Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Principles of Proper Validation: use and abuse of re‐sampling for validation

Esbensen, Kim H., Geladi, Paul·2010·Journal of Chemometrics
DOI 10.1002/cem.1310
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Validation in chemometrics is presented using the exemplar context of multivariate calibration/prediction. A phenomenological analysis of common validation practices in data analysis and chemometrics leads to formulation of a set of generic Principles of Proper Validation (PPV), which is based on a set of characterizing distinctions: (i) Validation cannot be understood by focusing on the methods of validation only; validation must be based on full knowledge of the underlying definitions, objectives, methods, effects and consequences—which are all outlined and discussed here. (ii) Analysis of proper validation objectives implies that there is one valid paradigm only: test set validation. (iii) Contrary to much contemporary chemometric practices (and validation myths), cross‐validation is shown to be unjustified in the form of monolithic application of a one‐for‐all procedure (segmented cross‐validation) on all data sets. Within its own design and scope, cross‐validation is in reality a sub‐optimal simulation of test set validation, crippled by a critical sampling variance omission, as it manifestly is based on one data set only (training data set). Other re‐sampling validation methods are shown to suffer from the same deficiencies. The PPV are universal and can be applied to all situations in which the assessment of performance is desired: prediction‐, classification‐, time series forecasting‐, modeling validation. The key element of PPV is the Theory of Sampling (TOS), which allow insight into all variance generating factors, especially the so‐called incorrect sampling errors, which, if not properly eliminated, are responsible for a fatal inconstant sampling bias, for which no statistical correction is possible. In the light of TOS it is shown how a second data set (test set, validation set) is critically necessary for the inclusion of the sampling errors incurred in all ‘future’ situations in which the validated model must perform. Logically, therefore, all one data set re‐sampling approaches for validation, especially cross‐validation and leverage‐corrected validation, should be terminated, or at the very least used only with full scientific understanding and disclosure of their detrimental variance omissions and consequences. Regarding PLS‐regression, an emphatic call is made for stringent commitment to test set validation based on graphical inspection of pertinent t–u plots for optimal understanding of the X–Y interrelationships and for validation guidance. QSAR/QSAP forms a partial exemption from the present test set imperative with no generalization potential. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cem.1310

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 286

Metadata

Authors
Esbensen, K. H., & Geladi, P.
Venue
Journal of Chemometrics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-03
Volume
24
Issue
3-4
Pages
168-187
ISSN
  • 0886-9383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-128X
DOI
10.1002/cem.1310
OpenAlex
W2170590937
Cited by
286
References
39
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.