Text and/or other creative content from Training_set was copied or moved into Test_set with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There is absolutely no value added of having two articles Training set and Test set separately when neither can be discussed alone. The concept is Training and test sets with references to information science, statistics, data mining, biostatistics, etc. Currently the two articles are near duplicates (or could be based on the available information. Can we imagine some information for either which is not relevant for the other? Sda030 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree with the suggestion - training set, testing set and validation set are all parts of one whole and should be presented in one topic. (MM-Professor of QM & MIS, WWU-USA)
synonym "discovery set"
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A training set is also called a discovery set, right?
(See for example <DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1406498>.)
Perhaps a link should be created so that looking up
"discovery set" redirects to here. Now, "discovery set"
just gets a bunch of mostly-irrelevant search results. 73.53.61.168 (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Gold standard"
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have seen the term "gold standard" been used at a few places in connection with articles about machine learning. On the page Gold standard (disambiguation), it says that in statistics and machine learning, gold standard is "a manually annotated training set or test set". What does it mean that the test set is manually annotated? And is "gold standard" a term that is important enough to be mentioned in this article perhaps? —Kri (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}