I am trying to train a feedforward neural network, for binary classification. My Dataset is 6.2M with 1.5M dimension. I am using PyBrain. I am unable to load even a single datapoint. I am getting MemoryError.
My Code snippet is:
Train_ds = SupervisedDataSet(FV_length, 1) #FV_length is a computed value. 150000
feature_vector = numpy.zeros((FV_length),dtype=numpy.int)
#activate feature values
for index in nonzero_index_list:
feature_vector[index] = 1
Train_ds.addSample(feature_vector,class_label) # both the arguments are tuples
It looks like your computer just does not have the memory to add your feature and class label arrays to the supervised data set Train_ds.
If there is no way for you to allocate more memory to your system it might be a good idea to random sample from your data set and train on the smaller sample.
This should still give accurate results assuming the sample is large enough to be representative.
Related
train_image_paths = [str(path) for path in list(train_path.glob('*/*.jpeg'))]
random.shuffle(train_image_paths)
Above is a sample code you can see.
I have the same question in this case too:
train_dataset = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((x_train, y_train)).batch(64).shuffle(10000)
I don't understand why I need the shuffle in these cases.
In the obvious case, shuffling is helpful if your training data is sorted by class labels. By shuffling, you allow your model to "see" a wide range of data points each belonging to different classes in the context of classification. If the model goes through a sorted training data, your model runs the risk of overfitting to certain classes. In short, shuffling helps reduce variance and ensures that the train, test, and validation sets are representative of the true distribution.
I am currently trying to use Python's linearregression() model to describe the relationship between two variables X and Y. Given a dataset with 8 columns and 1000 rows, I want to split this dataset into training and test sets using split_train_test.
My question: I wonder what is the difference between train_test_split(dataset, test_size, random_test = int) vs train_test_split(dataset, test_size).Also, does the 2nd one (without setting random_test=int) give me a different test set and training set each time I re-run my program? Also, does the 1st one give me the same test set and training set every time I re-run my program? What is the difference between setting random_test=42 vs random_test=43, for example?
In python scikit-learn train_test_split will split your input data into two sets i) train and ii) test. It has argument random_state which allows you to split data randomly.
If the argument is not mentioned it will classify the data in a stratified manner which will give you the same split for the same dataset.
Assume you want a random split the data so that you could measure the performance of your regression on the same data with different splits. you can use random_state to achieve it. Each random state will give you pseudo-random split of your initial data. In order to keep track of performance and reproduce it later on the same data you will use the random_state argument with value used before.
It is useful for cross validation technique in machine learning.
I made a neural network whice i want to classify the input data (400 caracteristics per input data) as one of the five arabic dialects. I divede the trainig data in "train data", "validation data" and than "test date", with net.divideFcn = 'dividerand'; . I use trainbr as training function, whice results in a long training, that's because i have 9000 elements in training data.
For the network arhitecture i used two-layers, first with 10 perceptrons, second with 5, 5 because i use one vs all strategy.
The network training ends usually with minimum gradient reached, rather than minimux error.
How can i make the network predict better? Could it be o problem with generalization (the network learn very well the training data, but test on new data tends to fail?
Should i add more perceptrons to the first layer? I'm asking that because i take about a hour to train the network when i have 10 perceptrons on first layer, so the time will increase.
This is the code for my network:
[Test] = load('testData.mat');
[Ex] = load('trainData.mat');
Ex.trainVectors = Ex.trainVectors';
Ex.trainLabels = Ex.trainLabels';
net = newff(minmax(Ex.trainVectors),[10 5] ,{'logsig','logsig'},'trainlm','learngdm','sse');
net.performFcn = 'mse';
net.trainParam.lr = 0.01;
net.trainParam.mc = 0.95;
net.trainParam.epochs = 1000;
net.trainParam.goal = 0;
net.trainParam.max_fail = 50;
net.trainFcn = 'trainbr';
net.divideFcn = 'dividerand';
net.divideParam.trainRatio = 0.7;
net.divideParam.valRatio = 0.15;
net.divideParam.testRatio = 0.15;
net = init(net);
net = train(net,Ex.trainVectors,Ex.trainLabels);
Thanks !
Working with neural networks is some type of creative work. So noone can't give you the only true answer. But I can give some advices based on my own experience.
First of all - check the network error when training ends (on training and validation data sets. Before you start to use test data set). You told it is minimum but what is its actual value? If it 50% too, so we have bad data or wrong net architecture.
If error for train data set is OK. Next step - lets check how much the coefficients of your net are changing at the validation step. And what's up about the error here. If they changed dramatically that's the sigh our architecture is wrong: Network does not have the ability to generalize and will retrain at every new data sets.
What else can we do before changing architecture? We can change the number of epochs. Sometimes we can get good results but it is some type of random - we must be sure the changing of coefficient is small at the ending steps of training. But as I remember nntool check it automatically, so maybe we can skip this step.
One more thing I want to recommend to you - change train data set. Maybe you know rand is give you always the same number at start of matlab, so if you create your data sets only once you can work with the same sets always. This problem is also about non-homogeneous data. It can be that some part of your data is more important than other. So if some different random sets will give about the same error data is ok and we can go further. If not - we need to work with data and split it more carefully. Sometimes I avoid using dividerand and divide data manually.
Sometimes I tried to change the type of activation function. But here you use perceptron... So the idea - try to use sigma- or linear- neurons instead of perceptrons. This rarely leads to significant improvements but can help.
If all this steps can't give you enough you have to change net architecture. And the number of neurons in the first layer is the first you have to do. Usually when I work on the neural network I spend a lot of time trying not only different number of neurons but the different types of nets too.
For example, I found interesting article about your topic: link at Alberto Simões article. And that's what they say:
Regarding the number of units in the hidden layers, there are some
rules of thumb: use the same number of units in all hidden layers, and
use at least the same number of units as the maximum between the
number of classes and the number of features. But there can be up to
three times that value. Given the high number of features we opted to
keep that same number of units in the hidden layer.
Some advices from comments:
Data split method (for train and test data sets) depends on your data. For example, I worked on industry data and found that at the last part of the data set technological parameters (pressure for some equipment) was changed. So I have to get data for both operation modes to train data set. But for your case I don't thing there are the same problem... I recommend you to try several random sets (just check they are really different!).
For measuring net error I usually calculate full vector of errors - I train net and then check it's work for all values to get the whole errors vector. It's useful to get some useful vies like histograms and etc and I can see where my net is go wrong. It is not necessary and even harmful to get sse (or mse) close to zero - usually that's mean you already overtrain the net. For the first approximation I usually try to get 80-95% of correct values on training data set and then try the net on the test data set.
I look at the python example for Lenet and see that the number of iterations needed to run over the entire MNIST test dataset is hard-coded. However, can this value be not hard-coded at all? How to get the number of samples of the dataset pointed by a network in python?
You can use the lmdb library to access the lmdb directly
import lmdb
db = lmdb.open('/path/to/lmdb_folder') //Needs lmdb - method
num_examples = int( db.stat()['entries'] )
Should do the trick for you.
It seems that you mixed iterations and amount of samples in one question. In the provided example we can see only number of iterations, i. e. how many times training phase will be repeated. The is no any direct relationship between amount of iterations (network training parameters) and amount of samples in dataset (network input).
Some more detailed explanation:
EDIT: Caffe will totally load (batch size x iterations) samples for training or testing, but there is no relation with amount of loaded samples and actual database size: it will start reading from the beginning after reaching database last record - it other words, database in caffe acts like a circular buffer.
Mentioned example points to this configuration. We can see that it expects lmdb input, and sets batch size to 64 (some more info about batches and BLOBs) for training phase and 100 for testing phase. Really we don't make any assumption about input dataset size, i. e. number of samples in dataset: batch size is only processing chunk size, iterations is how many batches caffe will take. It won't stop after reaching database end.
In other words, network itself (i. e. protobuf config files) doesn't point to any number of samples in database - only to dataset name and format and desired amount of samples. There is no way to determine database size with caffe at the current moment, as I know.
Thus if you want to load entire dataset for testing, you have only option to firstly determine amount of samples in mnist_test_lmdb or mnist_train_lmdb manually, and then specify corresponding values for batch size and iterations.
You have some options for this:
Look at ./examples/mnist/create_mnist.sh console output - it prints amount of samples while converting from initial format (I believe that you followed this tutorial);
follow #Shai's advice (read lmdb file directly).
I'm having problems in understanding how K-NN classification works in MATLAB.´
Here's the problem, I have a large dataset (65 features for over 1500 subjects) and its respective classes' label (0 or 1).
According to what's been explained to me, I have to divide the data into training, test and validation subsets to perform supervised training on the data, and classify it via K-NN.
First of all, what's the best ratio to divide the 3 subgroups (1/3 of the size of the dataset each?).
I've looked into ClassificationKNN/fitcknn functions, as well as the crossval function (idealy to divide data), but I'm really not sure how to use them.
To sum up, I wanted to
- divide data into 3 groups
- "train" the KNN (I know it's not a method that requires training, but the equivalent to training) with the training subset
- classify the test subset and get it's classification error/performance
- what's the point of having a validation test?
I hope you can help me, thank you in advance
EDIT: I think I was able to do it, but, if that's not asking too much, could you see if I missed something? This is my code, for a random case:
nfeats=60;ninds=1000;
trainRatio=0.8;valRatio=.1;testRatio=.1;
kmax=100; %for instance...
data=randi(100,nfeats,ninds);
class=randi(2,1,ninds);
[trainInd,valInd,testInd] = dividerand(1000,trainRatio,valRatio,testRatio);
train=data(:,trainInd);
test=data(:,testInd);
val=data(:,valInd);
train_class=class(:,trainInd);
test_class=class(:,testInd);
val_class=class(:,valInd);
precisionmax=0;
koptimal=0;
for know=1:kmax
%is it the same thing use knnclassify or fitcknn+predict??
predicted_class = knnclassify(val', train', train_class',know);
mdl = fitcknn(train',train_class','NumNeighbors',know) ;
label = predict(mdl,val');
consistency=sum(label==val_class')/length(val_class);
if consistency>precisionmax
precisionmax=consistency;
koptimal=know;
end
end
mdl_final = fitcknn(train',train_class','NumNeighbors',know) ;
label_final = predict(mdl,test');
consistency_final=sum(label==test_class')/length(test_class);
Thank you very much for all your help
For your 1st question "what's the best ratio to divide the 3 subgroups" there are only rules of thumb:
The amount of training data is most important. The more the better.
Thus, make it as big as possible and definitely bigger than the test or validation data.
Test and validation data have a similar function, so it is convenient to assign them the same amount
of data. But it is important to have enough data to be able to recognize over-adaptation. So, they
should be picked from the data basis fully randomly.
Consequently, a 50/25/25 or 60/20/20 partitioning is quite common. But if your total amount of data is small in relation to the total number of weights of your chosen topology (e.g. 10 weights in your net and only 200 cases in the data), then 70/15/15 or even 80/10/10 might be better choices.
Concerning your 2nd question "what's the point of having a validation test?":
Typically, you train the chosen model on your training data and then estimate the "success" by applying the trained model to unseen data - the validation set.
If you now would completely stop your efforts to improve accuracy, you indeed don't need three partitions of your data. But typically, you feel that you can improve the success of your model by e.g. changing the number of weights or hidden layers or ... and now a big loops starts to run with many iterations:
1) change weights and topology, 2) train, 3) validate, not satisfied, goto 1)
The long-term effect of this loop is, that you increasingly adapt your model to the validation data, so the results get better not because you so intelligently improve your topology but because you unconsciously learn the properties of the validation set and how to cope with them.
Now, the final and only valid accuracy of your neural net is estimated on really unseen data: the test set. This is done only once and is also useful to reveal over-adaption. You are not allowed to start a second even bigger loop now to prohibit any adaption to the test set!