Abstract:Model validation is the most important part of building a supervised model. For building a model with good generalization performance one must have a sensible data splitting strategy, and this is crucial for model validation. In this study, we conducted a comparative study on various reported data splitting methods. The MixSim model was employed to generate nine simulated datasets with different probabilities of mis-classification and variable sample sizes. Then partial least squares for discriminant analysis and support vector machines for classification were applied to these datasets. Data splitting methods tested included variants of cross-validation, bootstrapping, bootstrapped Latin partition, Kennard-Stone algorithm (K-S) and sample set partitioning based on joint X–Y distances algorithm (SPXY). These methods were employed to split the data into training and validation sets. The estimated generalization performances from the validation sets were then compared with the ones obtained from the blind test sets which were generated from the same distribution but were unseen by the training/validation procedure used in model construction. The results showed that the size of the data is the deciding factor for the qualities of the generalization performance estimated from the validation set. We found that there was a significant gap between the performance estimated from the validation set and the one from the test set for the all the data splitting methods employed on small datasets. Such disparity decreased when more samples were available for training/validation, and this is because the models were then moving towards approximations of the central limit theory for the simulated datasets used. We also found that having too many or too few samples in the training set had a negative effect on the estimated model performance, suggesting that it is necessary to have a good balance between the sizes of training set and validation set to have a reliable estimation of model performance. We also found that systematic sampling method such as K-S and SPXY generally had very poor estimation of the model performance, most likely due to the fact that they are designed to take the most representative samples first and thus left a rather poorly representative sample set for model performance estimation.

Self-adjusting Bootstrapping

Bootstrapping the Cross-Validation Estimate

Bootstrapping the Out-of-sample Predictions for Efficient and Accurate Cross-Validation

Optimal Subsampling Bootstrap for Massive Data

Hyperparameter Selection for Subsampling Bootstraps

The Big Data Bootstrap

Bootstrap method based evaluating VaR

Treatment bootstrapping: A new approach to quantify uncertainty of average treatment effect estimates

Step-On-Feet Tuning: Scaling Self-Alignment of LLMs via Bootstrapping

A bootstrapping approach to annotating large image collection

Adaptive N-step Bootstrapping with Off-policy Data

Bootstrap Cross-validation Improves Model Selection in Pharmacometrics

Bootstrapping time series models

On Splitting Training and Validation Set: A Comparative Study of Cross-Validation, Bootstrap and Systematic Sampling for Estimating the Generalization Performance of Supervised Learning

Optimizing Seed Set for New User Cold Start

Bootstrapping Both Product Features and Opinion Words from Chi- nese Customer Reviews with Cross-Inducing1

Fast and Reliable Jackknife and Bootstrap Methods for Cluster‐Robust Inference

The difference of model robustness assessment using cross‐validation and bootstrap methods

Bootstrap Matching: a robust and efficient correction for non-random A/B test, and its applications

Bootstrapping Fitted Q-Evaluation for Off-Policy Inference

A Higher-Order Swiss Army Infinitesimal Jackknife