Algorithm IMED

In multi-armed bandit problems, IMED (for Indexed Minimum Empirical Divergence) is an algorithm developed in 2015 by Junya Honda and Akimichi Takemura. It is the first algorithm proved to be asymptotically optimal respect to the problem-dependant Lai–Robbins lower bound for distributions in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} . == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]),\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} is the set of distribution in [ − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-\infty ,1]} ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} is the highest empirical mean of turn t {\displaystyle t} Remark : For arms a {\displaystyle a} that verify μ ^ a ( t ) = μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} we have K i n f ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ ^ ∗ ( t ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle K_{inf}({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),{\hat {\mu }}^{}(t))=0} . Then there index is equal to ln ⁡ ( N a ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \ln(N_{a}(t))} === Pseudocode === for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; mu[i] ← None for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution mu[t] ← update empirical mean for t from K+1 to T do: mu ← highest mu for each arm i do: scoreK[i] ← n[i] K_inf(nu[i],mu) scoreN[i] ← ln(n[i]) index[i] ← scoreK[i] + scoreN[i] select arm a with smallest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution mu[a] ← update empirical mean == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the asymptotic Lai–Robbins lower bound asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm IMED is the first algorithm that matches this lower bound for distribution in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} in the first order. If the distribution are also bounded then it also match the second order. It is the first algorithm that match the second under of this lower bound. === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. In 2018, Aurelien Garivier, Pierre Menard and Gilles Stoltz proved a refined lower bound that gives the second order It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − Ω T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-\Omega _{T\to +\infty }(\ln \ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it and the second order in − Ω ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle -\Omega (\ln \ln T)} . === Regret bound for IMED === If the distribution of every arm a {\displaystyle a} is ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} ( i.e. ν a ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]))} then the regret of the algorithm IMED verify R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T + O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T+O(1)} If all the distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} are bounded then it exists a constant C > 0 {\displaystyle C>0} such that for T {\displaystyle T} large enough the regret of IMED is upper bounded by R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − C ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-C\ln \ln T} == Computation time == The algorithm only requiere to compute the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} for suboptimal arms who are pulled O ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle O(\ln T)} times, which make it a lot faster than KL-UCB. A faster version of IMED was developed in 2023 to make it even faster, using a Taylor development of the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} in the first order .

Visual descriptor

In computer vision, visual descriptors or image descriptors are descriptions of the visual features of the contents in images, videos, or algorithms or applications that produce such descriptions. They describe elementary characteristics such as the shape, the color, the texture or the motion, among others. == Introduction == As a result of the new communication technologies and the massive use of Internet in our society, the amount of audio-visual information available in digital format is increasing considerably. Therefore, it has been necessary to design some systems that allow us to describe the content of several types of multimedia information in order to search and classify them. The audio-visual descriptors are in charge of the contents description. These descriptors have a good knowledge of the objects and events found in a video, image or audio and they allow the quick and efficient searches of the audio-visual content. This system can be compared to the search engines for textual contents. Although it is relatively easy to find text with a computer, it is much more difficult to find concrete audio and video parts. For instance, imagine somebody searching a scene of a happy person. The happiness is a feeling and it is not evident its shape, color and texture description in images. The description of the audio-visual content is not a superficial task and it is essential for the effective use of this type of archives. The standardization system that deals with audio-visual descriptors is the MPEG-7 (Motion Picture Expert Group - 7). == Types == Descriptors are the first step to find out the connection between pixels contained in a digital image and what humans recall after having observed an image or a group of images after some minutes. Visual descriptors are divided in two main groups: General information descriptors: contain low level descriptors which give a description about color, shape, regions, textures and motion. Specific domain information descriptors: give information about objects and events in the scene. A concrete example would be face recognition. === General information descriptors === General information descriptors consist of a set of descriptors that covers different basic and elementary features like: color, texture, shape, motion, location and others. This description is automatically generated by means of signal processing. ==== Color ==== It's the most basic quality of visual content. Five tools are defined to describe color. The three first tools represent the color distribution and the last ones describe the color relation between sequences or group of images: Dominant color descriptor (DCD) Scalable color descriptor (SCD) Color structure descriptor (CSD) Color layout descriptor (CLD) Group of frame (GoF) or group-of-pictures (GoP) ==== Texture ==== It's an important quality in order to describe an image. The texture descriptors characterize image textures or regions. They observe the region homogeneity and the histograms of these region borders. The set of descriptors is formed by: Homogeneous texture descriptor (HTD) Texture browsing descriptor (TBD) Edge histogram descriptor (EHD) ==== Shape ==== It contains important semantic information due to human's ability to recognize objects through their shape. However, this information can only be extracted by means of a segmentation similar to the one that the human visual system implements. Nowadays, such a segmentation system is not available yet, however there exists a serial of algorithms which are considered to be a good approximation. These descriptors describe regions, contours and shapes for 2D images and for 3D volumes. The shape descriptors are the following ones: Region-based shape descriptor (RSD) Contour-based shape descriptor (CSD) 3-D shape descriptor (3-D SD) ==== Motion ==== It's defined by four different descriptors which describe motion in video sequence. Motion is related to the objects motion in the sequence and to the camera motion. This last information is provided by the capture device, whereas the rest is implemented by means of image processing. The descriptor set is the following one: Motion activity descriptor (MAD) Camera motion descriptor (CMD) Motion trajectory descriptor (MTD) Warping and parametric motion descriptor (WMD and PMD) ==== Location ==== Elements location in the image is used to describe elements in the spatial domain. In addition, elements can also be located in the temporal domain: Region locator descriptor (RLD) Spatio temporal locator descriptor (STLD) === Specific domain information descriptors === These descriptors, which give information about objects and events in the scene, are not easily extractable, even more when the extraction is to be automatically done. Nevertheless, they can be manually processed. As mentioned before, face recognition is a concrete example of an application that tries to automatically obtain this information. == Descriptors applications == Among all applications, the most important ones are: Multimedia documents search engines and classifiers. Digital library: visual descriptors allow a very detailed and concrete search of any video or image by means of different search parameters. For instance, the search of films where a known actor appears, the search of videos containing the Everest mountain, etc. Personalized electronic news service. Possibility of an automatic connection to a TV channel broadcasting a soccer match, for example, whenever a player approaches the goal area. Control and filtering of concrete audiovisual content, like violent or pornographic material. Also, authorization for some multimedia content.

Isotropic position

In the fields of machine learning, the theory of computation, and random matrix theory, a probability distribution over vectors is said to be in isotropic position if its covariance matrix is proportional to the identity matrix. == Formal definitions == Let D {\textstyle D} be a distribution over vectors in the vector space R n {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . Then D {\textstyle D} is in isotropic position if, for vector v {\textstyle v} sampled from the distribution, E v v T = I d . {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \,vv^{\mathsf {T}}=\mathrm {Id} .} A set of vectors is said to be in isotropic position if the uniform distribution over that set is in isotropic position. In particular, every orthonormal set of vectors is isotropic. As a related definition, a convex body K {\textstyle K} in R n {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} is called isotropic if it has volume | K | = 1 {\textstyle |K|=1} , center of mass at the origin, and there is a constant α > 0 {\textstyle \alpha >0} such that ∫ K ⟨ x , y ⟩ 2 d x = α 2 | y | 2 , {\displaystyle \int _{K}\langle x,y\rangle ^{2}dx=\alpha ^{2}|y|^{2},} for all vectors y {\textstyle y} in R n {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} ; here | ⋅ | {\textstyle |\cdot |} stands for the standard Euclidean norm.

Purged cross-validation

Purged cross-validation is a variant of k-fold cross-validation designed to prevent look-ahead bias in time series and other structured data, developed in 2017 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. It is primarily used in financial machine learning to ensure the independence of training and testing samples when labels depend on future events. It provides an alternative to conventional cross-validation and walk-forward backtesting methods, which often yield overly optimistic performance estimates due to information leakage and overfitting. == Motivation == Standard cross-validation assumes that observations are independently and identically distributed (IID), which often does not hold in time series or financial datasets. If the label of a test sample overlaps in time with the features or labels in the training set, the result may be data leakage and overfitting. Purged cross-validation addresses this issue by removing overlapping observations and, optionally, adding a temporal buffer ("embargo") around the test set to further reduce the risk of leakage. The figure below illustrates standard 5 Fold Cross-Validation == Purging == Purging removes from the training set any observation whose timestamp falls within the time range of formation of a label in the test set. This can be the case for train set observations before and after the test set. Their removal ensures that the algorithm cannot learn during train time information that will be used to assess the performance of the algorithm. See the figure below for an illustration of purging. == Embargoing == Embargoing addresses a more subtle form of leakage: even if an observation does not directly overlap the test set, it may still be affected by test events due to market reaction lag or downstream dependencies. To guard against this, a percentage-based embargo is imposed after each test fold. For example, with a 5% embargo and 1000 observations, the 50 observations following each test fold are excluded from training. Unlike purging, embargoing can only occur after the test set. The figure below illustrates the application of embargo: == Applications == Purged and embargoed cross-validation has been useful in: Backtesting of trading strategies Validation of classifiers on labeled event-driven returns Any machine learning task with overlapping label horizons == Example == To illustrate the effect of purging and embargoing, consider the figures below. Both diagrams show the structure of 5-fold cross-validation over a 20-day period. In each row, blue squares indicate training samples and red squares denote test samples. Each label is defined based on the value of the next two observations, hence creating an overlap. If this overlap is left untreated, test set information leaks into the train set. The second figure applies the Purged CV procedure. Notice how purging removes overlapping observations from the training set and the embargo widens the gap between test and training data. This approach ensures that the evaluation more closely resembles a true out-of-sample test and reduces the risk of backtest overfitting. == Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation == Walk-forward backtesting analysis, another common cross-validation technique in finance, preserves temporal order but evaluates the model on a single sequence of test sets. This leads to high variance in performance estimation, as results are contingent on a specific historical path. Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation (CPCV) addresses this limitation by systematically constructing multiple train-test splits, purging overlapping samples, and enforcing an embargo period to prevent information leakage. The result is a distribution of out-of-sample performance estimates, enabling robust statistical inference and more realistic assessment of a model's predictive power. === Methodology === CPCV divides a time-series dataset into N sequential, non-overlapping groups. These groups preserve the temporal order of observations. Then, all combinations of k groups (where k < N) are selected as test sets, with the remaining N − k groups used for training. For each combination, the model is trained and evaluated under strict controls to prevent leakage. To eliminate potential contamination between training and test sets, CPCV introduces two additional mechanisms: Purging: Any training observations whose label horizon overlaps with the test period are excluded. This ensures that future information does not influence model training. Embargoing: After the end of each test period, a fixed number of observations (typically a small percentage) are removed from the training set. This prevents leakage due to delayed market reactions or auto-correlated features. Each data point appears in multiple test sets across different combinations. Because test groups are drawn combinatorially, this process produces multiple backtest "paths," each of which simulates a plausible market scenario. From these paths, practitioners can compute a distribution of performance statistics such as the Sharpe ratio, drawdown, or classification accuracy. === Formal definition === Let N be the number of sequential groups into which the dataset is divided, and let k be the number of groups selected as the test set for each split. Then: The number of unique train-test combinations is given by the binomial coefficient: ( N k ) {\displaystyle {\binom {N}{k}}} Each observation is used in k {\displaystyle k} test sets and contributes to φ [ N , k ] {\displaystyle \varphi [N,k]} unique backtest paths: φ [ N , k ] = k N ( N k ) {\displaystyle \varphi [N,k]={\frac {k}{N}}{\binom {N}{k}}} This yields a distribution of performance metrics rather than a single point estimate, making it possible to apply Monte Carlo-based or probabilistic techniques to assess model robustness. === Illustrative example === Consider the case where N = 6 and k = 2. The number of possible test set combinations is ( 6 2 ) = 15 {\displaystyle {\binom {6}{2}}=15} . Each of the six groups appears in five test splits. Consequently, five distinct backtest paths can be constructed, each incorporating one appearance from every group. ==== Test group assignment matrix ==== This table shows the 15 test combinations. An "x" indicates that the corresponding group is included in the test set for that split. ==== Backtest path assignment ==== Each group contributes to five different backtest paths. The number in each cell indicates the path to which the group's result is assigned for that split. === Advantages === Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation offers several key benefits over conventional methods: It produces a distribution of performance metrics, enabling more rigorous statistical inference. The method systematically eliminates lookahead bias through purging and embargoing. By simulating multiple historical scenarios, it reduces the dependence on any single market regime or realization. It supports high-confidence comparisons between competing models or strategies. CPCV is commonly used in quantitative strategy research, especially for evaluating predictive models such as classifiers, regressors, and portfolio optimizers. It has been applied to estimate realistic Sharpe ratios, assess the risk of overfitting, and support the use of statistical tools such as the Deflated Sharpe Ratio (DSR). === Limitations === The main limitation of CPCV stems from its high computational cost. However, this cost can be managed by sampling a finite number of splits from the space of all possible combinations.

Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Wadhwani AI, based in Mumbai, Maharashtra, is an independent, non-profit institute. Founded in 2018, it is dedicated to developing Artificial intelligence solutions for social good. Their mission is to build AI-based innovations and solutions for underserved communities in developing countries, for a wide range of domains including agriculture, education, financial inclusion, healthcare, and infrastructure. == History and funding == The institute was founded with a $30 million philanthropic effort by the Wadhwani brothers, Romesh Wadhwani and Sunil Wadhwani. The institute was inaugurated and dedicated to the nation by Narendra Modi, the 14th Prime Minister of India. In 2019, the institute received a $2 million grant from Google.org to create technologies to help reduce crop losses in cotton farming, through integrated pest management. The United States Agency for International Development awarded $2 million to the institute in 2020 to develop tools, using mathematical modeling techniques and digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to forecast COVID-19 disease patterns, estimate resources needed, and plan interventions. == Collaboration == With assistance from Google, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare and the Wadhwani AI developed Krishi 24/7, the first AI-powered automated agricultural news monitoring and analysis tool. Through better decision-making, Krishi 24/7 will support the identification of valuable news, provide timely notifications, and respond quickly to safeguard farmers' interests and advance sustainable agricultural growth. The application converts news articles into English after scanning them in several languages. It ensures that the ministry is informed in a timely manner about pertinent occurrences that are published online by extracting key information from news items, including the headline, crop name, event type, date, location, severity, summary, and source link. The National Center for Disease Control has effectively implemented a comparable automated surveillance and analysis tool for disease outbreaks.

Open information extraction

In natural language processing, open information extraction (OIE) is the task of generating a structured, machine-readable representation of the information in text, usually in the form of triples or n-ary propositions. == Overview == A proposition can be understood as truth-bearer, a textual expression of a potential fact (e.g., "Dante wrote the Divine Comedy"), represented in an amenable structure for computers [e.g., ("Dante", "wrote", "Divine Comedy")]. An OIE extraction normally consists of a relation and a set of arguments. For instance, ("Dante", "passed away in" "Ravenna") is a proposition formed by the relation "passed away in" and the arguments "Dante" and "Ravenna". The first argument is usually referred as the subject while the second is considered to be the object. The extraction is said to be a textual representation of a potential fact because its elements are not linked to a knowledge base. Furthermore, the factual nature of the proposition has not yet been established. In the above example, transforming the extraction into a full fledged fact would first require linking, if possible, the relation and the arguments to a knowledge base. Second, the truth of the extraction would need to be determined. In computer science transforming OIE extractions into ontological facts is known as relation extraction. In fact, OIE can be seen as the first step to a wide range of deeper text understanding tasks such as relation extraction, knowledge-base construction, question answering, semantic role labeling. The extracted propositions can also be directly used for end-user applications such as structured search (e.g., retrieve all propositions with "Dante" as subject). OIE was first introduced by TextRunner developed at the University of Washington Turing Center headed by Oren Etzioni. Other methods introduced later such as Reverb, OLLIE, ClausIE or CSD helped to shape the OIE task by characterizing some of its aspects. At a high level, all of these approaches make use of a set of patterns to generate the extractions. Depending on the particular approach, these patterns are either hand-crafted or learned. == OIE systems and contributions == Reverb suggested the necessity to produce meaningful relations to more accurately capture the information in the input text. For instance, given the sentence "Faust made a pact with the devil", it would be erroneous to just produce the extraction ("Faust", "made", "a pact") since it would not be adequately informative. A more precise extraction would be ("Faust", "made a pact with", "the devil"). Reverb also argued against the generation of overspecific relations. OLLIE stressed two important aspects for OIE. First, it pointed to the lack of factuality of the propositions. For instance, in a sentence like "If John studies hard, he will pass the exam", it would be inaccurate to consider ("John", "will pass", "the exam") as a fact. Additionally, the authors indicated that an OIE system should be able to extract non-verb mediated relations, which account for significant portion of the information expressed in natural language text. For instance, in the sentence "Obama, the former US president, was born in Hawaii", an OIE system should be able to recognize a proposition ("Obama", "is", "former US president"). ClausIE introduced the connection between grammatical clauses, propositions, and OIE extractions. The authors stated that as each grammatical clause expresses a proposition, each verb mediated proposition can be identified by solely recognizing the set of clauses expressed in each sentence. This implies that to correctly recognize the set of propositions in an input sentence, it is necessary to understand its grammatical structure. The authors studied the case in the English language that only admits seven clause types, meaning that the identification of each proposition only requires defining seven grammatical patterns. The finding also established a separation between the recognition of the propositions and its materialization. In a first step, the proposition can be identified without any consideration of its final form, in a domain-independent and unsupervised way, mostly based on linguistic principles. In a second step, the information can be represented according to the requirements of the underlying application, without conditioning the identification phase. Consider the sentence "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm and died in Princeton". The first step will recognize the two propositions ("Albert Einstein", "was born", "in Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died", "in Princeton"). Once the information has been correctly identified, the propositions can take the particular form required by the underlying application [e.g., ("Albert Einstein", "was born in", "Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died in", "Princeton")]. CSD introduced the idea of minimality in OIE. It considers that computers can make better use of the extractions if they are expressed in a compact way. This is especially important in sentences with subordinate clauses. In these cases, CSD suggests the generation of nested extractions. For example, consider the sentence "The Embassy said that 6,700 Americans were in Pakistan". CSD generates two extractions [i] ("6,700 Americans", "were", "in Pakistan") and [ii] ("The Embassy", "said", "that [i]"). This is usually known as reification.

Cross-validation (statistics)

Cross-validation, sometimes called rotation estimation or out-of-sample testing, is any of various similar model validation techniques for assessing how the results of a statistical analysis will generalize to an independent data set. Cross-validation includes resampling and sample splitting methods that use different portions of the data to test and train a model on different iterations. It is often used in settings where the goal is prediction, and one wants to estimate how accurately a predictive model will perform in practice. It can also be used to assess the quality of a fitted model and the stability of its parameters. In a prediction problem, a model is usually given a dataset of known data on which training is run (training dataset), and a dataset of unknown data (or first seen data) against which the model is tested (called the validation dataset or testing set). The goal of cross-validation is to test the model's ability to predict new data that was not used in estimating it, in order to flag problems like overfitting or selection bias and to give an insight on how the model will generalize to an independent dataset (i.e., an unknown dataset, for instance from a real problem). One round of cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets, performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on the other subset (called the validation set or testing set). To reduce variability, in most methods multiple rounds of cross-validation are performed using different partitions, and the validation results are combined (e.g. averaged) over the rounds to give an estimate of the model's predictive performance. In summary, cross-validation combines (averages) measures of fitness in prediction to derive a more accurate estimate of model prediction performance. == Motivation == Assume a model with one or more unknown parameters, and a data set to which the model can be fit (the training data set). The fitting process optimizes the model parameters to make the model fit the training data as well as possible. If an independent sample of validation data is taken from the same population as the training data, it will generally turn out that the model does not fit the validation data as well as it fits the training data. The size of this difference is likely to be large especially when the size of the training data set is small, or when the number of parameters in the model is large. Cross-validation is a way to estimate the size of this effect. === Example: linear regression === In linear regression, there exist real response values y 1 , … , y n {\textstyle y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}} , and n p-dimensional vector covariates x1, ..., xn. The components of the vector xi are denoted xi1, ..., xip. If least squares is used to fit a function in the form of a hyperplane ŷ = a + βTx to the data (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the fit can be assessed using the mean squared error (MSE). The MSE for given estimated parameter values a and β on the training set (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n is defined as: MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y ^ i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β T x i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β 1 x i 1 − ⋯ − β p x i p ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{MSE}}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-{\hat {y}}_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-{\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{T}\mathbf {x} _{i})^{2}\\&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-\beta _{1}x_{i1}-\dots -\beta _{p}x_{ip})^{2}\end{aligned}}} If the model is correctly specified, it can be shown under mild assumptions that the expected value of the MSE for the training set is (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) < 1 times the expected value of the MSE for the validation set (the expected value is taken over the distribution of training sets). Thus, a fitted model and computed MSE on the training set will result in an optimistically biased assessment of how well the model will fit an independent data set. This biased estimate is called the in-sample estimate of the fit, whereas the cross-validation estimate is an out-of-sample estimate. Since in linear regression it is possible to directly compute the factor (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) by which the training MSE underestimates the validation MSE under the assumption that the model specification is valid, cross-validation can be used for checking whether the model has been overfitted, in which case the MSE in the validation set will substantially exceed its anticipated value. (Cross-validation in the context of linear regression is also useful in that it can be used to select an optimally regularized cost function.) === General case === In most other regression procedures (e.g. logistic regression), there is no simple formula to compute the expected out-of-sample fit. Cross-validation is, thus, a generally applicable way to predict the performance of a model on unavailable data using numerical computation in place of theoretical analysis. == Types == Two types of cross-validation can be distinguished: exhaustive and non-exhaustive cross-validation. === Exhaustive cross-validation === Exhaustive cross-validation methods are cross-validation methods which learn and test on all possible ways to divide the original sample into a training and a validation set. ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation (LpO CV) involves using p observations as the validation set and the remaining observations as the training set. This is repeated on all ways to cut the original sample on a validation set of p observations and a training set. LpO cross-validation require training and validating the model C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} times, where n is the number of observations in the original sample, and where C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} is the binomial coefficient. For p > 1 and for even moderately large n, LpO CV can become computationally infeasible. For example, with n = 100 and p = 30, C 30 100 ≈ 3 × 10 25 . {\displaystyle C_{30}^{100}\approx 3\times 10^{25}.} A variant of LpO cross-validation with p=2 known as leave-pair-out cross-validation has been recommended as a nearly unbiased method for estimating the area under ROC curve of binary classifiers. ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) is a particular case of leave-p-out cross-validation with p = 1. The process looks similar to jackknife; however, with cross-validation one computes a statistic on the left-out sample(s), while with jackknifing one computes a statistic from the kept samples only. LOO cross-validation requires less computation time than LpO cross-validation because there are only C 1 n = n {\displaystyle C_{1}^{n}=n} passes rather than C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} . However, n {\displaystyle n} passes may still require quite a large computation time, in which case other approaches such as k-fold cross validation may be more appropriate. Pseudo-code algorithm: Input: x, {vector of length N with x-values of incoming points} y, {vector of length N with y-values of the expected result} interpolate( x_in, y_in, x_out ), { returns the estimation for point x_out after the model is trained with x_in-y_in pairs} Output: err, {estimate for the prediction error} Steps: err ← 0 for i ← 1, ..., N do // define the cross-validation subsets x_in ← (x[1], ..., x[i − 1], x[i + 1], ..., x[N]) y_in ← (y[1], ..., y[i − 1], y[i + 1], ..., y[N]) x_out ← x[i] y_out ← interpolate(x_in, y_in, x_out) err ← err + (y[i] − y_out)^2 end for err ← err/N === Non-exhaustive cross-validation === Non-exhaustive cross validation methods do not compute all ways of splitting the original sample. These methods are approximations of leave-p-out cross-validation. ==== k-fold cross-validation ==== In k-fold cross-validation, the original sample is randomly partitioned into k equal sized subsamples, often referred to as "folds". Of the k subsamples, a single subsample is retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the remaining k − 1 subsamples are used as training data. The cross-validation process is then repeated k times, with each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The k results can then be averaged to produce a single estimation. The advantage of this method over repeated random sub-sampling (see below) is that all observations are used for both training and validation, and each observation is used for validation exactly once. 10-fold cross-validation is commonly used, but in general k remains an unfixed parameter. For example, setting k = 2 results in 2-fold cross-validation. In 2-fold cross-validation, the dataset is randomly shuffled into two sets d0 and d1, so that both sets are equal size (this is usually implemented by shuffling the data array and then splitting it in two). We then train on d0 and validate on d1, followed by training on d1 and validating on d0. When k = n (the number of observations), k-fold cross-validation is equivalent to leave-one-out cr