REVIEW 1 cited by
Don't Waste Your Time: Early Stopping Cross-Validation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
State-of-the-art automated machine learning systems for tabular data often employ cross-validation; ensuring that measured performances generalize to unseen data, or that subsequent ensembling does not overfit. However, using k-fold cross-validation instead of holdout validation drastically increases the computational cost of validating a single configuration. While ensuring better generalization and, by extension, better performance, the additional cost is often prohibitive for effective model selection within a time budget. We aim to make model selection with cross-validation more effective. Therefore, we study early stopping the process of cross-validation during model selection. We investigate the impact of early stopping on random search for two algorithms, MLP and random forest, across 36 classification datasets. We further analyze the impact of the number of folds by considering 3-, 5-, and 10-folds. In addition, we investigate the impact of early stopping with Bayesian optimization instead of random search and also repeated cross-validation. Our exploratory study shows that even a simple-to-understand and easy-to-implement method consistently allows model selection to converge faster; in ~94% of all datasets, on average by ~214%. Moreover, stopping cross-validation enables model selection to explore the search space more exhaustively by considering +167% configurations on average within one hour, while also obtaining better overall performance.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
e-Fold Cross-Validation for Recommender-System Evaluation
A simulation finds that e-fold cross-validation, which stops folding when the confidence interval of the mean stabilizes, uses 41.5% of the energy of 10-fold cross-validation with an average 1.81% difference in results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.