Timeline for Is it sufficient to report only the result of cross validation in research paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4 at 8:36 | vote | accept | Surayuth Pintawong | ||
| Dec 5, 2023 at 11:34 | answer | added | Arunkumar Panneerselvam | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 1, 2023 at 10:54 | comment | added | Surayuth Pintawong | @DavidB Thank you very much! | |
| Mar 31, 2023 at 18:47 | comment | added | David B | This is a good one: doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.038 | |
| Mar 31, 2023 at 18:15 | comment | added | Surayuth Pintawong | @DavidB Thank you. I will look into it. Can you recommend me a paper that used this method to evaluate their results? | |
| Mar 31, 2023 at 14:11 | comment | added | David B | "Thus, is it enough to report the result from cross-validation without including the result from a hold-out test set?". Definitely not. At minimum, consider some form of nested cross-validation: stats.stackexchange.com/q/178174/288142 | |
| S Mar 31, 2023 at 13:50 | review | First questions | |||
| Mar 31, 2023 at 13:51 | |||||
| S Mar 31, 2023 at 13:50 | history | asked | Surayuth Pintawong | CC BY-SA 4.0 |