2
$\begingroup$

I'm using keras to train a binary classifier neural network. To shuffle the training data I am using shuffle function from scikit-learn.
I observe that for some shuffle_random_state (seed for shuffle()), the network gives really good results (~86% accuracy) while on others not so much (~75% accuracy). So i run the model for 1-20 shuffle_random_states and choose the random_state which gives the best accuracy for production model.
I was wondering if this is a good approach and with those good shuffle_random_state the network is actually learning better?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The accuracy you are mentioning, is it on validation split or? If so, what is the accuracy on training split? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Jurić Feb 18 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ Mentioned accuracy is on validation split $\endgroup$ – Chirag Gupta Feb 18 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ What is the accuracy on training split in those two cases? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Jurić Feb 18 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ Training loss and accuracy is almost the same in both cases. Goes till 100% if kept training. The rate of increase is also almost same for both cases (for training data) $\endgroup$ – Chirag Gupta Feb 18 at 9:08
1
$\begingroup$

If this is split is a train/validation split (not a hold out test set) then you should be doing cross-validation. You are going to be overly optimistic about the performance of your model for this set of features and hyperparameters if you try to split it "just right". Cross-validation will give you a more accurate portrayal regardless of your split. If this is for a train/test split (test being a hold out test set), this is a very bad practice, since you are informing your decision on how to make the split based on the performance of the test set.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.