34 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
34 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### Neural Network Model Summary
|
|
|
|
**Architecture:**
|
|
- Input: 48 features
|
|
- Hidden layers: [256, 128, 64]
|
|
- Dropout rate: 0.2
|
|
- Total parameters: 54,657
|
|
|
|
**Training:**
|
|
- Optimizer: Adam (lr=0.001)
|
|
- Early stopping: 25 epochs patience
|
|
- Best epoch: 153
|
|
|
|
**Test Set Performance:**
|
|
- MAE: 1.893
|
|
- RMSE: 2.398
|
|
- R²: 0.646
|
|
- Accuracy within ±1 grade: 33.8%
|
|
- Accuracy within ±2 grades: 60.5%
|
|
- Exact grouped V-grade accuracy: 27.8%
|
|
- Accuracy within ±1 V-grade: 67.9%
|
|
- Accuracy within ±2 V-grades: 88.4%
|
|
|
|
**Key Findings:**
|
|
1. The neural network is competitive, but not clearly stronger than the best tree-based baseline.
|
|
2. Fine-grained score prediction remains harder than grouped grade prediction.
|
|
3. The grouped V-grade metrics show that the model captures broader difficulty bands more reliably than exact score labels.
|
|
4. This makes the neural network useful as a comparison model, and potentially valuable in an ensemble.
|
|
|
|
**Portfolio Interpretation:**
|
|
This deep learning notebook extends the classical modelling pipeline by testing whether a neural architecture can improve prediction quality on engineered climbing features.
|
|
The main result is not that deep learning wins outright, but that it provides a meaningful benchmark and helps clarify where model complexity does and does not add value.
|