A classic and popular approach for estimating the generalization performance of machine learning models is holdout cross-validation. Using the holdout method, we split our initial dataset into a separate training and test dataset—the former is used for model training, and the latter is used to estimate its performance. However, in typical machine learning applications, we are also interested in tuning and comparing different parameter settings to further improve the performance for making predictions on unseen data. This process is called model selection, where the term model selection refers to a given classification problem for which we want to select the optimal values of tuning parameters (also called hyperparameters). However, if we reuse the same test dataset over and over again during model selection, it will become part of our training data and thus the model will be more likely to overfit. Despite this issue, many people still use the test set for model selection, which is not a good machine learning practice.

A better way of using the holdout method for model selection is to separate the data into three parts: a training set, a validation set, and a test set. The training set is used to fit the different models, and the performance on the validation set is then used for the model selection. The advantage of having a test set that the model hasn't seen before during the training and model selection steps is that we can obtain a less biased estimate of its ability to generalize to new data. The following figure illustrates the concept of holdout cross-validation where we use a validation set to repeatedly evaluate the performance of the model after training using different parameter values. Once we are satisfied with the tuning of parameter values, we estimate the models' generalization error on the test dataset:

A disadvantage of the holdout method is that the performance estimate is sensitive to how we partition the training set into the training and validation subsets; the estimate will vary for different samples of the data. In the next subsection, we will take a look at a more robust technique for performance estimation, k-fold cross-validation, where we repeat the holdout method k times on k subsets of the training data.

In k-fold cross-validation, we randomly split the training dataset into k folds without replacement, where folds are used for the model training and one fold is used for testing. This procedure is repeated k times so that we obtain k models and performance estimates.

We then calculate the average performance of the models based on the different, independent folds to obtain a performance estimate that is less sensitive to the subpartitioning of the training data compared to the holdout method. Typically, we use k-fold cross-validation for model tuning, that is, finding the optimal hyperparameter values that yield a satisfying generalization performance. Once we have found satisfactory hyperparameter values, we can retrain the model on the complete training set and obtain a final performance estimate using the independent test set.

Since k-fold cross-validation is a resampling technique without replacement, the advantage of this approach is that each sample point will be part of a training and test dataset exactly once, which yields a lower-variance estimate of the model performance than the holdout method. The following figure summarizes the concept behind k-fold cross-validation with . The training data set is divided into 10 folds, and during the 10 iterations, 9 folds are used for training, and 1 fold will be used as the test set for the model evaluation. Also, the estimated performances (for example, classification accuracy or error) for each fold are then used to calculate the estimated average performance of the model:

The standard value for k in k-fold cross-validation is 10, which is typically a reasonable choice for most applications. However, if we are working with relatively small training sets, it can be useful to increase the number of folds. If we increase the value of k, more training data will be used in each iteration, which results in a lower bias towards estimating the generalization performance by averaging the individual model estimates. However, large values of k will also increase the runtime of the cross-validation algorithm and yield estimates with higher variance since the training folds will be more similar to each other. On the other hand, if we are working with large datasets, we can choose a smaller value for k, for example, , and still obtain an accurate estimate of the average performance of the model while reducing the computational cost of refitting and evaluating the model on the different folds.

A slight improvement over the standard k-fold cross-validation approach is stratified k-fold cross-validation, which can yield better bias and variance estimates, especially in cases of unequal class proportions, as it has been shown in a study by R. Kohavi et al. (R. Kohavi et al. A Study of Cross-validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection. In Ijcai, volume 14, pages 1137–1145, 1995). In stratified cross-validation, the class proportions are preserved in each fold to ensure that each fold is representative of the class proportions in the training dataset, which we will illustrate by using the StratifiedKFold iterator in scikit-learn:

>>> import numpy as np
>>> from sklearn.cross_validation import StratifiedKFold
>>> kfold = StratifiedKFold(y=y_train, 
...                         n_folds=10,
...                         random_state=1)
>>> scores = []
>>> for k, (train, test) in enumerate(kfold):
...    pipe_lr.fit(X_train[train], y_train[train])
...    score = pipe_lr.score(X_train[test], y_train[test])
...    scores.append(score)
...    print('Fold: %s, Class dist.: %s, Acc: %.3f' % (k+1, 
...                 np.bincount(y_train[train]), score))    
Fold: 1, Class dist.: [256 153], Acc: 0.891
Fold: 2, Class dist.: [256 153], Acc: 0.978
Fold: 3, Class dist.: [256 153], Acc: 0.978
Fold: 4, Class dist.: [256 153], Acc: 0.913
Fold: 5, Class dist.: [256 153], Acc: 0.935
Fold: 6, Class dist.: [257 153], Acc: 0.978
Fold: 7, Class dist.: [257 153], Acc: 0.933
Fold: 8, Class dist.: [257 153], Acc: 0.956
Fold: 9, Class dist.: [257 153], Acc: 0.978
Fold: 10, Class dist.: [257 153], Acc: 0.956
>>> print('CV accuracy: %.3f +/- %.3f' % (
...                 np.mean(scores), np.std(scores)))
CV accuracy: 0.950 +/- 0.029

First, we initialized the StratifiedKfold iterator from the sklearn.cross_validation module with the class labels y_train in the training set, and specified the number of folds via the n_folds parameter. When we used the kfold iterator to loop through the k folds, we used the returned indices in train to fit the logistic regression pipeline that we set up at the beginning of this chapter. Using the pile_lr pipeline, we ensured that the samples were scaled properly (for instance, standardized) in each iteration. We then used the test indices to calculate the accuracy score of the model, which we collected in the scores list to calculate the average accuracy and the standard deviation of the estimate.

Although the previous code example was useful to illustrate how k-fold cross-validation works, scikit-learn also implements a k-fold cross-validation scorer, which allows us to evaluate our model using stratified k-fold cross-validation more efficiently:

>>> from sklearn.cross_validation import cross_val_score
>>> scores = cross_val_score(estimator=pipe_lr, 
...                          X=X_train, 
...                          y=y_train, 
...                          cv=10, 
...                          n_jobs=1)
>>> print('CV accuracy scores: %s' % scores)
CV accuracy scores: [ 0.89130435  0.97826087  0.97826087  
                      0.91304348  0.93478261  0.97777778
                      0.93333333  0.95555556  0.97777778  
                         0.95555556]
>>> print('CV accuracy: %.3f +/- %.3f' % (np.mean(scores), np.std(scores))) 
CV accuracy: 0.950 +/- 0.029

An extremely useful feature of the cross_val_score approach is that we can distribute the evaluation of the different folds across multiple CPUs on our machine. If we set the n_jobs parameter to 1, only one CPU will be used to evaluate the performances just like in our StratifiedKFold example previously. However, by setting n_jobs=2 we could distribute the 10 rounds of cross-validation to two CPUs (if available on our machine), and by setting n_jobs=-1, we can use all available CPUs on our machine to do the computation in parallel.