When one model is superior in real world use?












0












$begingroup$


I have an NLP neural network that I have developed with Keras for multi-label classification.



I have fit the model several times and save the best results (via best validation accuracy score) after each set of epochs completes. All of my saved models are in the 96%+ validation accuracy score (according to Keras).



However, when I run these models against real-world data where I also know the result (e.g. effectively a second round of validation) one model in particular outperforms the rest. I can take the champion model (96.29% validation accuracy) and put it up against another model (with something like 96.18% validation accuracy) and the champion model can achieve 90%+ accuracy in the second round of validation while the other model - or any other model - will do nowhere near that. This one model will achieve a minimum 8% accuracy above all other models.



I have double-checked my methodology and I'm nearly positive that all models are being created with the same code and process.



Should I be concerned that this one particular model outperforms the rest? Does it indicate anything in particular in my overall methodology?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.




















    0












    $begingroup$


    I have an NLP neural network that I have developed with Keras for multi-label classification.



    I have fit the model several times and save the best results (via best validation accuracy score) after each set of epochs completes. All of my saved models are in the 96%+ validation accuracy score (according to Keras).



    However, when I run these models against real-world data where I also know the result (e.g. effectively a second round of validation) one model in particular outperforms the rest. I can take the champion model (96.29% validation accuracy) and put it up against another model (with something like 96.18% validation accuracy) and the champion model can achieve 90%+ accuracy in the second round of validation while the other model - or any other model - will do nowhere near that. This one model will achieve a minimum 8% accuracy above all other models.



    I have double-checked my methodology and I'm nearly positive that all models are being created with the same code and process.



    Should I be concerned that this one particular model outperforms the rest? Does it indicate anything in particular in my overall methodology?










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$




    bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


    This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.


















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I have an NLP neural network that I have developed with Keras for multi-label classification.



      I have fit the model several times and save the best results (via best validation accuracy score) after each set of epochs completes. All of my saved models are in the 96%+ validation accuracy score (according to Keras).



      However, when I run these models against real-world data where I also know the result (e.g. effectively a second round of validation) one model in particular outperforms the rest. I can take the champion model (96.29% validation accuracy) and put it up against another model (with something like 96.18% validation accuracy) and the champion model can achieve 90%+ accuracy in the second round of validation while the other model - or any other model - will do nowhere near that. This one model will achieve a minimum 8% accuracy above all other models.



      I have double-checked my methodology and I'm nearly positive that all models are being created with the same code and process.



      Should I be concerned that this one particular model outperforms the rest? Does it indicate anything in particular in my overall methodology?










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I have an NLP neural network that I have developed with Keras for multi-label classification.



      I have fit the model several times and save the best results (via best validation accuracy score) after each set of epochs completes. All of my saved models are in the 96%+ validation accuracy score (according to Keras).



      However, when I run these models against real-world data where I also know the result (e.g. effectively a second round of validation) one model in particular outperforms the rest. I can take the champion model (96.29% validation accuracy) and put it up against another model (with something like 96.18% validation accuracy) and the champion model can achieve 90%+ accuracy in the second round of validation while the other model - or any other model - will do nowhere near that. This one model will achieve a minimum 8% accuracy above all other models.



      I have double-checked my methodology and I'm nearly positive that all models are being created with the same code and process.



      Should I be concerned that this one particular model outperforms the rest? Does it indicate anything in particular in my overall methodology?







      neural-network keras nlp






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 7 '18 at 14:11









      I_Play_With_DataI_Play_With_Data

      1,2321833




      1,2321833





      bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


      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 yesterday


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Maybe I did not get the question but all looks fine. This is how you do model selection. You have several models (either same algorithm with different parameters or different algorithms. does not matter) and then you perform cross validation to get the best model according to empirical errors coming from validation set. The best model wins the game and is chosen. Everything seems to be right.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:31










          • $begingroup$
            If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:44










          • $begingroup$
            Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:45






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:47










          • $begingroup$
            Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:49












          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40870%2fwhen-one-model-is-superior-in-real-world-use%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









          0












          $begingroup$

          Maybe I did not get the question but all looks fine. This is how you do model selection. You have several models (either same algorithm with different parameters or different algorithms. does not matter) and then you perform cross validation to get the best model according to empirical errors coming from validation set. The best model wins the game and is chosen. Everything seems to be right.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:31










          • $begingroup$
            If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:44










          • $begingroup$
            Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:45






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:47










          • $begingroup$
            Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:49
















          0












          $begingroup$

          Maybe I did not get the question but all looks fine. This is how you do model selection. You have several models (either same algorithm with different parameters or different algorithms. does not matter) and then you perform cross validation to get the best model according to empirical errors coming from validation set. The best model wins the game and is chosen. Everything seems to be right.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:31










          • $begingroup$
            If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:44










          • $begingroup$
            Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:45






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:47










          • $begingroup$
            Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:49














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          Maybe I did not get the question but all looks fine. This is how you do model selection. You have several models (either same algorithm with different parameters or different algorithms. does not matter) and then you perform cross validation to get the best model according to empirical errors coming from validation set. The best model wins the game and is chosen. Everything seems to be right.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Maybe I did not get the question but all looks fine. This is how you do model selection. You have several models (either same algorithm with different parameters or different algorithms. does not matter) and then you perform cross validation to get the best model according to empirical errors coming from validation set. The best model wins the game and is chosen. Everything seems to be right.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 7 '18 at 14:21









          Kasra ManshaeiKasra Manshaei

          3,7791135




          3,7791135












          • $begingroup$
            To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:31










          • $begingroup$
            If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:44










          • $begingroup$
            Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:45






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:47










          • $begingroup$
            Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:49


















          • $begingroup$
            To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:31










          • $begingroup$
            If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:44










          • $begingroup$
            Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:45






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
            $endgroup$
            – I_Play_With_Data
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:47










          • $begingroup$
            Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
            $endgroup$
            – Kasra Manshaei
            Nov 7 '18 at 14:49
















          $begingroup$
          To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
          $endgroup$
          – I_Play_With_Data
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:31




          $begingroup$
          To be clear, these are all the same NN just run at different times throughout the day. All parameters are equal. So, really the only difference (I think) would be the random mix that Keras creates for each training epoch. No other parameters/processes were changed in between runs
          $endgroup$
          – I_Play_With_Data
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:31












          $begingroup$
          If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
          $endgroup$
          – Kasra Manshaei
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:44




          $begingroup$
          If Keras does the splitting for you then be sure it uses proper shuffling techniques to keep the results statistically significant. If you do it yourself then try to shuffle data and evaluate each model n times and see the mean and std of errors. That tells you what is the best model. If all models were literally the same then you have only one model and the empirical error is the mean of all. see this answer and the comment datascience.stackexchange.com/a/40862/8878
          $endgroup$
          – Kasra Manshaei
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:44












          $begingroup$
          Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
          $endgroup$
          – Kasra Manshaei
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:45




          $begingroup$
          Might happen that at one run the data is accidentally "too beautiful"! That's why we try several times and see the mean error to be sure our results are not just by chance.
          $endgroup$
          – Kasra Manshaei
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:45




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
          $endgroup$
          – I_Play_With_Data
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:47




          $begingroup$
          I do shuffle the data upon load before running all my epochs
          $endgroup$
          – I_Play_With_Data
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:47












          $begingroup$
          Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
          $endgroup$
          – Kasra Manshaei
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:49




          $begingroup$
          Yes. and one shuffle is just by chance well-separated (if it's a classification task). And anyways, you are not choosing any model as all of them are the same. Put the mean of all obtained errors in one basket and try "Other Models" (e.g. a NN with another architecture of layers) and see their errors as well. Then you can say which model is the best. So far there is no model"s" but just model. And it does not tell you anything
          $endgroup$
          – Kasra Manshaei
          Nov 7 '18 at 14:49


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40870%2fwhen-one-model-is-superior-in-real-world-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to label and detect the document text images

          Vallis Paradisi

          Tabula Rosettana