I am self-taught machine-learning Data Science enthusiast. Over the course of self-learning, I have come across various validation techniques such as LOOCV, K-fold cross-validation, the bootstrap method and use them frequently. However, I came across an article where it was mentioned that core statisticians do not treat these above methods as their go-to validation techniques.

I have been wondering ever since about the validation techniques that hard-core statisticians consider and/or use as model validation techniques. I am assuming that it would not just be hypothesis testing and p-values. Is there something fundamental I am missing about how core-statisticians work during the model validation process?


1 Answer 1


In machine learning, the overall goal of modeling is to make accurate predictions. Cross-validation is a method for estimating the accuracy of a model's predictions on unobserved cases; when you optimize your model using CV, you're selecting a final model based on its ability to make predictions. For example, if you have a regression model, you don't care whether you have the "true" values of the parameters; you want the values that make the most accurate predictions. (For many machine learning models, like random forests or neural nets, it doesn't even make sense to ask what the "true" values of the parameters are.)

In what we might call "classical statistics," the overall goal of modeling is to draw reliable inferences about unobserved parameters describing a population of interest. For example, working with a regression model, the classical statistician wants reliable estimates of the true values of the regression coefficients. She doesn't care (so much) whether the model makes accurate predictions. Because their goal is reliable inference, many of the methods of classical statistics revolve around identifying and eliminating sources of bias.

So, for a classical statistician, model validation is much more involved than applying CV and selecting the model with the maximum accuracy/minimum error. The statistician will consider things like the following:

  • Are there potential sources of sampling bias in the way the data were generated?
  • Qualitatively, is the model a good model of how the data were generated?
  • Quantitatively, are the model's mathematical assumptions satisfied? For example, with the regression, are the covariates uncorrelated, and are the residuals Gaussian and homoscedastic?
  • Assuming hypothesis testing is being used, does the study design have enough power to detect the expected effect?

From the machine learning perspective, classical statisticians worry too much about a lot of unimportant details; the only important thing is to get the predictions right. (Compare Breiman.) From the classical statistics perspective, machine learning methods are opportunistic and unreliable. ML advocates are willing to use questionable data, and there's no reason to think that their methods will lead us to any underlying truth.

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Good summary. Overall, I think both camps should take seriously the concerns of the other. Can you really claim to have found correct parameters if your model cannot make reliable predictions of unseen cases? Can you claim to make reliable predictions when you cannot tell me much about how the model is doing so, and how it will adapt to changing circumstances? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 14, 2017 at 0:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.