Electron microscopy
Cross-Validation in Machine Learning
- Python and Machine Learning for Integrated Circuits -
- An Online Book -
Python and Machine Learning for Integrated Circuits                                                           http://www.globalsino.com/ICs/        

Chapter/Index: Introduction | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | Appendix


Cross-validation is a technique used in machine learning and statistics to assess the performance and generalizability of a model. Table 3805a lists the advantages and disadvantages of cross-validation for avoiding or mitigating overfitting.

Table 3805a. Advantages and disadvantages of cross-validation for avoiding or mitigating overfitting.

Technique Concept Advantages Disadvantages
Cross-Validation Use techniques like k-fold cross-validation to assess your model's performance on different subsets of the data. This helps you get a more reliable estimate of how well your model generalizes to unseen data.          Unbiased Performance Estimation: Cross-validation provides a more unbiased and realistic estimate of a model's performance compared to a single train-test split. It helps you assess how well your model is likely to perform on unseen data.
         Robustness: By repeating the process of splitting the data into multiple train and test sets, cross-validation provides a more robust assessment of a model's performance. It reduces the impact of data variability on the evaluation.
         Overfitting Detection: Cross-validation can help you detect overfitting. If a model performs well on the training data but poorly on the validation sets, it's a sign of overfitting. This helps you make necessary adjustments to the model.
         Hyperparameter Tuning: Cross-validation is often used in hyperparameter tuning (e.g., grid search or random search) to find the best hyperparameter values. It allows you to assess different configurations and select the ones that generalize well.
         Maximizing Data Utilization: Cross-validation ensures that all available data is used for both training and validation. In a k-fold cross-validation, the entire dataset is used k times, making efficient use of the data.
         Computational Cost: Cross-validation can be computationally expensive, especially when you have a large dataset or complex models. Training and evaluating the model multiple times for different folds can take a significant amount of time and resources.
         Data Dependency: The effectiveness of cross-validation relies on the assumption that the data points are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). If the data is not truly i.i.d., cross-validation results may not be accurate.
         Incompatibility with Time-Series Data: For time-series data, traditional k-fold cross-validation may not be suitable, as it can break the temporal order of data points. Specialized techniques like time-series cross-validation or walk-forward validation are more appropriate.
         Information Leakage: In some cases, using cross-validation may inadvertently lead to information leakage if data preprocessing (e.g., feature scaling) is not done correctly. It's essential to apply data transformations separately to each fold.
         Large Variance in Smaller Datasets: In smaller datasets, cross-validation may lead to a larger variance in performance estimates because each fold represents a significant portion of the data. Bootstrapping or leave-one-out cross-validation may be more appropriate for such cases.

Figure 3805 shows the dependence of training score and cross-validation score on training examples. The "Training Score" or "Training Error" typically refers to the performance of a machine learning model on the training data it was trained on. It measures how well the model fits or predicts the training data. The training score is a measure of how closely the model's predictions match the actual target values in the training dataset. It is often used as a diagnostic tool during model development, but it may not provide a complete picture of the model's performance.

Dependence of training score and cross-validation score on training examples

Figure 3805. Dependence of training score and cross-validation score on training examples. (code)

There are several different types of cross-validation methods, each with its own strengths and weaknesses as listed in Table 3805b.

Table 3805b. Different types of cross-validation methods.

Cross-validations Concept Applicable dataset Advantages Disadvantages
Standard hold-out validation You split your dataset into two parts: a training set and a test set. The training set is used to train your model, and the test set is used to evaluate its performance. The primary purpose of this approach is to estimate how well your model will generalize to unseen data. Deep learning Simplicity: It is easy to understand and implement. You only need to split the dataset into two parts, making it a straightforward method for assessing a model's performance.
Efficiency: Standard hold-out validation is computationally efficient, especially when dealing with large datasets. It requires fewer computations than some other cross-validation techniques.
Speed: Training and evaluating a model using a hold-out validation set is quicker than some more complex cross-validation methods, making it practical for rapid model prototyping and development.
Useful for Large Datasets: It is well-suited for cases where you have a large amount of data, and the performance of the model on the hold-out set can provide a reasonable estimate of generalization performance.
Variance: The performance estimate from a single train/test split can be highly variable. Depending on the random split, you might get different results, which may not be representative of the model's true generalization performance.
Bias: The performance estimate can be biased, especially when the dataset is imbalanced. A random split may lead to an unrepresentative distribution of classes in the training and test sets.
Limited Information: You are using only a portion of your data for testing, which means you might not be fully utilizing the information available in the dataset to assess your model's performance.
Overfitting Risk: There is a risk of overfitting to the specific hold-out set, as the model might perform well on that particular data but poorly on unseen data.
Unreliable for Small Datasets: In cases where you have a small dataset, the standard hold-out method might not provide a robust estimate of the model's performance, and you might be better off using more sophisticated cross-validation techniques.
K-Fold Cross-Validation The dataset is randomly divided into K subsets (folds) of roughly equal size. The model is trained and tested K times, with each fold used as the test set once and the remaining folds as the training data. The results are averaged to evaluate model performance. Small (e.g. 100 samples) and large Provides a robust estimate of model performance.
Helps assess model stability and generalization.
Can be useful for both small and large datasets.
Can be computationally expensive, especially with a large number of folds.
The results may vary depending on the random splitting of data.
Stratified K-Fold Cross-Validation Similar to K-Fold Cross-Validation, but it ensures that each fold has a similar class distribution to the entire dataset. It's particularly useful when dealing with imbalanced datasets.   Ensures a more representative distribution of classes in each fold, which is important for imbalanced datasets. Still subject to computational cost and randomness.
Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOOCV) K is set to the number of samples in the dataset. Each data point is used as the test set once while the rest serve as the training data. This method is useful for small datasets but can be computationally expensive. Extremely small (e.g. 20~50 samples) Provides the least biased estimate of model performance for small datasets. Extremely computationally expensive for large datasets.
Prone to high variance in the performance estimate.
Leave-P-Out Cross-Validation Generalizing from LOOCV, this method involves leaving out P data points as the test set while using the remaining data for training. It strikes a balance between computational cost and variance in the estimated performance.   Low Bias: LPOCV provides a less biased estimate of a model's performance compared to simpler techniques like hold-out validation (e.g., train/test split). This is because you are leaving out multiple data points as the test set, allowing you to assess how well the model generalizes to various subsets of the data.
Variability in Evaluation: LPOCV allows you to evaluate your model using multiple different test sets (combinations of P data points). This helps to assess how robust your model is and provides a better understanding of its overall performance.
Utilizes Most of the Data: Since you are repeatedly using (N-P) data points for training and P data points for testing, LPOCV makes efficient use of your dataset. This can be important when you have limited data.
Computational Intensity: LPOCV can be computationally expensive, especially when P is a large fraction of the total number of data points (N). With a large dataset, the number of possible test sets can be extremely high, leading to long training and evaluation times.
High Variance: LPOCV can yield high variance in the estimated performance, which may make it less stable compared to techniques like K-Fold Cross-Validation. The variance is especially prominent when P is close to N, approaching the Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOOCV) scenario.
Resource Intensive: With a large value of P, the amount of memory and computational resources required can become a limiting factor. This is especially true for datasets with a substantial number of features.
Dependence on P: The choice of P is critical. If P is too small, the test sets may not be representative enough, leading to biased estimates. On the other hand, if P is too large, you might encounter the computational and variance issues mentioned above.
Time Series Cross-Validation Specifically designed for time series data, it involves splitting the dataset into consecutive and non-overlapping time periods. This helps to evaluate a model's ability to make predictions into the future.   Specifically designed for time-dependent data.
Helps evaluate a model's ability to make future predictions.
May not be suitable for non-time series data.
Limited to sequential data with a clear time order.
Shuffle-Split Cross-Validation In Shuffle-Split, the dataset is randomly shuffled and split into multiple non-overlapping train-test splits. This approach is useful for large datasets or when you want to assess model stability.   Useful for large datasets or when assessing model stability. May introduce some randomness into the results.
Repeated K-Fold Cross-Validation It's a variation of K-Fold Cross-Validation where the process is repeated multiple times with different random splits. This helps in obtaining more reliable estimates of model performance.   Provides more reliable and less biased estimates than a single K-Fold validation. Increased computational cost due to repetition.
Group Cross-Validation Used when dealing with data that has natural groupings, such as medical data for patients from different hospitals. It ensures that all data from a specific group is either in the training or test set but not in both.   Suits datasets with groupings or clusters, like medical data from different hospitals. Requires additional information about groupings.
Nested Cross-Validation This technique is often used for hyperparameter tuning and model selection. It involves having an inner and an outer loop of cross-validation, where the inner loop optimizes model parameters, and the outer loop evaluates the model's generalization performance.   Helps in hyperparameter tuning and model selection.
Provides a more robust assessment of model performance.
Increases computational complexity.
Monte Carlo Cross-Validation Subsets of data are randomly sampled, and cross-validation is performed on each subset. It's useful for assessing model performance in situations where data sampling is stochastic or uncertain.   Useful when data sampling is stochastic or uncertain. Can be computationally intensive if the number of Monte Carlo samples is high.