Talk:Training, validation, and test data sets
 | 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. |
 | Statistics Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small} | Robotics Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Merge
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)
- I agree they should be merged. Both articles say as much in their introductions. Prax54 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Merger done, some rewrites needed.Prax54 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
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"
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)
"Gold standard"
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)
Remove GNG template
Lots of mentions in ML literature. Wqwt (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Claim that the meaning of test and validation is flipped in practice
It's not clear in _whose_ practice this terms are flipped. In lots of posts by recognized practitioners (e.g. [1]) they're not flipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabianMontescu (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)