# Tag Info

4

K-fold cross-validation is probably preferred in terms of completeness and generalization: you ensure that the system has seen the complete dataset for training. However, in deep learning this is often not feasible due to time and power constraints. They can both be used, and there is not one better than the other. It really depends on the specific case, the ...

3

The validation loss settles exactly at an error of one. Probably means there's something off with either the kind of data validation set has or with something in the training. An exact validation loss of one almost definitely means there's something off. I'd recommend before doing anything thoroughly go through your data or see if there's anything to debug ...

3

Depends on what does 1 represent in your task. If you are trying to predict household prices and 1 represents \$1, I think the average validation loss is good. If 1 represents \$10000 in this case, probably something is not right. But remember that there are 2 parts contributing to the overall loss. The mse loss and the l2 penalty loss. (Also remember that ...

3

Purely in terms of overfitting, and assuming you train both for equal amounts of time, 70/30 is probably better but performance is not going to be very good. Not training on %30 of data will make both training and test results equally bad (in my opinion). But it won't overfit, that is for sure. Cross validation (you have in mind 90/10, I assume) will take a ...

2

This is a sign of overfitting. As you make your trees deeper, it becomes possible to "memorize" the data: each leaf of the tree is just a single point. The trees begin to learn patterns that do not exist. When you try out these patterns on new data (which is what cross-validation is imitating), then the patterns do not work, and your model fails to ...

1

Are you talking about (X_train,y_train) and (X_test,y_test). If yes, then X represents the data(features) and y represents the labels of that data. That's why you get a pair when you divide it into training and test data

1

For any Machine Learning model, the available data is usually split into three sets: Training Set: The part of data used to train the model and learn the parameters of the network. The data that remains after allocation of the Training Dataset, is split into the Validation and Test sets. Validation Set: This sample of data is used to provide an ...

1

The telltale signature of overfitting is when your validation loss starts increasing, while your training loss continues decreasing, i.e.: (Image adapted from Wikipedia entry on overfitting) It is clear that this does not happen in your diagram, hence your model does not overfit. A difference between a training and a validation score by itself does not ...

1

In general, no. There is a tradeoff between making the validation set for each fold smaller, and having more folds in total. As an example, if you have $N$ folds for $N$ datapoints, each fold will have only a single datapoint in its validation set. The validation accuracy of a model on a single datapoint is not a reliable estimator for the test performance ...

1

Note the X index is training set size. For the first and second case, teh training set size starts at 0(or 1). The model will overfit certainly at that data size. When data size increases, the model overfits less and less and eventually the model have enough data samples that it won't overfit. The data size continue to increase and the model performance ...

1

For a binary classifier, the cross-entropy loss is a natural measure of probability accuracy, if you care about relative probabilities. By that I mean if you care that the estimate $\hat{p}$ is within some ratio of the true value. So an estimate of $\hat{p} = 0.1$ is a better estimate if the true value is $p = 0.2$ than if the true value is $p = 0.01$ (even ...

1

You should only look for the cross-validation score. If this set is large enough, it will give you an accurate prediction of how your model will act for unseen data. Your case is exceptional. The fitted model which is obviously overfitted actually performs better on the cross-validation set. This means in turn that your overfitted model will perform better ...

1

Concerning $k$-fold Cross Validation, I like to think of it by considering two extremes you can do: Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation where you leave one sample each time and train your model on the remaining $n-1$, and 2-fold Cross Validation at which you split your dataset in half and train (and validate) two models on two different halves. The important ...

1

I would say that your intuition is correct: the model associated with the first plot is likely to generalise more than the one associated with the second plot. In both cases, it doesn't seem that your model has overfitted the training data. Overfitting often occurs when the training error keeps decreasing but the validation error starts to increase. In both ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible