You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current model after merging #91 is able to learn the train set (without validation dataset in training workflow). In other words, it can overfit the train data which shows the good model capacity. We have seen this in the example notebooks when data covers only one month and train_test split is done spatially on a small subset.
But for real scenario, we are interested in using the model on a different temporal coverage. So we changed the train_test split as: train 202001, validation 202101, test 202201 (same months different years). After running the training workflow including validation, we see underfitting which is normal considering the amount of data and the architecture of the model. Still the model performs better than baseline.
There are several approaches in improving the generalization:
The current model after merging #91 is able to learn the train set (without validation dataset in training workflow). In other words, it can overfit the train data which shows the good model capacity. We have seen this in the example notebooks when data covers only one month and train_test split is done spatially on a small subset.
But for real scenario, we are interested in using the model on a different temporal coverage. So we changed the train_test split as: train 202001, validation 202101, test 202201 (same months different years). After running the training workflow including validation, we see underfitting which is normal considering the amount of data and the architecture of the model. Still the model performs better than baseline.
There are several approaches in improving the generalization:
These can be explored one by one.