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.

A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection

Cross validation for model selection: a review with examples from ecology

Overview of model validation for survival regression model with competing risks using melanoma study data

Selecting a classification method by cross-validation

Is Cross-Validation the Gold Standard to Evaluate Model Performance?

Cross-validation of component models: A critical look at current methods

Monte Carlo Cross‐validation for Selecting a Model and Estimating the Prediction Error in Multivariate Calibration

Is K-fold cross validation the best model selection method for Machine Learning?

Cross-validation: what does it estimate and how well does it do it?

Cross-Validation: A Method Every Psychologist Should Know

Cross validation for model selection: a primer with examples from ecology

Don't Waste Your Time: Early Stopping Cross-Validation

Approximate Cross-validation: Guarantees for Model Assessment and Selection

Efficient, adaptive cross-validation for tuning and comparing models, with application to drug discovery

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

Cross-validatory model selection for Bayesian autoregressions with exogenous regressors

Model Evaluation, Model Selection, and Algorithm Selection in Machine Learning

Bootstrap Cross-validation Improves Model Selection in Pharmacometrics

On The Smoothness of Cross-Validation-Based Estimators Of Classifier Performance

Model Selection Via Multifold Cross Validation