• Training set size: 5200
  • Test set size: 1000


I'm currently working on a classifier which classifies images in a class (binary). My classifier uses a bagging approach (10 bags). I've been experimenting a lot and tried to look at the normal bagging vs something I've tried myself for computational reasons: instead of fitting the model in each iteration on a set as large as the training set, I limited the size of the set to 2000. Now the result is that the definite model of the normal bagging has 10% lower classification accuracy than the model trained on the bags of size 2000. I don't see an explanation to this, since my approach uses smaller sets to train on so I'd assume it produces a classifier with worse accuracy.

Note: It's not a random result, I ran both algorithms multiple times and the approach with sets of size 2000 consistently gives a better prediction accuracy.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.