Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Validation study demonstrates standard k-fold cross-validation inflates model accuracy on biometric data, highlighting the need for participant- and time-aware evaluation methods.
Data containing human participants and time-series features, as is commonplace in Human Factors research, require special considerations when used in machine learning applications. Ignoring such features during cross-validation procedures might lead to artificially increased model performances due to temporal (i.e. using future observations to predict the present) and participant (i.e using sub-data sets coming from the same participant for training and testing) data leakage. We propose a comparison approach to assess the model performance when machine learning algorithms are trained with two distinctly different cross-validation algorithms: k-fold, which assumes data independence, and population-informed forward chain (PIFC), which accounts for human participants and time-series features. A case study was conducted by using biometric measurements collected from a virtual reality chess experiment. The results show that substantial overestimation might occur when applying the k-fold algorithm instead of the PIFC algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fraga et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: