This title appears in the Scientific Report :
2023
Please use the identifier:
http://dx.doi.org/10.34734/FZJ-2024-01127 in citations.
Please use the identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.14079 in citations.
Empirical Comparison between Cross-Validation and Mutation-Validation in Model Selection
Empirical Comparison between Cross-Validation and Mutation-Validation in Model Selection
Mutation validation (MV) is a recently proposed approach for model selection, garnering significant interest due to its unique characteristics and potential benefits compared to the widely used cross-validation (CV) method. In this study, we empirically compared MV and $k$-fold CV using benchmark an...
Saved in:
Personal Name(s): | Yu, Jinyang (Corresponding author) |
---|---|
Hamdan, Sami / Sasse, Leonard / Morrison, Abigail / Patil, Kaustubh R. | |
Contributing Institute: |
Gehirn & Verhalten; INM-7 |
Imprint: |
arXiv
2023
|
DOI: |
10.34734/FZJ-2024-01127 |
DOI: |
10.48550/ARXIV.2311.14079 |
Document Type: |
Preprint |
Research Program: |
Neuroscientific Data Analytics and AI |
Subject (ZB): | |
Link: |
OpenAccess |
Publikationsportal JuSER |
Please use the identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.14079 in citations.
Mutation validation (MV) is a recently proposed approach for model selection, garnering significant interest due to its unique characteristics and potential benefits compared to the widely used cross-validation (CV) method. In this study, we empirically compared MV and $k$-fold CV using benchmark and real-world datasets. By employing Bayesian tests, we compared generalization estimates yielding three posterior probabilities: practical equivalence, CV superiority, and MV superiority. We also evaluated the differences in the capacity of the selected models and computational efficiency. We found that both MV and CV select models with practically equivalent generalization performance across various machine learning algorithms and the majority of benchmark datasets. MV exhibited advantages in terms of selecting simpler models and lower computational costs. However, in some cases MV selected overly simplistic models leading to underfitting and showed instability in hyperparameter selection. These limitations of MV became more evident in the evaluation of a real-world neuroscientific task of predicting sex at birth using brain functional connectivity. |