I am facing the evaluation of a genetic programming algorithm. I am using the Proben1 cancer1 dataset to evaluate the models created by this algorithm. This dataset contains 699 samples, which is currently divided into 50% training, 25% validation and 25% test data. Many academic articles use k-fold validation for evaluation of the resulting models.

I do understand the creation of k models to reduce the variance in the error rating percentage. However, I do not understand why it would not be preferable to do x times the hold-out (k=2) method, where every time the data is randomly partitioned into training and test data.

The reason for my lack of understanding is that I think that models evaluated with a higher order k generalize less due to simple fact that they are trained with a higher percentage of the data.

Given my data set of 699 samples which of the following two methods would be preferable and why;

  • the division in training/validation/test and perhaps this repeated x times randomly assigning sample to each set with a test set of 25%
  • 10-fold cross validation but thus with a test set of just 10%.
  • $\begingroup$ Could you perhaps provide a hyperlink to the dataset? Thanks in advance. $\endgroup$ – Jim Jun 4 '18 at 14:10

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.