feature request: only apply random noise in `RandomAdder` to training data
See original GitHub issueCurrently, RandomAdder
adds noise to data both at training and at prediction time. This causes predictions to become non-deterministic and it offers no clear benefit in most cases I can think of.
I suggest changing the default behaviour of the transformer to only add random noise to the train data and optionally through a constructor flag also to the prediction data.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:5 (2 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Train Neural Networks With Noise to Reduce Overfitting
In effect, adding noise expands the size of the training dataset. Each time a training sample is exposed to the model, random noise...
Read more >regression - How is adding noise to training data equivalent to ...
Adding noise to the regressors in the training data is similar to regularization because it leads to similar results to shrinkage.
Read more >Regularization Method: Noise for improving Deep Learning ...
Adding noise increases the size of our training dataset. When we are training a neural network, random noise is added to each training...
Read more >Add constant white noise to images #8286 - ultralytics/yolov5
Hi! I am wondering on training on a dataset of BW images and, before making them 3-channels images, I would like to add...
Read more >Why to Add Noise to Images for Machine Learning
For the purposes of image processing, we often create salt-and-pepper noise – that is, randomly change some pixels to completely white or ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
So I got asked a similar type of thing in todays training where someone wanted to drop rows with too many missing values from train but not from test so I was toying around to see if I could find something that would work.
I might have figured out a way but I’m not sure I like it all that much:
I basically store a hash of the train dataframe and compare
X
with it intransform
and then calltransform_train
ortransform_test
. I think this can be made quite generic and I can’t think of a case where it wouldn’t work. What do you think?#81