Validation accuracy vs Testing accuracyInformation on how value of k in k-fold cross-validation affects resulting accuraciesEstimating the variance of a bootstrap aggregator performance?Inconsistency in cross-validation resultsCross-validation including training, validation, and testing. Why do we need three subsets?My Test accuracy is pretty bad compared to cross-validation accuracyBetter accuracy with validation set than test setFeature selection: is nested cross-validation needed?10-fold cross validation, why having a validation set?Bias-Variance terminology for loss functions in ML vs cross-validation — different things?Is cross-validation better/worse than a third holdout set?
What is the logic behind how bash tests for true/false?
"which" command doesn't work / path of Safari?
I probably found a bug with the sudo apt install function
Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
Download, install and reboot computer at night if needed
How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)
DOS, create pipe for stdin/stdout of command.com(or 4dos.com) in C or Batch?
What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files
Compute hash value according to multiplication method
Is it possible to make sharp wind that can cut stuff from afar?
Why don't electromagnetic waves interact with each other?
How can I hide my bitcoin transactions to protect anonymity from others?
How do I create uniquely male characters?
What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?
How to type dʒ symbol (IPA) on Mac?
Is there really no realistic way for a skeleton monster to move around without magic?
Work Breakdown with Tikz
What Brexit solution does the DUP want?
New order #4: World
Can a German sentence have two subjects?
Set-theoretical foundations of Mathematics with only bounded quantifiers
declaring a variable twice in IIFE
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?
Validation accuracy vs Testing accuracy
Information on how value of k in k-fold cross-validation affects resulting accuraciesEstimating the variance of a bootstrap aggregator performance?Inconsistency in cross-validation resultsCross-validation including training, validation, and testing. Why do we need three subsets?My Test accuracy is pretty bad compared to cross-validation accuracyBetter accuracy with validation set than test setFeature selection: is nested cross-validation needed?10-fold cross validation, why having a validation set?Bias-Variance terminology for loss functions in ML vs cross-validation — different things?Is cross-validation better/worse than a third holdout set?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I am trying to get my head straight on terminology which appears confusing. I know there are three 'splits' of data used in Machine learning models.:
- Training Data - Train the model
- Validation Data - Cross validation for model selection
- Testing Data - Test the generalisation error.
Now, as far as I am aware, the validation data is not always used as one can use k-fold cross-validation, reducing the need to further reduce ones dataset. The results of which are known as the validation accuracy. Then once the best model is selected, the model is tested on a 33% split from the initial data set (which has not been used to train). The results of this would be the testing accuracy?
Is this the right way around? or is vice versa? I am finding conflicting terminology used online! I am trying to find some explanations why my validation error is larger than my testing error, but before I find a solution, i would like to get my terminology correct.
Thanks.
machine-learning
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to get my head straight on terminology which appears confusing. I know there are three 'splits' of data used in Machine learning models.:
- Training Data - Train the model
- Validation Data - Cross validation for model selection
- Testing Data - Test the generalisation error.
Now, as far as I am aware, the validation data is not always used as one can use k-fold cross-validation, reducing the need to further reduce ones dataset. The results of which are known as the validation accuracy. Then once the best model is selected, the model is tested on a 33% split from the initial data set (which has not been used to train). The results of this would be the testing accuracy?
Is this the right way around? or is vice versa? I am finding conflicting terminology used online! I am trying to find some explanations why my validation error is larger than my testing error, but before I find a solution, i would like to get my terminology correct.
Thanks.
machine-learning
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to get my head straight on terminology which appears confusing. I know there are three 'splits' of data used in Machine learning models.:
- Training Data - Train the model
- Validation Data - Cross validation for model selection
- Testing Data - Test the generalisation error.
Now, as far as I am aware, the validation data is not always used as one can use k-fold cross-validation, reducing the need to further reduce ones dataset. The results of which are known as the validation accuracy. Then once the best model is selected, the model is tested on a 33% split from the initial data set (which has not been used to train). The results of this would be the testing accuracy?
Is this the right way around? or is vice versa? I am finding conflicting terminology used online! I am trying to find some explanations why my validation error is larger than my testing error, but before I find a solution, i would like to get my terminology correct.
Thanks.
machine-learning
$endgroup$
I am trying to get my head straight on terminology which appears confusing. I know there are three 'splits' of data used in Machine learning models.:
- Training Data - Train the model
- Validation Data - Cross validation for model selection
- Testing Data - Test the generalisation error.
Now, as far as I am aware, the validation data is not always used as one can use k-fold cross-validation, reducing the need to further reduce ones dataset. The results of which are known as the validation accuracy. Then once the best model is selected, the model is tested on a 33% split from the initial data set (which has not been used to train). The results of this would be the testing accuracy?
Is this the right way around? or is vice versa? I am finding conflicting terminology used online! I am trying to find some explanations why my validation error is larger than my testing error, but before I find a solution, i would like to get my terminology correct.
Thanks.
machine-learning
machine-learning
asked 6 hours ago
BillyJo_ramblerBillyJo_rambler
296
296
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There isn't a standard terminology in this context (and I have seen long discussions and debates regarding this topic), so I completely understand you, but you should get used to different terminology (and assume that terminology might not be consistent or it change across sources).
I would like to point out a few things:
I have never seen people use the expression "validation accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the test accuracy (or dataset), but I have seen people use the term "test accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the validation accuracy (or dataset). In other words, the test (or testing) accuracy often refers to the validation accuracy, that is, the accuracy you calculate on the data set you do not use for training, but you use (during the training process) for validating (or "testing") the generalisation ability of your model or for "early stopping".
In k-fold cross-validation, people usually only mention two datasets: training and testing (or validation).
k-fold cross-validation is just a way of validating the model on different subsets of the data. This can be done for several reasons. For example, you have a small amount of data, so your validation (and training) dataset is quite small, so you want to have a better understanding of the model's generalisation ability by validating it on several subsets of the whole dataset.
You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing, because the validation dataset can be used for early stopping, so, in a certain way, it is dependent on the training process
I would suggest to use the following terminology
- Training dataset: the data used to fit the model.
- Validation dataset: the data used to validate the generalisation ability of the model or for early stopping, during the training process.
- Testing dataset: the data used to for other purposes other than training and validating.
Note that some of these datasets might overlap, but this might almost never be a good thing (if you have enough data).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@nbro's answer is complete. I just add a couple of explanations to supplement. In more traditional textbooks data is often partitioned into two sets: training and test. In recent years, with more complex models and increasing need for model selection, development sets or validations sets are also considered. Devel/validation should have no overlap with the test set or the reporting accuracy/ error evaluation is not valid. In the modern setting: the model is trained on the training set, tested on the validation set to see if it is a good fit, possibly model is tweaked and trained again and validated again for multiple times. When the final model is selected, the testing set is used to calculate accuracy, error reports. The important thing is that the test set is only touched once.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f401696%2fvalidation-accuracy-vs-testing-accuracy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There isn't a standard terminology in this context (and I have seen long discussions and debates regarding this topic), so I completely understand you, but you should get used to different terminology (and assume that terminology might not be consistent or it change across sources).
I would like to point out a few things:
I have never seen people use the expression "validation accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the test accuracy (or dataset), but I have seen people use the term "test accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the validation accuracy (or dataset). In other words, the test (or testing) accuracy often refers to the validation accuracy, that is, the accuracy you calculate on the data set you do not use for training, but you use (during the training process) for validating (or "testing") the generalisation ability of your model or for "early stopping".
In k-fold cross-validation, people usually only mention two datasets: training and testing (or validation).
k-fold cross-validation is just a way of validating the model on different subsets of the data. This can be done for several reasons. For example, you have a small amount of data, so your validation (and training) dataset is quite small, so you want to have a better understanding of the model's generalisation ability by validating it on several subsets of the whole dataset.
You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing, because the validation dataset can be used for early stopping, so, in a certain way, it is dependent on the training process
I would suggest to use the following terminology
- Training dataset: the data used to fit the model.
- Validation dataset: the data used to validate the generalisation ability of the model or for early stopping, during the training process.
- Testing dataset: the data used to for other purposes other than training and validating.
Note that some of these datasets might overlap, but this might almost never be a good thing (if you have enough data).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There isn't a standard terminology in this context (and I have seen long discussions and debates regarding this topic), so I completely understand you, but you should get used to different terminology (and assume that terminology might not be consistent or it change across sources).
I would like to point out a few things:
I have never seen people use the expression "validation accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the test accuracy (or dataset), but I have seen people use the term "test accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the validation accuracy (or dataset). In other words, the test (or testing) accuracy often refers to the validation accuracy, that is, the accuracy you calculate on the data set you do not use for training, but you use (during the training process) for validating (or "testing") the generalisation ability of your model or for "early stopping".
In k-fold cross-validation, people usually only mention two datasets: training and testing (or validation).
k-fold cross-validation is just a way of validating the model on different subsets of the data. This can be done for several reasons. For example, you have a small amount of data, so your validation (and training) dataset is quite small, so you want to have a better understanding of the model's generalisation ability by validating it on several subsets of the whole dataset.
You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing, because the validation dataset can be used for early stopping, so, in a certain way, it is dependent on the training process
I would suggest to use the following terminology
- Training dataset: the data used to fit the model.
- Validation dataset: the data used to validate the generalisation ability of the model or for early stopping, during the training process.
- Testing dataset: the data used to for other purposes other than training and validating.
Note that some of these datasets might overlap, but this might almost never be a good thing (if you have enough data).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There isn't a standard terminology in this context (and I have seen long discussions and debates regarding this topic), so I completely understand you, but you should get used to different terminology (and assume that terminology might not be consistent or it change across sources).
I would like to point out a few things:
I have never seen people use the expression "validation accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the test accuracy (or dataset), but I have seen people use the term "test accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the validation accuracy (or dataset). In other words, the test (or testing) accuracy often refers to the validation accuracy, that is, the accuracy you calculate on the data set you do not use for training, but you use (during the training process) for validating (or "testing") the generalisation ability of your model or for "early stopping".
In k-fold cross-validation, people usually only mention two datasets: training and testing (or validation).
k-fold cross-validation is just a way of validating the model on different subsets of the data. This can be done for several reasons. For example, you have a small amount of data, so your validation (and training) dataset is quite small, so you want to have a better understanding of the model's generalisation ability by validating it on several subsets of the whole dataset.
You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing, because the validation dataset can be used for early stopping, so, in a certain way, it is dependent on the training process
I would suggest to use the following terminology
- Training dataset: the data used to fit the model.
- Validation dataset: the data used to validate the generalisation ability of the model or for early stopping, during the training process.
- Testing dataset: the data used to for other purposes other than training and validating.
Note that some of these datasets might overlap, but this might almost never be a good thing (if you have enough data).
$endgroup$
There isn't a standard terminology in this context (and I have seen long discussions and debates regarding this topic), so I completely understand you, but you should get used to different terminology (and assume that terminology might not be consistent or it change across sources).
I would like to point out a few things:
I have never seen people use the expression "validation accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the test accuracy (or dataset), but I have seen people use the term "test accuracy" (or dataset) to refer to the validation accuracy (or dataset). In other words, the test (or testing) accuracy often refers to the validation accuracy, that is, the accuracy you calculate on the data set you do not use for training, but you use (during the training process) for validating (or "testing") the generalisation ability of your model or for "early stopping".
In k-fold cross-validation, people usually only mention two datasets: training and testing (or validation).
k-fold cross-validation is just a way of validating the model on different subsets of the data. This can be done for several reasons. For example, you have a small amount of data, so your validation (and training) dataset is quite small, so you want to have a better understanding of the model's generalisation ability by validating it on several subsets of the whole dataset.
You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing, because the validation dataset can be used for early stopping, so, in a certain way, it is dependent on the training process
I would suggest to use the following terminology
- Training dataset: the data used to fit the model.
- Validation dataset: the data used to validate the generalisation ability of the model or for early stopping, during the training process.
- Testing dataset: the data used to for other purposes other than training and validating.
Note that some of these datasets might overlap, but this might almost never be a good thing (if you have enough data).
edited 58 mins ago
answered 5 hours ago
nbronbro
8111023
8111023
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
If the testing dataset overlaps with either of the others, it is definitely not a good thing. The test accuracy must measure performance on unseen data. If any part of training saw the data, then it isn't test data, and representing it as such is dishonest. Allowing the validation set to overlap with the training set isn't dishonest, but it probably won't accomplish its task as well. (e.g., if you're doing early stopping, and your validation set and training sets overlap, overfitting may occur and not be detected.)
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I didn't say it is a good thing. Indeed, see my point "You should likely have a separate (from the validation dataset) dataset for testing...".
$endgroup$
– nbro
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You said "If that's a 'good' thing or not, it's another question." I suspected from the rest that you understood the problems that that overlap would cause, but the problems with that should be made very clear, since contaminating your test data with training samples completely ruins its value.
$endgroup$
– Ray
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Ray I wanted more to refer to the overlap between the training and validation datasets. Anyway, I think it's good that you wanted to clarify or emphasise this point. I edited my answer to emphasise this point.
$endgroup$
– nbro
59 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@nbro's answer is complete. I just add a couple of explanations to supplement. In more traditional textbooks data is often partitioned into two sets: training and test. In recent years, with more complex models and increasing need for model selection, development sets or validations sets are also considered. Devel/validation should have no overlap with the test set or the reporting accuracy/ error evaluation is not valid. In the modern setting: the model is trained on the training set, tested on the validation set to see if it is a good fit, possibly model is tweaked and trained again and validated again for multiple times. When the final model is selected, the testing set is used to calculate accuracy, error reports. The important thing is that the test set is only touched once.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@nbro's answer is complete. I just add a couple of explanations to supplement. In more traditional textbooks data is often partitioned into two sets: training and test. In recent years, with more complex models and increasing need for model selection, development sets or validations sets are also considered. Devel/validation should have no overlap with the test set or the reporting accuracy/ error evaluation is not valid. In the modern setting: the model is trained on the training set, tested on the validation set to see if it is a good fit, possibly model is tweaked and trained again and validated again for multiple times. When the final model is selected, the testing set is used to calculate accuracy, error reports. The important thing is that the test set is only touched once.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@nbro's answer is complete. I just add a couple of explanations to supplement. In more traditional textbooks data is often partitioned into two sets: training and test. In recent years, with more complex models and increasing need for model selection, development sets or validations sets are also considered. Devel/validation should have no overlap with the test set or the reporting accuracy/ error evaluation is not valid. In the modern setting: the model is trained on the training set, tested on the validation set to see if it is a good fit, possibly model is tweaked and trained again and validated again for multiple times. When the final model is selected, the testing set is used to calculate accuracy, error reports. The important thing is that the test set is only touched once.
New contributor
$endgroup$
@nbro's answer is complete. I just add a couple of explanations to supplement. In more traditional textbooks data is often partitioned into two sets: training and test. In recent years, with more complex models and increasing need for model selection, development sets or validations sets are also considered. Devel/validation should have no overlap with the test set or the reporting accuracy/ error evaluation is not valid. In the modern setting: the model is trained on the training set, tested on the validation set to see if it is a good fit, possibly model is tweaked and trained again and validated again for multiple times. When the final model is selected, the testing set is used to calculate accuracy, error reports. The important thing is that the test set is only touched once.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 hours ago
user3089485user3089485
162
162
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f401696%2fvalidation-accuracy-vs-testing-accuracy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown