Splitting image dataset with few subjects but many data
$begingroup$
I'm carrying out training/testing of a convolutional neural network for facial expression recognition with various datasets - all labelled by 7 emotion classes.
For other datasets, there are a large number of mostly unique subjects so I randomly split. In this case, however, there are only 6 subjects but a large number of images for each subject in each class. Randomly splitting seems ineffective because of the similarity in images - think of how an emotion changes per frame.
Is the best method to separate an entire subject for testing? Or something else?
I did run the network with random splitting and achieved 100% validation accuracy so I believe that is unlikely to be the best method. Thanks for your time.
machine-learning neural-network
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm carrying out training/testing of a convolutional neural network for facial expression recognition with various datasets - all labelled by 7 emotion classes.
For other datasets, there are a large number of mostly unique subjects so I randomly split. In this case, however, there are only 6 subjects but a large number of images for each subject in each class. Randomly splitting seems ineffective because of the similarity in images - think of how an emotion changes per frame.
Is the best method to separate an entire subject for testing? Or something else?
I did run the network with random splitting and achieved 100% validation accuracy so I believe that is unlikely to be the best method. Thanks for your time.
machine-learning neural-network
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm carrying out training/testing of a convolutional neural network for facial expression recognition with various datasets - all labelled by 7 emotion classes.
For other datasets, there are a large number of mostly unique subjects so I randomly split. In this case, however, there are only 6 subjects but a large number of images for each subject in each class. Randomly splitting seems ineffective because of the similarity in images - think of how an emotion changes per frame.
Is the best method to separate an entire subject for testing? Or something else?
I did run the network with random splitting and achieved 100% validation accuracy so I believe that is unlikely to be the best method. Thanks for your time.
machine-learning neural-network
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I'm carrying out training/testing of a convolutional neural network for facial expression recognition with various datasets - all labelled by 7 emotion classes.
For other datasets, there are a large number of mostly unique subjects so I randomly split. In this case, however, there are only 6 subjects but a large number of images for each subject in each class. Randomly splitting seems ineffective because of the similarity in images - think of how an emotion changes per frame.
Is the best method to separate an entire subject for testing? Or something else?
I did run the network with random splitting and achieved 100% validation accuracy so I believe that is unlikely to be the best method. Thanks for your time.
machine-learning neural-network
machine-learning neural-network
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 14 hours ago
McGuile
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
asked 14 hours ago
McGuileMcGuile
1084
1084
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
McGuile is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you're hitting on the fact that by training and testing on the same subjects your model is not going to be able to generalize to new subjects very well. If you're only interested predicting emotions for these subjects, you are taking the right approach. However, if you want to generalize your model to new, unseen subjects, you should split your training and testing sets such that subjects in the training set are not in the test set, and vice versa to get a more accurate test score. Most likely it will not perform as well and you should consider collecting more data on new subjects if possible.
Here is a similar question on Stack Exchange.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
});
}
});
McGuile is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f45379%2fsplitting-image-dataset-with-few-subjects-but-many-data%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
$begingroup$
I think you're hitting on the fact that by training and testing on the same subjects your model is not going to be able to generalize to new subjects very well. If you're only interested predicting emotions for these subjects, you are taking the right approach. However, if you want to generalize your model to new, unseen subjects, you should split your training and testing sets such that subjects in the training set are not in the test set, and vice versa to get a more accurate test score. Most likely it will not perform as well and you should consider collecting more data on new subjects if possible.
Here is a similar question on Stack Exchange.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you're hitting on the fact that by training and testing on the same subjects your model is not going to be able to generalize to new subjects very well. If you're only interested predicting emotions for these subjects, you are taking the right approach. However, if you want to generalize your model to new, unseen subjects, you should split your training and testing sets such that subjects in the training set are not in the test set, and vice versa to get a more accurate test score. Most likely it will not perform as well and you should consider collecting more data on new subjects if possible.
Here is a similar question on Stack Exchange.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you're hitting on the fact that by training and testing on the same subjects your model is not going to be able to generalize to new subjects very well. If you're only interested predicting emotions for these subjects, you are taking the right approach. However, if you want to generalize your model to new, unseen subjects, you should split your training and testing sets such that subjects in the training set are not in the test set, and vice versa to get a more accurate test score. Most likely it will not perform as well and you should consider collecting more data on new subjects if possible.
Here is a similar question on Stack Exchange.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I think you're hitting on the fact that by training and testing on the same subjects your model is not going to be able to generalize to new subjects very well. If you're only interested predicting emotions for these subjects, you are taking the right approach. However, if you want to generalize your model to new, unseen subjects, you should split your training and testing sets such that subjects in the training set are not in the test set, and vice versa to get a more accurate test score. Most likely it will not perform as well and you should consider collecting more data on new subjects if possible.
Here is a similar question on Stack Exchange.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
answered 12 hours ago
WesWes
965
965
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Wes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
McGuile is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
McGuile is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
McGuile is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
McGuile is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f45379%2fsplitting-image-dataset-with-few-subjects-but-many-data%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
