Dealing with Overfitting
$begingroup$
Hello and thank you in advance for any answer. I am building a NN for a multi class classification problem. I have pretrained my data through a Word2vec and generated a 300 dimension vector with values. I have 6 classes .. My data consist of 15000 rows(x300 dimensions). My first question is :
What is the number of units? Is it something that we can extract from theory?
Also i have managed to gain 0.85-0.90 training set accuracy but the validation set accuracy is always low: 0.22-0.25. I do not know what way to follow as I am newbie to these kind of stuff. My code is:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import keras
from sklearn.preprocessing import Imputer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense,Dropout
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import regularizers
dataset = pd.read_csv('word2vec.csv')
X = dataset.iloc[:, 0:300].values
y = dataset.iloc[:, 300].values
imputer = Imputer(missing_values = 'NaN', strategy = 'mean', axis = 0)
imputer = imputer.fit(X[:, 0:300])
X[:, 0:300] = imputer.transform(X[:, 0:300])
counter = 0
for iterations in range(1):
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
classifier = Sequential()
classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform',kernel_regularizer=regularizers.l2(0.0001),
activity_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.001), activation='relu', input_dim=300))
classifier.add(Dropout(0.3))
# classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='relu'))
classifier.add(Dense(units=6, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='softmax'))
classifier.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'])
history = classifier.fit(X_train, y_train,validation_split=0.1, batch_size=10, epochs=100,shuffle=True)
y_pred = classifier.predict(X_test)
# y_pred = (y_pred > 0.1666)
classifier.summary()
counter+=1
print(classifier.layers)
print("Running RNN with Dropout Layer")
print("Number of layers used: "+str(len(classifier.layers)))
# list all data in history
print(history.history.keys())
# summarize history for accuracy
plt.plot(history.history['acc'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_acc'])
plt.title('model accuracy')
plt.ylabel('accuracy')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
# summarize history for loss
plt.plot(history.history['loss'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_loss'])
plt.title('model loss')
plt.ylabel('loss')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
machine-learning neural-network keras
$endgroup$
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hello and thank you in advance for any answer. I am building a NN for a multi class classification problem. I have pretrained my data through a Word2vec and generated a 300 dimension vector with values. I have 6 classes .. My data consist of 15000 rows(x300 dimensions). My first question is :
What is the number of units? Is it something that we can extract from theory?
Also i have managed to gain 0.85-0.90 training set accuracy but the validation set accuracy is always low: 0.22-0.25. I do not know what way to follow as I am newbie to these kind of stuff. My code is:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import keras
from sklearn.preprocessing import Imputer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense,Dropout
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import regularizers
dataset = pd.read_csv('word2vec.csv')
X = dataset.iloc[:, 0:300].values
y = dataset.iloc[:, 300].values
imputer = Imputer(missing_values = 'NaN', strategy = 'mean', axis = 0)
imputer = imputer.fit(X[:, 0:300])
X[:, 0:300] = imputer.transform(X[:, 0:300])
counter = 0
for iterations in range(1):
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
classifier = Sequential()
classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform',kernel_regularizer=regularizers.l2(0.0001),
activity_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.001), activation='relu', input_dim=300))
classifier.add(Dropout(0.3))
# classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='relu'))
classifier.add(Dense(units=6, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='softmax'))
classifier.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'])
history = classifier.fit(X_train, y_train,validation_split=0.1, batch_size=10, epochs=100,shuffle=True)
y_pred = classifier.predict(X_test)
# y_pred = (y_pred > 0.1666)
classifier.summary()
counter+=1
print(classifier.layers)
print("Running RNN with Dropout Layer")
print("Number of layers used: "+str(len(classifier.layers)))
# list all data in history
print(history.history.keys())
# summarize history for accuracy
plt.plot(history.history['acc'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_acc'])
plt.title('model accuracy')
plt.ylabel('accuracy')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
# summarize history for loss
plt.plot(history.history['loss'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_loss'])
plt.title('model loss')
plt.ylabel('loss')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
machine-learning neural-network keras
$endgroup$
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hello and thank you in advance for any answer. I am building a NN for a multi class classification problem. I have pretrained my data through a Word2vec and generated a 300 dimension vector with values. I have 6 classes .. My data consist of 15000 rows(x300 dimensions). My first question is :
What is the number of units? Is it something that we can extract from theory?
Also i have managed to gain 0.85-0.90 training set accuracy but the validation set accuracy is always low: 0.22-0.25. I do not know what way to follow as I am newbie to these kind of stuff. My code is:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import keras
from sklearn.preprocessing import Imputer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense,Dropout
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import regularizers
dataset = pd.read_csv('word2vec.csv')
X = dataset.iloc[:, 0:300].values
y = dataset.iloc[:, 300].values
imputer = Imputer(missing_values = 'NaN', strategy = 'mean', axis = 0)
imputer = imputer.fit(X[:, 0:300])
X[:, 0:300] = imputer.transform(X[:, 0:300])
counter = 0
for iterations in range(1):
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
classifier = Sequential()
classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform',kernel_regularizer=regularizers.l2(0.0001),
activity_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.001), activation='relu', input_dim=300))
classifier.add(Dropout(0.3))
# classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='relu'))
classifier.add(Dense(units=6, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='softmax'))
classifier.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'])
history = classifier.fit(X_train, y_train,validation_split=0.1, batch_size=10, epochs=100,shuffle=True)
y_pred = classifier.predict(X_test)
# y_pred = (y_pred > 0.1666)
classifier.summary()
counter+=1
print(classifier.layers)
print("Running RNN with Dropout Layer")
print("Number of layers used: "+str(len(classifier.layers)))
# list all data in history
print(history.history.keys())
# summarize history for accuracy
plt.plot(history.history['acc'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_acc'])
plt.title('model accuracy')
plt.ylabel('accuracy')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
# summarize history for loss
plt.plot(history.history['loss'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_loss'])
plt.title('model loss')
plt.ylabel('loss')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
machine-learning neural-network keras
$endgroup$
Hello and thank you in advance for any answer. I am building a NN for a multi class classification problem. I have pretrained my data through a Word2vec and generated a 300 dimension vector with values. I have 6 classes .. My data consist of 15000 rows(x300 dimensions). My first question is :
What is the number of units? Is it something that we can extract from theory?
Also i have managed to gain 0.85-0.90 training set accuracy but the validation set accuracy is always low: 0.22-0.25. I do not know what way to follow as I am newbie to these kind of stuff. My code is:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import keras
from sklearn.preprocessing import Imputer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense,Dropout
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import regularizers
dataset = pd.read_csv('word2vec.csv')
X = dataset.iloc[:, 0:300].values
y = dataset.iloc[:, 300].values
imputer = Imputer(missing_values = 'NaN', strategy = 'mean', axis = 0)
imputer = imputer.fit(X[:, 0:300])
X[:, 0:300] = imputer.transform(X[:, 0:300])
counter = 0
for iterations in range(1):
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
classifier = Sequential()
classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform',kernel_regularizer=regularizers.l2(0.0001),
activity_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.001), activation='relu', input_dim=300))
classifier.add(Dropout(0.3))
# classifier.add(Dense(units=70, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='relu'))
classifier.add(Dense(units=6, kernel_initializer='uniform', activation='softmax'))
classifier.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'])
history = classifier.fit(X_train, y_train,validation_split=0.1, batch_size=10, epochs=100,shuffle=True)
y_pred = classifier.predict(X_test)
# y_pred = (y_pred > 0.1666)
classifier.summary()
counter+=1
print(classifier.layers)
print("Running RNN with Dropout Layer")
print("Number of layers used: "+str(len(classifier.layers)))
# list all data in history
print(history.history.keys())
# summarize history for accuracy
plt.plot(history.history['acc'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_acc'])
plt.title('model accuracy')
plt.ylabel('accuracy')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
# summarize history for loss
plt.plot(history.history['loss'])
plt.plot(history.history['val_loss'])
plt.title('model loss')
plt.ylabel('loss')
plt.xlabel('epoch')
plt.legend(['train', 'test'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
machine-learning neural-network keras
machine-learning neural-network keras
asked Nov 11 '18 at 19:22
Marinos ZagkotsisMarinos Zagkotsis
62
62
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yep - you've overfitted !
Can you see what your accuracy is as a function of the number of training cycles? It would be interesting to see how that looks.
Is there any way you could increase your data? 15000x300 isn't a huge amount of depth for a neural network, considering the width of the data set.
You could look at the impact of increasing your regularisation parameters, or decreasing the depth of your network
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "557"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41056%2fdealing-with-overfitting%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yep - you've overfitted !
Can you see what your accuracy is as a function of the number of training cycles? It would be interesting to see how that looks.
Is there any way you could increase your data? 15000x300 isn't a huge amount of depth for a neural network, considering the width of the data set.
You could look at the impact of increasing your regularisation parameters, or decreasing the depth of your network
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yep - you've overfitted !
Can you see what your accuracy is as a function of the number of training cycles? It would be interesting to see how that looks.
Is there any way you could increase your data? 15000x300 isn't a huge amount of depth for a neural network, considering the width of the data set.
You could look at the impact of increasing your regularisation parameters, or decreasing the depth of your network
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yep - you've overfitted !
Can you see what your accuracy is as a function of the number of training cycles? It would be interesting to see how that looks.
Is there any way you could increase your data? 15000x300 isn't a huge amount of depth for a neural network, considering the width of the data set.
You could look at the impact of increasing your regularisation parameters, or decreasing the depth of your network
$endgroup$
Yep - you've overfitted !
Can you see what your accuracy is as a function of the number of training cycles? It would be interesting to see how that looks.
Is there any way you could increase your data? 15000x300 isn't a huge amount of depth for a neural network, considering the width of the data set.
You could look at the impact of increasing your regularisation parameters, or decreasing the depth of your network
answered Nov 11 '18 at 19:53
HenryHenry
1842
1842
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
UPDATE: Thank you for your time.. Can you please explain to me about the accuracy and the training cycles? Unfortunately I cannot increase the the data.. But i could decrease the dimensions.. Do you think it would be helpful? Does this overfitting occurs mainly because of the low amount of data? Is my code wrong?? Thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 12 '18 at 11:13
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@marinos in a general sense overfitting increases with model complexity, so reducing dimensions would be a good start.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 13 '18 at 5:50
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@davmor thank you for the answer and your time.. I will implement it that way... I have applied several other methods such as l1,l2 regularizations, batch normalization and dropout and also split the validation set like i have for test set.. I managed to overcome the overfit.. now ofcourse my training accuracy is lower . Is it maybe because of the word2vec pretraining? maybe it comes in addition with the 300 dimensions? thank you
$endgroup$
– Marinos Zagkotsis
Nov 13 '18 at 7:57
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
$begingroup$
@marinos again, generally, modeling is about choosing trade offs. This is ok, as you will find most clients (and good managers) are fine if you explain the error and why (here, a small training set relative to dimensions). Secondly, analysis is a process, not a single event. So use your model to run new data, determine error, and improve. Lastly, remember in most real world cases, the current state is no model at all, so something is usually better than nothing.
$endgroup$
– davmor
Nov 16 '18 at 19:11
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Data Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41056%2fdealing-with-overfitting%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown