How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Cross-validation splits and training-size risk targets
Definition
Let be a measurable sample space with probability law . For each training size , a learning rule is a measurable map , where is a measurable predictor space. This is a statistic in the sense of Statistics and estimators. Let be jointly measurable and assume is integrable under for every size used. The convention that risk is expected loss agrees with Loss functions and risk for nonnegative losses; the integrable real-valued case is used here as well. The product law is the joint law of independent observations by Independent random elements have product joint law.
The risk at training size is
where is independent of the training sample. A split of is a pair of disjoint nonempty sets with ; is the training index set and is the validation index set. For a fixed partition of into nonempty folds with , the equal-observation-weight cross-validation score is
where each training tuple is ordered by increasing index and . The risk corresponding to this design is the weighted training-size target . For equal folds of size , this target is ; it is not automatically , the risk after training on all observations.
Depends on
Used by
- Holdout, leave-out, V-fold, and repeated cross-validation Algorithm
- Risk estimation versus model identification Definition
- A holdout estimate targets a smaller training sample Example
- Equal predictive risks do not identify a model label Example
- Paired K-fold comparison retains correlated fold errors Example
- The covariance decomposition of a fixed K-fold score Lemma
- Cross-validation estimates risk at its training sizes Theorem
- No universal unbiased estimator of K-fold cross-validation variance Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
18 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Sylvain Arlot and Alain Celisse, A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection, §§2–8, author version arXiv:0907.4728 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani, An Introduction to Statistical Learning, 7th printing, Chapter 5 §§5.1.1–5.1.4 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Yoshua Bengio and Yves Grandvalet, No Unbiased Estimator of the Variance of K-Fold Cross-Validation, JMLR 5 (2004), §§2–3 (standard reference, not scraped)