Why would one crossvalidate the random state number?Linear kernel in SVM performing much worse than RBF or PolyWhy is the number of samples smaller than the number of values in my decision tree?How does one fine-tune parameters and weights at the same time?Predicting contract churn/cancellation: Great model results does not work in the real worldHow to choose the random seed?Why would a fake feature with random numbers get selected in feature importance?Random state in machine learning modelsRandom Forest, Duplicating Data increases Accuracy. Why?Why is the reported loss different from the mean squared error calculated on the train data?Why is my MLP with 2 features is doing worse than MLP with 1 feature where the one feature is a combination of feature1*feature2?
How to explain intravenous drug abuse to a 6-year-old?
Should one save up to purchase a house/condo or maximize their 401(k) first?
Why is there a cap on 401k contributions?
Using mean length and mean weight to calculate mean BMI?
Expl3 and recent xparse on overleaf: No expl3 loader detected
How long can fsck take on a 30 TB volume?
Trying to understand a summation
Company stopped paying my salary. What are my options?
Is it a good idea to copy a trader when investing?
What are these pads?
What is the Ancient One's mistake?
Employee is self-centered and affects the team negatively
How to avoid making self and former employee look bad when reporting on fixing former employee's work?
Is the tensor product (of vector spaces) commutative?
Align a table column at a specific symbol
Do these creatures from the Tomb of Annihilation campaign speak Common?
Why doesn't a particle exert force on itself?
How do I give a darkroom course without negatives from the attendees?
Why doesn't Dany protect her dragons better?
Are there vaccine ingredients which may not be disclosed ("hidden", "trade secret", or similar)?
Names of the Six Tastes
Every group the homology of some space?
Examples where existence is harder than evaluation
Why is it wrong to *implement* myself a known, published, widely believed to be secure crypto algorithm?
Why would one crossvalidate the random state number?
Linear kernel in SVM performing much worse than RBF or PolyWhy is the number of samples smaller than the number of values in my decision tree?How does one fine-tune parameters and weights at the same time?Predicting contract churn/cancellation: Great model results does not work in the real worldHow to choose the random seed?Why would a fake feature with random numbers get selected in feature importance?Random state in machine learning modelsRandom Forest, Duplicating Data increases Accuracy. Why?Why is the reported loss different from the mean squared error calculated on the train data?Why is my MLP with 2 features is doing worse than MLP with 1 feature where the one feature is a combination of feature1*feature2?
$begingroup$
Still learning about machine learning, I've stumbled across a kaggle (link), which I cannot understand.
Here are lines 72 and 73:
parameters = 'solver': ['lbfgs'],
'max_iter': [1000,1100,1200,1300,1400,1500,1600,1700,1800,1900,2000 ],
'alpha': 10.0 ** -np.arange(1, 10),
'hidden_layer_sizes':np.arange(10, 15),
'random_state':[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
clf = GridSearchCV(MLPClassifier(), parameters, n_jobs=-1)
As you can see, the random_state parameter is been tested across 10 values.
What is the point of doing this?
If one model perform better with some random_state, does it make any sense to use this particular parameter on other models?
python scikit-learn mlp randomized-algorithms
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Still learning about machine learning, I've stumbled across a kaggle (link), which I cannot understand.
Here are lines 72 and 73:
parameters = 'solver': ['lbfgs'],
'max_iter': [1000,1100,1200,1300,1400,1500,1600,1700,1800,1900,2000 ],
'alpha': 10.0 ** -np.arange(1, 10),
'hidden_layer_sizes':np.arange(10, 15),
'random_state':[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
clf = GridSearchCV(MLPClassifier(), parameters, n_jobs=-1)
As you can see, the random_state parameter is been tested across 10 values.
What is the point of doing this?
If one model perform better with some random_state, does it make any sense to use this particular parameter on other models?
python scikit-learn mlp randomized-algorithms
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Still learning about machine learning, I've stumbled across a kaggle (link), which I cannot understand.
Here are lines 72 and 73:
parameters = 'solver': ['lbfgs'],
'max_iter': [1000,1100,1200,1300,1400,1500,1600,1700,1800,1900,2000 ],
'alpha': 10.0 ** -np.arange(1, 10),
'hidden_layer_sizes':np.arange(10, 15),
'random_state':[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
clf = GridSearchCV(MLPClassifier(), parameters, n_jobs=-1)
As you can see, the random_state parameter is been tested across 10 values.
What is the point of doing this?
If one model perform better with some random_state, does it make any sense to use this particular parameter on other models?
python scikit-learn mlp randomized-algorithms
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
$endgroup$
Still learning about machine learning, I've stumbled across a kaggle (link), which I cannot understand.
Here are lines 72 and 73:
parameters = 'solver': ['lbfgs'],
'max_iter': [1000,1100,1200,1300,1400,1500,1600,1700,1800,1900,2000 ],
'alpha': 10.0 ** -np.arange(1, 10),
'hidden_layer_sizes':np.arange(10, 15),
'random_state':[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
clf = GridSearchCV(MLPClassifier(), parameters, n_jobs=-1)
As you can see, the random_state parameter is been tested across 10 values.
What is the point of doing this?
If one model perform better with some random_state, does it make any sense to use this particular parameter on other models?
python scikit-learn mlp randomized-algorithms
python scikit-learn mlp randomized-algorithms
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
edited 2 days ago
n1k31t4
7,0862423
7,0862423
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
asked May 4 at 19:09
Dan ChaltielDan Chaltiel
1808
1808
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I personally think that the general idea of optimising your model with different random seeds is not a good idea. There are many other, more important, aspects of the modelling process that you can worry about, tweak and compare before spending time on the effects of random initialisation.
That being said, if you just want to test the effect of random initialisation of model weights on a final validation metric, this could be an approach to do so. Kind of the reverse argument to my point above. If you can show for different random seeds (ceteris paribus: with all other parameters equal) that the final model performs differently, it shows maybe that their is either inconsistency in the model, or a bug in the code even. I would not expect a well-validated model to give hugely differing results if being run with a different random seed, so if it does, it tells me something weird is going on!
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f51397%2fwhy-would-one-crossvalidate-the-random-state-number%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 personally think that the general idea of optimising your model with different random seeds is not a good idea. There are many other, more important, aspects of the modelling process that you can worry about, tweak and compare before spending time on the effects of random initialisation.
That being said, if you just want to test the effect of random initialisation of model weights on a final validation metric, this could be an approach to do so. Kind of the reverse argument to my point above. If you can show for different random seeds (ceteris paribus: with all other parameters equal) that the final model performs differently, it shows maybe that their is either inconsistency in the model, or a bug in the code even. I would not expect a well-validated model to give hugely differing results if being run with a different random seed, so if it does, it tells me something weird is going on!
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I personally think that the general idea of optimising your model with different random seeds is not a good idea. There are many other, more important, aspects of the modelling process that you can worry about, tweak and compare before spending time on the effects of random initialisation.
That being said, if you just want to test the effect of random initialisation of model weights on a final validation metric, this could be an approach to do so. Kind of the reverse argument to my point above. If you can show for different random seeds (ceteris paribus: with all other parameters equal) that the final model performs differently, it shows maybe that their is either inconsistency in the model, or a bug in the code even. I would not expect a well-validated model to give hugely differing results if being run with a different random seed, so if it does, it tells me something weird is going on!
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I personally think that the general idea of optimising your model with different random seeds is not a good idea. There are many other, more important, aspects of the modelling process that you can worry about, tweak and compare before spending time on the effects of random initialisation.
That being said, if you just want to test the effect of random initialisation of model weights on a final validation metric, this could be an approach to do so. Kind of the reverse argument to my point above. If you can show for different random seeds (ceteris paribus: with all other parameters equal) that the final model performs differently, it shows maybe that their is either inconsistency in the model, or a bug in the code even. I would not expect a well-validated model to give hugely differing results if being run with a different random seed, so if it does, it tells me something weird is going on!
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
$endgroup$
I personally think that the general idea of optimising your model with different random seeds is not a good idea. There are many other, more important, aspects of the modelling process that you can worry about, tweak and compare before spending time on the effects of random initialisation.
That being said, if you just want to test the effect of random initialisation of model weights on a final validation metric, this could be an approach to do so. Kind of the reverse argument to my point above. If you can show for different random seeds (ceteris paribus: with all other parameters equal) that the final model performs differently, it shows maybe that their is either inconsistency in the model, or a bug in the code even. I would not expect a well-validated model to give hugely differing results if being run with a different random seed, so if it does, it tells me something weird is going on!
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
answered May 4 at 19:18
n1k31t4n1k31t4
7,0862423
7,0862423
add a comment |
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%2f51397%2fwhy-would-one-crossvalidate-the-random-state-number%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
