cross-validationmodel selection
I want to build a neural network over a data set. My idea is to use cross-validation on a training set to select the "best" neural network (and evaluate it on a separate test set) and to use nested cross-validation to make some statistical predictions. I'd use nested CV to plot bias and variance of my grid search's hyper-parameters. This way I can estimate my method's performance.
If these assumptions are not wrong, what should I do first? Model selection or estimation?
The key thing to remember is that for cross-validation to give an (almost) unbiased performance estimate every step involved in fitting the model must also be performed independently in each fold of the cross-validation procedure. The best thing to do is to view feature selection, meta/hyper-parameter setting and optimising the parameters as integral parts of model fitting and never do any one of these steps without doing the other two.
The optimistic bias that can be introduced by departing from that recipe can be surprisingly large, as demonstrated by Cawley and Talbot, where the bias introduced by an apparently benign departure was larger than the difference in performance between competing classifiers. Worse still biased protocols favours bad models most strongly, as they are more sensitive to the tuning of hyper-parameters and hence are more prone to over-fitting the model selection criterion!
Answers to specific questions:
The procedure in step 1 is valid because feature selection is performed separately in each fold, so what you are cross-validating is whole procedure used to fit the final model. The cross-validation estimate will have a slight pessimistic bias as the dataset for each fold is slightly smaller than the whole dataset used for the final model.
For 2, as cross-validation is used to select the model parameters then you need to repeat that procedure independently in each fold of the cross-validation used for performance estimation, you you end up with nested cross-validation.
For 3, essentially, yes you need to do nested-nested cross-validation. Essentially you need to repeat in each fold of the outermost cross-validation (used for performance estimation) everything you intend to do to to fit the final model.
For 4 - yes, if you have a separate hold-out set, then that will give an unbiased estimate of performance without needing an additional cross-validation.
How do I choose a model from this [outer cross validation] output?
Short answer: You don't.
Treat the inner cross validation as part of the model fitting procedure. That means that the fitting including the fitting of the hyper-parameters (this is where the inner cross validation hides) is just like any other model esitmation routine.
The outer cross validation estimates the performance of this model fitting approach. For that you use the usual assumptions
model.fitting.procedure with all data.Do not pick the seemingly best of the $k$ surrogate models - that would usually be just "harvesting" testing uncertainty and leads to an optimistic bias.
So how can I use nested CV for model selection?
The inner CV does the selection.
It looks to me that selecting the best model out of those K winning models would not be a fair comparison since each model was trained and tested on different parts of the dataset.
You are right in that it is no good idea to pick one of the $k$ surrogate models. But you are wrong about the reason. Real reason: see above. The fact that they are not trained and tested on the same data does not "hurt" here.
Which brings me to your last question:
What types of analysis /checks can I do with the scores that I get from the outer K folds?
check for the stability/variation of the optimized hyper-parameters.
For one thing, wildly scattering hyper-parameters may indicate that the inner optimization didn't work. For another thing, this may allow you to decide on the hyperparameters without the costly optimization step in similar situations in the future. With costly I do not refer to computational resources but to the fact that this "costs" information that may better be used for estimating the "normal" model parameters.
check for the difference between the inner and outer estimate of the chosen model. If there is a large difference (the inner being very overoptimistic), there is a risk that the inner optimization didn't work well because of overfitting.
First of all, detecting in the outer CV loop that the models do not yield stable predictions in that respect doesn't really differ from detecting that the prediciton error is too high for the application. It is one of the possible outcomes of model validation (or verification) implying that the model we have is not fit for its purpose.
In the comment answering @davips, I was thinking of tackling the instability in the inner CV - i.e. as part of the model optimization process.
But you are certainly right: if we change our model based on the findings of the outer CV, yet another round of independent testing of the changed model is necessary.
However, instability in the outer CV would also be a sign that the optimization wasn't set up well - so finding instability in the outer CV implies that the inner CV did not penalize instability in the necessary fashion - this would be my main point of critique in such a situation. In other words, why does the optimization allow/lead to heavily overfit models?
However, there is one peculiarity here that IMHO may excuse the further change of the "final" model after careful consideration of the exact circumstances: As we did detect overfitting, any proposed change (fewer d.f./more restrictive or aggregation) to the model would be in direction of less overfitting (or at least hyperparameters that are less prone to overfitting). The point of independent testing is to detect overfitting - underfitting can be detected by data that was already used in the training process.
So if we are talking, say, about further reducing the number of latent variables in a PLS model that would be comparably benign (if the proposed change would be a totally different type of model, say PLS instead of SVM, all bets would be off), and I'd be even more relaxed about it if I'd know that we are anyways in an intermediate stage of modeling - after all, if the optimized models are still unstable, there's no question that more cases are needed. Also, in many situations, you'll eventually need to perform studies that are designed to properly test various aspects of performance (e.g. generalization to data acquired in the future). Still, I'd insist that the full modeling process would need to be reported, and that the implications of these late changes would need to be carefully discussed.
Also, aggregation including and out-of-bag analogue CV estimate of performance would be possible from the already available results - which is the other type of "post-processing" of the model that I'd be willing to consider benign here. Yet again, it then would have been better if the study were designed from the beginning to check that aggregation provides no advantage over individual predcitions (which is another way of saying that the individual models are stable).
Update (2019): the more I think about these situations, the more I come to favor the "nested cross validation apparently without nesting" approach.
Best Answer
I think you misunderstood something about the nested cross validation: Hyperparameter tuning / model selection is not done before nor after nested cross validation, it is done in the inner loop of the nested cross validation.
Probably related to the misunderstanding: grid hyperparameters in themselves do not cause a bias in generalization error erstimation. The (optimistic) bias is caused by the selection of the (apparently) best hyperparameter set.