When training a Deep Learning model on a relatively small dataset, it happens that the validation loss is lower than the training loss while the test loss is higher than both.More concrete, in terms of accuracy, the training and validation accuracies approach 99% while the test one flattens at 68%. What would be the causes and how could it be avoided?
When the validation loss is lower than the training loss but the test loss is higher, it could be a sign of overfitting or dataset shift. It might also be due to the different distributions in the training, validation, and test sets. Here are some potential causes and solutions:

1. Overfitting: When a model learns to perform very well on the training data but doesn't generalize well to unseen data, it's a sign of overfitting. In this case, the model might have memorized the training data, resulting in a high accuracy on the training and validation sets, but poor performance on the test set.

    Solutions:

    * Regularization techniques like L1 or L2 regularization can help constrain the model and prevent overfitting.
    * Early stopping can be employed to stop training when the validation loss starts to increase.
    * Increase the size of the training dataset using data augmentation techniques.
    * Use a simpler model architecture with fewer parameters.


2. Dataset shift: The distribution of the training, validation, and test sets might be different. This can cause the model to learn features specific to the training and validation sets that do not generalize well to the test set.

    Solutions:

    * Make sure the training, validation, and test sets have a similar distribution. This can be achieved by stratified sampling or other techniques to ensure a consistent split between the sets.
    * Perform domain adaptation techniques to reduce the impact of dataset shift.


3. Improper data split: It's possible that the split between training, validation, and test sets is not random, leading to some classes being over-represented in the validation set and under-represented in the test set.

    Solutions:

    * Ensure the data split is random and stratified to maintain a consistent distribution of classes across all sets.


4. Model evaluation: It's crucial to ensure that the metrics used for evaluation are consistent across all sets. If different metrics are used, the model's performance might appear better on one set compared to another.

    Solutions:

    * Use the same evaluation metrics across all sets to ensure a fair comparison.
Would repeated information with slight differences be used to increase the dataset? Or would that be simply redundant?
Repeated information with slight differences can be used to increase the dataset size, but it depends on the context and the specific use case. In some cases, adding slightly varied examples to the dataset can improve model generalization by exposing it to more diverse data. However, if the variations are too similar, it might be redundant and not contribute much to the model's performance.