Reverse testing: an efficient framework to select amongst classifiers under sample selection bias
Abstract
One of the most important assumptions made by many classification algorithms is that the training and test sets are drawn from the same distribution, i.e., the so-called "stationary distribution assumption" that the future and the past data sets are identical from a probabilistic standpoint. In many domains of real-world applications, such as marketing solicitation, fraud detection, drug testing, loan approval, sub-population surveys, school enrollment among others, this is rarely the case. This is because the only labeled sample available for training is biased in different ways due to a variety of practical reasons and limitations. In these circumstances, traditional methods to evaluate the expected generalization error of classification algorithms, such as structural risk minimization, ten-fold cross-validation, and leave-one-out validation, usually return poor estimates of which classification algorithm, when trained on biased dataset, will be the most accurate for future unbiased dataset, among a number of competing candidates. Sometimes, the estimated order of the learning algorithms' accuracy could be so poor that it is not even better than random guessing. Therefore,a method to determine the most accurate learner is needed for data mining under sample selection bias for many real-world applications. We present such an approach that can determine which learner will perform the best on an unbiased test set, given a possibly biased training set, in a fraction of the computational cost to use cross-validation based approaches.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reverse validation [34] is based on reverse testing [35], where a new classifier is trained on predictions on test data and evaluated on training data.
“The basic idea of reverse validation [34] is based on reverse testing [35], where a new classifier is trained on predictions on the test data and evaluated again on the training data.”
From Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth (2017) · cites this paper as [35]
RCA differs from reverse validation and reverse testing in that it trains a reverse classifier on every single instance, whereas those approaches train single classifiers over the whole test set jointly.
“While the idea of RCA is similar to reverse validation [34] and reverse testing [35], the important difference is that in our approach we train a reverse classifier on every single instance while the approaches in [34], [35] train single classifiers over the whole test set and its predictions jointly to find out what the best original predictor is.”
From Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth (2017) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth
Valindria, V. V., Lavdas, I., Bai, W., Kamnitsas, K., Aboagye, E. O., Rockall, A. G., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2665165 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Automatic Quality Control of Cardiac MRI Segmentation in Large-Scale Population Imaging
Robinson, R., Valindria, V. V., Bai, W., Suzuki, H., Matthews, P. M., Page, C., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66182-7_82 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
ConfIC-RCA: Statistically Grounded Efficient Estimation of Segmentation Quality
Cosarinsky, M., Billot, R., Mansilla, L., Jimenez, G., Gaggión, N., Fu, G., Tirer, T., & Ferrante, E. (2025) · arXiv
“Other previous studies rely on a reverse-testing strategy, where a new classifier is trained on predictions on the test data and evaluated again on the training data [25], [26], [27].”
- Authors
- Fan, W., & Davidson, I.
- Affiliations
- IBM (United States) (US)
- University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2006-08-20
- Pages
- 147-156
- OpenAlex
- W2037758579
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.44
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Keywords
- sample selection bias, biased training data, classifier comparison, generalization error estimation, cross-validation, structural risk minimization, leave-one-out cross-validation, data mining
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