithms like RPROP+, RPROP- or RMSProp instead of plain backpropagation.
Looks like your ANN is not converging to the optimal set of weights. Without further details of the ANN model, I cannot pinpoint the problem, but I would try increasing the number of iterations.