Overfitting


In mathematical modeling, overfitting is the production of an analysis that corresponds too closely or exactly to a particular set of data, and may therefore fail to fit to additional data or predict future observations reliably. An overfitted model is a mathematical model that contains more parameters than can be justified by the data. In the special case of a model that consists of a polynomial function, these parameters represent the degree of a polynomial. The essence of overfitting is to unknowingly extract some of the residual variation as if that variation represents the underlying model structure.
Underfitting occurs when a mathematical model cannot adequately capture the underlying structure of the data. An under-fitted model is a model that is missing some parameters or terms that would appear in a correctly specified model. Underfitting would occur, for example, when fitting a linear model to nonlinear data. Such a model will tend to have poor predictive performance.
The possibility of over-fitting exists when the criterion used for selecting the model is not the same as the criterion used to judge the suitability of a model. For example, a model might be selected by maximizing its performance on some set of training data, yet its suitability might be determined by its ability to perform well on unseen data; overfitting occurs when a model begins to "memorize" training data rather than "learning" to generalize from a trend.
As an extreme example, if the number of parameters is the same as or greater than the number of observations, then a model can perfectly predict the training data simply by memorizing the data in its entirety. Such a model will typically fail severely when making predictions.
Overfitting is directly related to approximation error of the selected function class and the optimization error of the optimization procedure. A function class that is too large, in a suitable sense, relative to the dataset size is likely to overfit. Even when the fitted model does not have an excessive number of parameters, it is to be expected that the fitted relationship will appear to perform less well on a new dataset than on the dataset used for fitting. In particular, the value of the coefficient of determination will shrink relative to the original data.
To lessen the chance or amount of overfitting, several techniques are available. The basis of some techniques is to either explicitly penalize overly complex models or test the model's ability to generalize by evaluating its performance on a set of data not used for training, which is assumed to approximate the typical unseen data that a model will encounter.

Statistical inference

In statistics, an inference is drawn from a statistical model, which has been selected via some procedure. Burnham & Anderson, in their much-cited text on model selection, argue that to avoid overfitting, we should adhere to the "Principle of Parsimony". The authors also state the following.
Overfitting is more likely to be a serious concern when there is little theory available to guide the analysis, in part because then there tend to be a large number of models to select from. The book Model Selection and Model Averaging puts it this way.

Regression

In regression analysis, overfitting occurs frequently. As an extreme example, if there are p variables in a linear regression with p data points, the fitted line can go exactly through every point. For logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards models, there are a variety of rules of thumb. In the process of regression model selection, the mean squared error of the random regression function can be split into random noise, approximation bias, and variance in the estimate of the regression function. The bias–variance tradeoff is often used to overcome overfit models.
With a large set of explanatory variables that actually have no relation to the dependent variable being predicted, some variables will in general be falsely found to be statistically significant and the researcher may thus retain them in the model, thereby overfitting the model. This is known as Freedman's paradox.

Machine learning

Usually, a learning algorithm is trained using some set of "training data": exemplary situations for which the desired output is known. The goal is that the algorithm will also perform well on predicting the output when fed "validation data" that was not encountered during its training.
Overfitting is the use of models or procedures that violate Occam's razor, for example by including more adjustable parameters than are ultimately optimal, or by using a more complicated approach than is ultimately optimal. For an example where there are too many adjustable parameters, consider a dataset where training data for can be adequately predicted by a linear function of two independent variables. Such a function requires only three parameters. Replacing this simple function with a new, more complex quadratic function, or with a new, more complex linear function on more than two independent variables, carries a risk: Occam's razor implies that any given complex function is a priori less probable than any given simple function. If the new, more complicated function is selected instead of the simple function, and if there was not a large enough gain in training data fit to offset the complexity increase, then the new complex function "overfits" the data and the complex overfitted function will likely perform worse than the simpler function on validation data outside the training dataset, even though the complex function performed as well, or perhaps even better, on the training dataset.
When comparing different types of models, complexity cannot be measured solely by counting how many parameters exist in each model; the expressivity of each parameter must be considered as well. For example, it is nontrivial to directly compare the complexity of a neural net with parameters to a regression model with parameters.
Overfitting is especially likely in cases where learning was performed too long or where training examples are rare, causing the learner to adjust to very specific random features of the training data that have no causal relation to the target function. In this process of overfitting, the performance on the training examples still increases while the performance on unseen data becomes worse.
As a simple example, consider a database of retail purchases that includes the item bought, the purchaser, and the date and time of purchase. It's easy to construct a model that will fit the training set perfectly by using the date and time of purchase to predict the other attributes, but this model will not generalize at all to new data because those past times will never occur again.
Generally, a learning algorithm is said to overfit relative to a simpler one if it is more accurate in fitting known data but less accurate in predicting new data. One can intuitively understand overfitting from the fact that information from all past experience can be divided into two groups: information that is relevant for the future, and irrelevant information. Everything else being equal, the more difficult a criterion is to predict, the more noise exists in past information that needs to be ignored. The problem is determining which part to ignore. A learning algorithm that can reduce the risk of fitting noise is called "robust."

Consequences

The most obvious consequence of overfitting is poor performance on the validation dataset. Other negative consequences include:
  • A function that is overfitted is likely to request more information about each item in the validation dataset than does the optimal function; gathering this additional unneeded data can be expensive or error-prone, especially if each individual piece of information must be gathered by human observation and manual data entry.
  • A more complex, overfitted function is likely to be less portable than a simple one. At one extreme, a one-variable linear regression is so portable that, if necessary, it could even be done by hand. At the other extreme are models that can be reproduced only by exactly duplicating the original modeler's entire setup, making reuse or scientific reproduction difficult.
  • It may be possible to reconstruct details of individual training instances from an overfitted machine learning model's training set. This may be undesirable if, for example, the training data includes sensitive personally identifiable information. This phenomenon also presents problems in the area of artificial intelligence and copyright, with the developers of some generative deep learning models such as Stable Diffusion and GitHub Copilot being sued for copyright infringement because these models have been found to be capable of reproducing certain copyrighted items from their training data.

    Remedy

The optimal function usually needs verification on bigger or completely new datasets. There are, however, methods like minimum spanning tree or life-time of correlation that applies the dependence between correlation coefficients and time-series. Whenever the window width is big enough, the correlation coefficients are stable and don't depend on the window width size anymore. Therefore, a correlation matrix can be created by calculating a coefficient of correlation between investigated variables. This matrix can be represented topologically as a complex network where direct and indirect influences between variables are visualized.
Dropout regularisation can also improve robustness and therefore reduce over-fitting by probabilistically removing inputs to a layer. Pruning is another technique that mitigates overfitting and enhances generalization by identifying a sparse, optimal neural network structure, while simultaneously reducing the computational cost of both training and inference.