Abstract:Ecological data often show temporal, spatial, hierarchical (random effects), or phylogenetic structure. Modern statistical approaches are increasingly accounting for such dependencies. However, when performing cross‐validation, these structures are regularly ignored, resulting in serious underestimation of predictive error. One cause for the poor performance of uncorrected (random) cross‐validation, noted often by modellers, are dependence structures in the data that persist as dependence structures in model residuals, violating the assumption of independence. Even more concerning, because often overlooked, is that structured data also provides ample opportunity for overfitting with non‐causal predictors. This problem can persist even if remedies such as autoregressive models, generalized least squares, or mixed models are used. Block cross‐validation, where data are split strategically rather than randomly, can address these issues. However, the blocking strategy must be carefully considered. Blocking in space, time, random effects or phylogenetic distance, while accounting for dependencies in the data, may also unwittingly induce extrapolations by restricting the ranges or combinations of predictor variables available for model training, thus overestimating interpolation errors. On the other hand, deliberate blocking in predictor space may also improve error estimates when extrapolation is the modelling goal. Here, we review the ecological literature on non‐random and blocked cross‐validation approaches. We also provide a series of simulations and case studies, in which we show that, for all instances tested, block cross‐validation is nearly universally more appropriate than random cross‐validation if the goal is predicting to new data or predictor space, or for selecting causal predictors. We recommend that block cross‐validation be used wherever dependence structures exist in a dataset, even if no correlation structure is visible in the fitted model residuals, or if the fitted models account for such correlations.

Cross-validation is safe to use

Cross-Validation: A Method Every Psychologist Should Know

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

Empirical investigation of multi-source cross-validation in clinical machine learning

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

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

Optimizing for Generalization in Machine Learning with Cross-Validation Gradients

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

Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure

Machine learning models and over-fitting considerations

A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection

Cross-Validation Is All You Need: A Statistical Approach To Label Noise Estimation

Pitfalls and Remedies for Cross Validation with Multi-trait Genomic Prediction Methods

Cross-validation in high-dimensional spaces: a lifeline for least-squares models and multi-class LDA

Impact of the Choice of Cross-Validation Techniques on the Results of Machine Learning-Based Diagnostic Applications

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

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

Using cross-validation to evaluate predictive accuracy of survival risk classifiers based on high-dimensional data

Practical Considerations and Applied Examples of Cross-Validation for Model Development and Evaluation in Health Care: Tutorial

Selecting a classification method by cross-validation