Crossvalidation pitfalls when selecting and assessing regression and classification models
 Damjan Krstajic^{1, 2, 3}Email author,
 Ljubomir J Buturovic^{3},
 David E Leahy^{4} and
 Simon Thomas^{5}
DOI: 10.1186/17582946610
© Krstajic et al.; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 6 January 2014
Accepted: 25 March 2014
Published: 29 March 2014
Abstract
Background
We address the problem of selecting and assessing classification and regression models using crossvalidation. Current stateoftheart methods can yield models with high variance, rendering them unsuitable for a number of practical applications including QSAR. In this paper we describe and evaluate best practices which improve reliability and increase confidence in selected models. A key operational component of the proposed methods is cloud computing which enables routine use of previously infeasible approaches.
Methods
We describe in detail an algorithm for repeated gridsearch Vfold crossvalidation for parameter tuning in classification and regression, and we define a repeated nested crossvalidation algorithm for model assessment. As regards variable selection and parameter tuning we define two algorithms (repeated gridsearch crossvalidation and double crossvalidation), and provide arguments for using the repeated gridsearch in the general case.
Results
We show results of our algorithms on seven QSAR datasets. The variation of the prediction performance, which is the result of choosing different splits of the dataset in Vfold crossvalidation, needs to be taken into account when selecting and assessing classification and regression models.
Conclusions
We demonstrate the importance of repeating crossvalidation when selecting an optimal model, as well as the importance of repeating nested crossvalidation when assessing a prediction error.
Background
Allen [1], Stone [2] and Geisser [3], independently introduced crossvalidation as a way of estimating parameters for predictive models in order to improve predictions. Allen [1] proposed the PRESS (Prediction Sum of Squares) criteria, equivalent to leaveoneout crossvalidation, for problems with selection of predictors and suggested it for general use. Stone [2] suggested the use of leaveoneout crossvalidation for estimating model parameters and for assessing their predictive error. It is important to note that Stone [2] was the first to clearly differentiate between the use of crossvalidation to select the model (“crossvalidatory choice”) and to assess the model (“crossvalidatory assessment”). Geisser [3] introduced the Predictive Sample Reuse Method, a method equivalent to Vfold crossvalidation, arguing that it improves predictive performance of the crossvalidatory choice, at a cost of introducing pseudorandomness in the process. Since then, crossvalidation, with its different varieties, has been investigated extensively and, due to its universality, gained popularity in statistical modelling.
In an ideal situation we would have enough data to train and validate our models (training samples) and have separate data for assessing the quality of our model (test samples). Both training and test samples would need to be sufficiently large and diverse in order to be represenatitive. However such data rich situations are rare in life sciences, including QSAR. A major problem with selection and assessment of models is that we usually only have information from the training samples, and it is therefore not feasible to calculate a test error. However, even though we cannot calculate the test error, it is possible to estimate the expected test error using training samples. It can be shown that the expected test error is the sum of irreducible error, squared bias and variance (Hastie et al.[4] Eq 7.9). Furthermore, Hastie et al.[4] show the interplay between bias, variance and model complexity in detail. Usually, complex models have small bias and large variance, while simple models have large bias and small variance. We are looking for practically useful tradeoffs between bias and variance, for example by minimizing the sum of squared bias and variance.
The model selection process does not require exact computation of various models’ complexity, which is often impossible, but only their relative ranking, which is usually feasible. Hastie et al.[4] define effective degrees of freedom and use it as the measure of model complexity. For example, when selecting a model with the knearest neighbourhood method, we don’t need to know that the effective degrees of freedom is N/k, where N is the number of samples. However, for the ranking of models, it is required to understand that the number of neighbours k is inversely related to the model complexity.
Hastie et al.[4] devote a whole chapter in their book to various methods of selecting and assessing statistical models. In this paper we are particularly interested in examining the use of crossvalidation to select and assess classification and regression models. Our aim is to extend their findings and explain them in more detail.
Methodological advances in the last decade or so have shown that certain common methods of selecting and assessing classification and regression models are flawed. We are aware of the following crossvalidation pitfalls when selecting and assessing classification and regression models:

Selection of variables prior to, and not within, crossvalidation.

Selection of model based on performance of a single crossvalidation.

Reporting a crossvalidation error as an estimate of error.

Reporting a single nested crossvalidation error as an estimate of error.
We demonstrate the effects of the above pitfalls either by providing references or our own results. We then formulate crossvalidation algorithms for model selection and model assessment in classification and regression settings which avoid the pitfalls, and then show results of applying these methods on QSAR datasets.
The contributions of this paper are as follows. First, we demonstrate the variability of crossvalidation results and point out the need for repeated crossvalidation. Second, we define repeated crossvalidation algorithms for selecting and assessing classification and regression models which deliver robust models and report the associated performance assessments. Finally, we propose that advances in cloud computing enable the routine use of these methods in statistical learning.
Methods
Repeated crossvalidation
In Vfold crossvalidation we divide the dataset pseudo randomly into V folds, and a statistical model is refit V times with the cases of each fold withheld in turn from the training set. We analysed the variation in the prediction performance that results from choosing a different split of the data. As far as we are aware, the value and importance of repeated crossvalidation has not been extensively explored and discussed in the literature partially, we believe, due to the associated computational costs. To quantify the variation, we repeated crossvalidation 50 times and estimated the resulting distribution of the performance statistics.
Stratified crossvalidation
In stratified Vfold crossvalidation the output variable is first stratified and the dataset is pseudo randomly split into V folds making sure that each fold contains approximately the same proportion of different strata. Breiman and Spector [5] report no improvement from executing stratified crossvalidation in regression settings. Kohavi [6] studied model selection and assessment for classification problems, and he indicates that stratification is generally a good strategy when creating crossvalidation folds. Furthermore, we need to be careful here, because stratification de facto breaks the crossvalidation heuristics.
With a large number of repeated crossvalidations our opinion is that the issue of stratification becomes redundant when selecting a model, while for assessing the model it is wise to use stratified crossvalidation. We would like to point out that there is no clear consensus regarding the application of stratified crossvalidation or any other splitting strategy which takes into account values of the output variable.
Our compromise is not to use stratification for model selection, but to use it for model assessment.
Parameter tuning with repeated gridsearch
We applied crossvalidation for parameter tuning in classification and regression problems. How do we choose optimal parameters? In some cases the parameter of interest is a positive integer, such as k in knearest neighbourhood or the number of components in partialleast squares, and possible solutions are 1,2,3,.. etc. In other cases we need to find a real number within some interval, such as the cost value C in linear Support Vector Machine (SVM) or the penalty value λ in ridge regression. Chang and Lin [7] suggest choosing an initial set of possible input parameters and performing grid search crossvalidation to find optimal (with respect to the given grid and the given search criterion) parameters for SVM, whereby crossvalidation is used to select optimal tuning parameters from a onedimensional or multidimensional grid. The gridsearch crossvalidation produces crossvalidation estimates of performance statistics (for example, error rate) for each point in the grid. Dudoit and van der Laan [8] give the asymptotic proof of selecting the tuning parameter with minimal crossvalidation error in Vfold crossvalidation and, therefore, provide a theoretical basis for this approach. However, the reality is that we work in a nonasymptotic environment and, furthermore, different splits of data between the folds may produce different optimal tuning parameters. Consequently, we used repeated gridsearch crossvalidation where we repeated crossvalidation Nexp times and for each grid point generated Nexp crossvalidation errors. The tuning parameter with minimal mean crossvalidation error was then chosen, and we refer to it as the optimal crossvalidatory choice for tuning parameter. Algorithm 1 is the repeated gridsearch crossvalidation algorithm for parameter tuning in classification and regression used in this paper:
Algorithm 1: parameter tuning with repeated gridsearch crossvalidation
 1.Repeat the following process Nexp times.
 a.
Divide the dataset D pseudorandomly into V folds
 b.
For I from 1 to V
 i.
Define set L as the dataset D without the Ith fold
 ii.
Define set T as the Ith fold of the dataset D
 iii.
For k from 1 to K
 i.
 c.
For each α value calculate the goodness of fit (loss()) for all elements in D.
 a.
 1.
Build a statistical model f^{ k } = f(L; α^{ k })
 2.
Apply f^{ k } on T and store the predictions.
 2.
For each α value calculate the mean of the Nexp calculations of losses.
 3.
Let α’ be the α value for which the average loss is minimal. If there are multiple α values for which the average loss is minimal, then α’ is the one with the lowest model complexity.
 4.
Select α’ as the optimal crossvalidatory choice for tuning parameter and select statistical model f’ = f(D; α’) as the optimal crossvalidatory chosen model.
Nested crossvalidation for model assessment
We analysed crossvalidation methods for model assessment. As Stone [2] pointed out, crossvalidation can be used for model selection and for model assessment, but the two tasks require different crossvalidation approaches. Even though the process of model selection is different from the process of model assessment, there has been a tendency to report the crossvalidation error found for the optimal model during the model selection as the assessed model performance. Varma and Simon [9] report a bias in error estimation when using crossvalidation for model selection, and they suggest using “nested crossvalidation” as an almost unbiased estimate of the true error. Close examination shows that the “nested crossvalidation” defined by Varma and Simon [9] is the same as “crossvalidatory assessment of the crossvalidatory choice” defined by Stone [2]. Nevertheless, the importance of the paper by Varma and Simon [9] is that they show in practice by how much a crossvalidation error of a crossvalidatory chosen model can be biased, i.e. too optimistic. Therefore, we applied stratified nested crossvalidation to reduce bias of the resulting error rate estimate.
We refer to procedure of selecting optimal crossvalidatory chosen model with predefined grid, number of folds and number of repeats as the crossvalidation protocol. It is very similar to Stone’s [2]crossvalidatory choice, but more specific. Using Stone’s [2] terminology we can say that the nested crossvalidation is the crossvalidation assessment of largesample performance of a model M chosen by a specific crossvalidation protocol P. To emphasize the fact that the nested crossvalidation estimate depends on the crossvalidation protocol, we refer to it as the Pestimate of largesample performance of model M.
We would like to point out that the “wrapper algorithm” as defined by Varma and Simon [9] is similar to our crossvalidation protocol, although our definition is more specific. The “estimation plan” as defined by Dudoit and van der Laan [8] is almost identical to our crossvalidation protocol, the only difference being that we specify repetition.
We also demonstrate that single stratified nested crossvalidation errors can vary substantially between different partitionings of the training dataset, and therefore used repeated stratified nested crossvalidation. Algorithm 2 is the general algorithm for repeated stratified nested crossvalidation.
Algorithm 2: repeated stratified nested crossvalidation
 1.
Crossvalidation protocol P is to use Nexp1 repeated V1fold crossvalidation with a grid of K points α_{1}, α_{2},…, α_{K.} Designate by M the model chosen by application of the crossvalidation protocol P.
 2.
Repeat the following process Nexp2 times.
 a.
Stratify the output variable Y.
 b.
Divide the dataset D pseudorandomly into V2 folds making sure that each fold contains the same proportion of each of the Y strata.
 c.
For I from 1 to V2
 i.
Define set L as the dataset D without the Ith fold
 ii.
Define set T as the Ith fold of the dataset D
 iii.
Apply the crossvalidation protocol to select model f’, i.e. use Nexp1 repeated V1fold crossvalidation with a grid of K points α_{1}, α_{2},…, α_{K} to find an optimal crossvalidatory chosen model f’ on dataset L.
 iv.
Apply f’ on T
 i.
 d.
Calculate loss() for all elements of D. We refer to it as the nested crossvalidation error.
 a.
 3.
The interval between the minimum and maximum of Nexp2 nested crossvalidation errors is the Pestimated interval of the largesample error of model M. The mean of Nexp2 nested crossvalidation errors is the Pestimate of the largesample error of the model M.
We are not aware of any research finding which suggests that number of folds in the outer crossvalidation loop (V2) and number of folds in the inner crossvalidation loop (V1) need to be the same or different. Similarly, the number of repeats of the nested crossvalidation may or may not be equal to the number of repeats of the crossvalidation. We used nested crossvalidation with V1 = V2 = 10 and Nexp1 = Nexp2 = 50.
In addition to mean nested crossvalidation error we reported the minimum and maximum nested crossvalidation errors because the variability is such that reporting a single error value may be misleading.
Variable selection and parameter tuning
 1.
Divide the samples into K crossvalidation folds (groups) at random.
 2.For each fold k = 1,2,..,K
 a)
Find a subset of “good” predictors that show fairly strong (univariate) correlation with the class labels, using all of the samples except those in fold k.
 b)
Using just this subset of predictors, build a multivariate classifier, using all of the samples except those in fold k.
 c)
Use the classifier to predict the class labels for the sample in fold k.
 a)
The error estimates from step 2(c) are then accumulated over all K folds, to produce the crossvalidation estimate of the prediction error.
However, Hastie et al.[4] did not elaborate any further. As far as we are aware, there are two different ways to implement the above correctly, and we explain each in detail below.
When selecting variables and parameter tuning, our goal is to select the optimal number of variables and the optimal parameter values. Here, again, we can view this as a hyperparameter optimisation problem and apply grid search. Crossvalidation would be used for selecting the number of variables (n) and for tuning parameters (α) from a multidimensional grid (n, α), where n ∈ (1, 2,…, P) and α ∈ (α_{1}, α_{2},…, α_{K}). This requires only one crossvalidation loop because it treats each point in the multidimensional grid independently. We use the same notation as before with an additional variable selection method S, which for the sake of simplicity only takes two input parameters (number of variables to select and the dataset) and returns a new dataset with only the selected variables.
Algorithm 3: repeated gridsearch crossvalidation for variable selection and parameter tuning
 1.Repeat the following process Nexp times.
 a.
Divide the dataset D pseudorandomly into V folds
 b.
For I from 1 to V
 i.
Define set L as the dataset D without the Ith fold
 ii.
Define set T as the Ith fold of the dataset D
 iii.
For p from 1 to P
 c.
For each point in the grid (n, α) calculate loss() for all elements of D.
 a.
 1.
L’ = S(L; p); Define set L’ as set L with only p selected variables.
 2.
Define T’ as set T with only p selected variables as in L’.
 3.
For k from 1 to K
 a.
Build a statistical model f’ = f(L’; α^{ k })
 b.
Apply f’ on T’ and store predictions.
 2.
For each point in the grid (n, α) calculate average loss.
 3.
Define the pair (p’, α’) with minimal average loss as the optimal pair of number of selected variables and parameter values.
 4.
D’ = S(D; p’); define set D’ as D with only p’ selected predictor variables.
 5.
Select statistical model f’ = f(D’; α’) as the optimal model.
Double crossvalidation
Stone [2] suggested an algorithm under the name “double crossvalidation” which involves an additional (internal) crossvalidation for parameter tuning for each set of selected variables. As it contains an external and internal crossvalidation similar to nested crossvalidation, we have found that terms “double crossvalidation” and “nested crossvalidation” have been used in the literature with different meanings. We use the term “nested crossvalidation” as did Varma and Simon [9], meaning the model assessment procedure, and “double crossvalidation”, as did Stone [2], meaning the model selection procedure where variables are selected in addition to parameter tuning. Even though we are not using double crossvalidation, we consider it to be important to describe it in our context.
Algorithm 4: double crossvalidation
The double crossvalidatio algorithm consists of two steps.
 1.
Divide the dataset D pseudorandomly into V1 folds
 2.For I from 1 to V1
 a.
Define set L as the dataset D without the Ith fold
 b.
Define set T as the Ith fold of the dataset D
 c.For p from 1 to P
 i.
L’ = S(L; p); Define set L’ as set L with only p selected predictor variables.
 ii.
Define T’ as set T with only p selected predictors as in L’.
 iii.
Divide the dataset L’ pseudorandomly into V2 folds
 iv.For J from 1 to V2
 1.
Define set LL’ as the dataset L’ without Jth fold
 2.
Define set TL’ as the Jth fold of the dataset L’
 3.For k from 1 to K
 a.
Build a statistical model f’ = f(LL’; α^{ k })
 b.
Apply f’ on TL’ and store predictions.
 a.
 1.
 v.
For each α value calculate the loss() for all elements in L’.
 vi.
Define α’ as α value for which the loss function is minimal.
 vii.
Build a statistical model f’ = f(L’; α’)
 viii.
Apply f’ on T and store predictions
 i.
 a.
 3.
For each number of selected variables calculate loss() for all elements of D.
 4.
Define p’ as the number of selected variables for which the loss() is minimal.
 5.
Select p’ as the optimal crossvalidatory choice of number of selected variables.
 1.
D’ = S(D; p’); define set D’ as set D with only p’ selected predictor variables.
 2.
Divide the dataset D’ pseudorandomly into V folds
 3.For I from 1 to V
 a.
Define set L’ as the dataset D’ without Ith fold
 b.
Define set T’ as the Ith fold of the dataset D’
 c.For k from 1 to K
 i.
Build a statistical model f’ = f(L’; α^{ k })
 ii.
Apply f’ on T’ and store predictions.
 i.
 a.
 4.
For each α value calculate the loss() for all elements in D’
 5.
Let α’ be α value for which the loss is minimal.
 6.
Select α’ as the optimal crossvalidatory choice of tuning parameter and select statistical model f’ = f(D’; α’) as the optimal crossvalidatory chosen model.
We are not aware of any research that suggests using gridsearch in favour of double crossvalidation or vice versa. However, in our opinion, double crossvalidation as defined above should not be used when parameters used for tuning affect model complexity. For example, if we use a variable selection method and knearest neighbourhood, then both the number of selected variables and number of neighbours, k, directly affect model complexity. Therefore, in step 1 in the external loop we might choose different k for different L’ and for a fixed number of variables end up averaging over models with different model complexities. This cannot happen with gridsearch crossvalidation, because each point in the grid has a fixed number of selected variables and a fixed number of neighbours, k. Furthermore, each point in the grid is treated independently of all others. We used gridsearch crossvalidation in all experiments.
Preprocessing
As we mentioned earlier, it is a mistake to select variables prior to crossvalidation. However, it is worth noting that unsupervised screening procedures, like removing variables with near zero variance, in our opinion may be executed prior to the crossvalidation loop. In our examples we removed variables if the ratio of the most common value to the second most common value is higher than 95/5 = 19 or if the percentage of distinct values out of the number of total samples is less than 10. Furthermore, we removed variables that are linear combination of other variables. In a ‘complete’ dataset with all possible entries the removed variables may well have more variability or may not be linear combinations of other variables, but in our limited samples they either don’t have additional information (for linear combinations) or cannot be used in crossvalidation (variables with near zero variation).
The issue of removing variables prior to model building is, however, not without contention. Zhu et al.[11] focus on the bias that arises when a full data set is not available compared to the prediction rule that is formed by working with topranked variables from the full set.
Data sets
In this section, we report results of applying Algorithms 1–3 on seven QSAR datasets. Table 1 shows the summary of the datasets. Note that in this Section we sometimes use the term “descriptor” instead of “input variable” as is common in QSAR. We have used the following publicly available datasets from the QSARdata R package [12]:

AquaticTox contains negative log of toxic activity for 322 compounds. It was described and compiled by He and Jurs [13]. The package contains several sets of descriptors for this problem. We chose to use two dimensional MOE descriptors as an example, because when compared to other descriptor sets it generated better models (results not shown). There are 220 MOE 2D descriptors for each compound. However, during preprocessing we removed 30 descriptors with near zero variation and 6 descriptors that were linear combinations of others, leaving 184 descriptors for model building.

bbb2 contains blood–brain barrier categories (“crossing” or “not crossing”) for 80 compounds from Burns andWeaver [14]. There are 45 compounds categorised as “crossing” and 35 compounds as “not crossing”. The package contains several sets of descriptors for this problem. We chose to use LCALC descriptors as an example, because when compared to other descriptor sets it generated better models (results not shown). We had to remove chloramphenicol from the dataset because LCALC descriptors were not provided for it. There are 23 LCALC descriptors for each compound. During preprocessing we removed descriptor LCALC_NDA as it was a linear combinations of others, leaving 22 descriptors for model building.

caco contains permeability categories (“low”,“medium”,“high”) for 3796 compounds from PhamThe et al.[15]. There are 377 compounds categorised as “low”, 2029 compounds as “medium” and 1390 compounds as “high”. The package contains several sets of descriptors for this problem. As this is the only multi category dataset, we chose to use two sets of descriptors (PipelinePilotFP and QuickProp), because when compared to other descriptor sets they generated better models (results not shown). There are 5401 PipelinePilotFP descriptors for each compound. During preprocessing we removed 4503 descriptors with near zero variation and 519 descriptors that were linear combinations of others, leaving 379 PipelinePilotFP descriptors for model building. There are 51 QuickProp descriptors for each compound. During preprocessing we removed 4 descriptors with near zero variation, leaving 47 QuickProp descriptors for model building.

MeltingPoint containts melting points for 4126 compounds used for model building in Karthikeyan et al.[16]. In the QSARdata package there is one set of 202 descriptors. During preprocessing we removed 11 descriptors with near zero variation and 22 descriptors that were linear combinations of others, leaving 169 descriptors for model building.

Mutagen contains mutagenicity categories (“mutagen” or “nonmutagen”) for 4335 compounds from Kazius et al.[17]. There are 2400 compounds categorised as “mutagen” and 1935 compounds as “nonmutagen”. In the package there is one set of 1579 descriptors. During preprocessing we removed 281 descriptors with near zero variation and 15 descriptors that were linear combinations of others, leaving 1283 descriptors for model building.

PLD contains phospholipidosis categories (“inducer” or “noninducer”) for 324 compounds from Goracci et al.[18]. There are 124 compounds categorised as “inducer” and 200 compounds as “noninducer”. The package comes with several sets of descriptors for this problem. We chose to use PipelinePilotFP, because when compared to other descriptor sets it generated better models (results not shown). There are 2862 PipelinePilotFP descriptors for each compound. During preprocessing we removed 2183 descriptors with near zero variation and 371 descriptors that were linear combinations of others, leaving 308 descriptors for model building.
Seven QSAR datasets
Dataset  Output  Number of compounds  Number of descriptors after preprocessing 

AquaticTox  Numeric  322  184 
bbb2  2 Categories  79  22 
CacoPipelinePilotFP  3 Categories  3796  379 
CacoQuickProp  3 Categories  3796  47 
MeltingPoint  Numeric  4126  169 
Mutagen  2 Categories  4335  1283 
PLD  2 Categories  324  308 
Methods for prediction
In our examples we apply ridge regression and partialleast squares (PLS) on regression problems, while for classification problems we use ridge logistic regression and linear SVM coupled with Pearson’s rank based variable selection. We use sum of squared residuals and proportion misclassified as the loss functions for regression and classification, respectively.
The process of ranking and selecting P variables using Pearson’s correlation is as follows. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient is calculated between each input variable Xi and the output variable Y. The absolute values of the coefficients are sorted in descending order and the first P variables are selected. The method is quick and in our experience works well with the SVM classification method.
SVM is a widely used technique in solving classification problems. SVM performs classification by constructing an Ndimensional hyper plane that optimally separates the data into two categories. SVM is usually applied in conjunction with a kernel function, which is used to transform input data into a higherdimensional space where the construction of the hyperplane is easier. There are four basic SVM kernels: linear, polynomial, Radial Basis Function (RBF), and sigmoid. For the sake of simplicity we use linear SVM, which requires a parameter C (cost) to be supplied. We searched for the optimal model with values for C of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. We used the R package e1071 [19] for building SVM models.
Hoerl and Kennard [20] proposed ridge regression, a penalized least squares regression, to achieve better predictions in the presence of multicolinearity of predictors. In ridge regression the extent of coefficient shrinkage is determined by one parameter, usually referred to as lambda (λ), and it is inversely related to the model complexity. Applying ridge regression tends to improve prediction performance but it results in all small, but nonzero, regression coefficients. Friedman et al.[21] developed a fast algorithm for fitting generalised linear models with various penalties, and we used their glmnet R package [22] to apply ridge regression and ridge logistic regression for classification purposes. Typical usage is to let the glmnet function compute its own array of lambda values based on nlambda (number of lambda values – default is 100) and lambda.min.ratio (ratio between the maximum and minimum lambda value). We searched for the optimal model with nlambda = 100 and lambda.min.ratio = 10^{−6}.
PLS was introduced by Wold [23]. The method iteratively creates components, which are linear combination of input variables, with a goal of maximising variance and correlation with the output variable. The idea is to transform the input space of X_{1}, X_{2},…, X_{P} variables into a new hyper plane, with low dimensions, such that coordinates of the projections onto this hyper plane are good predictors of the output variable Y. As it is an iterative process, with each newly added component we increase complexity of the model. The method is very popular amongst QSAR modellers due to its simplicity and good results in highdimensional settings. We searched for the optimal model with a grid of number of components from 1 to 60. We used the R package pls [24] for building PLS models.
Results and experimental
Repeated crossvalidation
 1.
PLS on AquaticTox
 2.
Ridge regression on AquaticTox
 3.
Ridge logistic regression on bbb2
 4.
Ridge logistic regression on cacoPipelinePilotFP
 5.
Ridge logistic regression on cacoQuickProp
 6.
PLS on MeltingPoint
 7.
Ridge regression on MeltingPoint
 8.
Ridge logistic regression on Mutagen
 9.
Ridge logistic regression on PLD
Distribution of optimal parameters
PLS on aquaticTox  Number of components  10  11  12  13  14  15  
Frequency  1  9  9  23  6  2  
Ridge regression on AquaticTox  Lambda  ≤0.027  0.035  0.040  0.046  0.053  0.061  0.070  0.081  ≥0.093 
Frequency  6  5  7  8  4  6  10  6  2  
Ridge logistic regression on bbb2  Lambda  ≤0.09  0.10  0.12  0.14  0.16  0.18  0.21  0.24  ≥0.28 
Frequency  7  3  4  5  10  6  5  2  8  
Ridge logistic regression on cacoPipelinePilotFP  Lambda  <0.0046  0.0046  0.0053  0.0061  0.0070  0.0081  0.0093  0.0107  >0.0107 
Frequency  6  2  2  4  7  12  6  6  5  
Ridge logistic regression on cacoQuickProp  Lambda  ≤0.018  0.021  0.024  0.028  0.032  0.037  0.042  0.049  ≥0.056 
Frequency  7  2  8  7  7  7  4  4  4  
PLS on MeltingPoint  Number of components  3435  36  3740  41  4246  47  4851  57  60 
Frequency  7  7  6  8  7  8  5  1  1  
Ridge regression on MeltingPoint  Lambda  ≤0.031  0.036  0.042  0.048  0.055  0.063  0.073  0.084  ≥0.096 
Frequency  5  1  4  6  5  5  7  10  5  
Ridge logistic regression on Mutagen  Lambda  <0.0016  0.0016  0.0018  0.0021  0.0024  0.0031  0.0036  0.0042  >0.0042 
Frequency  7  2  1  6  5  8  4  6  7  
Ridge logistic regression on PLD  Lambda  ≤0.34  0.34  0.39  0.44  0.67  0.77  0.89  1.02  ≥1.17 
Frequency  10  2  3  2  1  5  5  5  19 
Nested crossvalidation
Selected optimal crossvalidatory chosen models
Dataset  Model  Lowest average cross_validation loss  Optimal parameter  Min grid value  Max grid value  Grid size 

AquaticTox  PLS  0.5948  13  1  60  60 
AquaticTox  Ridge  0.5767  0.05325  0.00107  1069.93  100 
bbb2  Ridge  0.1689  0.10494  0.00026  260  100 
CacoPipelinePilotFP  Ridge  0.0916  0.008058  0.00025  246  100 
CacoQuickProp  Ridge  0.1162  0.0279  0.00021  211  100 
MeltingPoint  PLS  45.5848  47  1  60  60 
MeltingPoint  Ridge  45.4370  0.0549  0.02734  27346.2  100 
Mutagen  Ridge  0.1889  0.003142  0.00017  168  100 
PLD  Ridge  0.1768  1.02431  0.00021  205.81  100 
Our goal is to show examples of nested crossvalidation results and its benefits, and not to analyse why one method or set of descriptors performed better than the other.
Variable selection and parameter tuning
Discussion
We sought to analyse and improve upon the existing crossvalidation practices in selection and assessment of regression and classification models. No single crossvalidation run provided for reliable selection of the best model on those datasets. Robust model selection required summarising the loss function across multiple repetitions of crossvalidation. The model selection behaviour of a particular dataset could only be discerned upon performing the repeated crossvalidation. Our model selection was based on average loss.
The nested crossvalidation loss estimates differed significantly compared with the crossvalidation estimates of the best model on at least cacoQuickProp, Melting Point Mutagen and PLD datasets. This confirms previous reports in the literature (Varma and Simon [9]).
Model assessment using repeated nested crossvalidation (Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) showed large variation of loss estimates across the nested crossvalidation runs. For example, the proportion misclassified estimate for bbb2 varied between approximately 0.13 and 0.23 (Figure 13). In practical terms, this means that the best model selected on this dataset may have largesample performance of anywhere between 13% and 23%. Whether this is adequate for a particular application is a domaindependent question, however we point out that the repeated nested crossvalidation provides the means to make an informed decision regarding the acceptance of the best model.
In all our examples we used 10fold crossvalidation. Kohavi [6] and Hastie et al.[4] empirically show that Vfold crossvalidation compared to leaveoneout crossvalidation has lower variance, and therefore tends to select simpler models. For some examples we executed 5fold crossvalidation and 5fold nested crossvalidation (results not shown), but did not observe a substantial difference from 10fold.
Table 3 shows the summary of optimal crossvalidatory chosen models for all nine datasets. When reporting the chosen parameter it is important to specify the details of the protocol, i.e. number of folds in crossvalidations, the grid width and size, as well as the number of repeats.
We mentioned previously that Dudoit and van der Laan [8] proved the asymptotics of the crossvalidatory choice for Vfold crossvalidation. However, Breiman et al.[25] have found in the case of selecting optimal tree size for classification tree models that the tree size with minimal crossvalidation error generates a model which generally overfits. Therefore, in Section 3.4.3 of their book Breiman et al.[25] define the one standard error rule (1 SE rule) for choosing an optimal tree size, and they implement it throughout the book. In order to calculate the standard error for single Vfold crossvalidation, accuracy needs to be calculated for each fold, and the standard error is calculated from V accuracies from each fold. Hastie et al.[4] define the 1 SE rule as selecting the most parsimonious model whose error is no more than one standard error above the error of the best model, and they suggest in several places using the 1 SE rule for general crossvalidation use. The main point of the 1 SE rule, with which we agree, is to choose the simplest model whose accuracy is comparable with the best model. However, when we repeat crossvalidations standard error becomes smaller and the 1 SE rule does not have any effect. We are proposing that the rule needs to be redefined in the repeated crossvalidation context.
There are situations where the practitioner just needs to find an optimal model and the issue of its assessment is not important. In those cases, it is not necessary to perform nested crossvalidation. However, in most practical applications with limited sample sizes, use of predictive models depends on reliable model assessment. As far as we are aware, nested crossvalidation is the best nonparametric approach for model assessment when crossvalidation is used for model selection. As we have mentioned before, nested crossvalidation estimate is not a property of the selected model, but rather comprises assessment of the selected model M and the protocol P used to select it. To reflect this fact, we introduced notation Pestimate to refer to nested crossvalidation estimate of the largesample performance of model M. As an example, consider crossvalidation of linear SVM with three cost values and five folds (protocol P1) vs. crossvalidation with seventeen cost values and five folds (protocol P2), and assume the minimum error rate is achieved by the same model M (i.e., same cost) in both experiments. The corresponding nested crossvalidations will, in general, yield two different Pestimates (P1estimate and P2estimate, respectively) of the model M performance. This is reflection of the fact that the two crossvalidations scanned different regions of hyperparameter space, and the two Pestimates reflect different information incorporated into the selected best model. Thus, the Pestimates of the selected model differ, since they describe performance of different (model, protocol) pairs. We argue that this characteristic of nested crossvalidation does not detract from its’ utility, however it is critically important to recognize it in order to properly interpret the results.
 1)
How we define the optimisation problem for minimising crossvalidation error estimates?
 2)
How we solve the optimisation problem?
Once we define an optimisation target, i.e. find parameters which minimise crossvalidation error estimate, our aim is to find the optimal solution. Grid search is not the only systematic approach to hyper parameter optimisation. Recently Bergstra and Bengio [29] gave the case for using random search, while in the past we used Nelder and Mead [30] method. Regardless of the search method we use, the goal is to find the optimal parameter. We suggest using grid search because it is simple to implement and its parallelisation in the cloud is trivial. In our practice we prefere dense grids and the answer to question how dense is usually related to the costs.
In our findings, sparse grids do not necessarily lead to simpler models nor reduced overfitting. In all our examples where we applied PLS with grid being number of components from 1 till 60 with step 1. If we had chosen a less dense grid with number of components from 5 till 60 with step 5, then on AquaticTox the crossvalidatory chosen number of components would be 15 (instead of 13 as with original dense grid), while on MeltingPoint the crossvalidatory chosen number of components would be 50 (instead of 47 as with original dense grid). As the consequence of using such a less dense grid, our crossvalidatory chosen model on both datasets would be more complex than the original dense grid.
It is important to note that both Stone [2] and Varma and Simon [9] use leaveoneout crossvalidation, while we use Vfold crossvalidation. The beauty of the leaveoneout crossvalidation is that it generates the same results each time it is executed, and there is no need to repeat it. So it is possible to execute only single leaveoneout crossvalidation and single nested leaveoneout crossvalidation. However, as we have pointed out earlier, leaveoneout tends to select models with higher variances, which lead to overfitting, and for that reason we use Vfold crossvalidation.
The computational cost is usually mentioned as the main drawback of nested crossvalidation. In our examples, we repeat 50 times 10fold nested crossvalidation which means that for nine examples we performed 500 times full model selection process, where each model selection consists of 50 times repeated 10fold crossvalidation. Various authors proposed simplifications which obviate the need for the extensive computations. Tibshirani and Tibshirani [31] propose a bias correction for the minimum error rate in crossvalidation which does not require additional computation. Bernau et al.[32] suggest another correction which would reduce the computational costs associated with nested crossvalidation. We propose that the computational cost of performing repeated crossvalidation and nested crossvalidation in the cloud have reached a level where the use of substitutes to full nested crossvalidation are no longer justified.
In discovery research projects there are experimental costs associated with the training samples. At a certain point in the project, the following question is usually asked: Will the additional data improve our predictive models and, if so, by how much? If the samples are generated randomly from the same population, then additional data will always improve the predictive model. However, the question is whether the additional costs of performing experiments will pay off in improvements to the model. In our opinion, here we can see the practical value of nested crossvalidation. In case of Mutagen dataset, or even cacoPipelinePilotFP, where intervals of nested crossvalidation errors are narrow and similar to crossvalidations’, we can conclude that if we randomly remove 10% of samples, the quality of models remains almost the same. So we can say that additional increase of 10% of sample size will not significantly improve our current models.
Our results show that repetition is an essential component of reliable model assessment based on nested crossvalidation. Any single nested crossvalidation run cannot be used for assessing the error of an optimal model, because of its variance. We demonstrated the use of repeated nested crossvalidation in order to get an interval of the estimate.
Furthermore, we demonstrated that there are datasets (for example, AquaticTox) where the interval of nested crossvalidation errors is wide, and in which cases the user must assess the suitability of the model for the task in hand. We think that these situations point to the inadequacy of the dataset itself, rather than inadequacy of the nested crossvalidation method. In such cases the application of repeated nested crossvalidation points to the need to collect additional samples/compounds and/or alternative descriptors.
Conclusions
Selection and assessment of predictive models require repeated crossvalidation and nested crossvalidation. The advent of affordable cloud computing resources makes these methods widely accessible. In our opinion, the ability to economically use large amounts of computer power over the cloud changes the perception of what is feasible and what is necessary to perform when selecting and assessing models.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Cyprotex Discovery Ltd for paying the costs of publishing the article. DK would like to thank dr Miloš Ivanović from the Faculty of Science at the University of Kragujevac for his help with cloud computing. We also thank two anonymous referees who gave useful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Allen DM: The relationship between variable selection and data agumentation and a method for prediction. Technometrics. 1974, 16 (1): 125127. 10.1080/00401706.1974.10489157.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Stone M: Crossvalidatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J Roy Stat Soc B Met. 1974, 36, No. 2: 111147.Google Scholar
 Geisser S: The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc. 1975, 70 (350): 320328. 10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J: The elements of statistical learning. 2009, New York: SpringerView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Breiman L, Spector P: Submodel selection and evaluation in regression. The xrandom case. Int Stat Rev. 1992, 60 (3): 291319. 10.2307/1403680.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kohavi R: A study of crossvalidation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. IJCAI. 1995, 11371145.Google Scholar
 Chang CC, Lin CJ: LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST). 2011, 2 (3): 27Google Scholar
 Dudoit S, van der Laan MJ: Asymptotics of crossvalidated risk estimation in estimator selection and performance assessment. Stat Meth. 2005, 2 (2): 131154. 10.1016/j.stamet.2005.02.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Varma S, Simon R: Bias in error estimation when using crossvalidation for model selection. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006, 7 (1): 9110.1186/14712105791.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ambroise C, McLachlan GJ: Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray geneexpression data. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002, 99 (10): 65626566. 10.1073/pnas.102102699.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhu X, Ambroise C, McLachlan GJ: Selection bias in working with the top genes in supervised classification of tissue samples. Stat Meth. 2006, 3 (1): 2941. 10.1016/j.stamet.2005.09.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 QSARdata. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/QSARdata,
 He L, Jurs PC: Assessing the reliability of a QSAR model’s predictions. J Mol Graph Model. 2005, 23 (6): 503523. 10.1016/j.jmgm.2005.03.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Burns J, Weaver DF: A mathematical model for prediction of drug molecule diffusion across the blood–brain barrier. Can J Neurol Sci. 2004, 31 (4): 520527.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 PhamThe H, GonzálezÁlvarez I, Bermejo M, Garrigues T, LeThiThu H, CabreraPérez MÁ: The use of rulebased and QSPR approaches in ADME profiling: a case study on caco2 permeability. Molecular Informatics. 2013, 32 (5–6): 459479.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Karthikeyan M, Glen RC, Bender C: General melting point prediction based on a diverse compound data set and artificial neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 2005, 45 (3): 581590. 10.1021/ci0500132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R: Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem. 2005, 48 (1): 312320. 10.1021/jm040835a.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Goracci L, Ceccarelli M, Bonelli D, Cruciani G: Modeling phospholipidosis induction: reliability and warnings. J Chem Inf Model. 2013, 53 (6): 14361446. 10.1021/ci400113t.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 e1071. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/e1071,
 Hoerl AE, Kennard RW: Ridge regression iterative estimation of the biasing parameter. Commun Stat. 1976, 5 (1): 7788. 10.1080/03610927608827333.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R: Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Software. 2010, 33 (1): 1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 glmnet. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/glmnet,
 Wold H: Soft modeling by latent variables: the nonlinear iterative partial least squares approach. Perspectives in probability and statistics, papers in honour of MS Bartlett. 1975, 520540.Google Scholar
 pls. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/pls,
 Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ: Classification and regression trees. 1984, Monterey, CA: Wadsworth & BrooksGoogle Scholar
 Arlot S, Celisse A: A survey of crossvalidation procedures for model selection. Stat Surv. 2010, 4: 4079. 10.1214/09SS054.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Burman P: A comparative study of ordinary crossvalidation, vfold crossvalidation and the repeated learningtesting methods. Biometrika. 1989, 76 (3): 503514.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Arlot S: Vfold crossvalidation improved: Vfold penalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:0802.0566. 2008Google Scholar
 Bergstra J, Bengio Y: Random search for hyperparameter optimization. J Mach Learn Res. 2012, 13: 281305.Google Scholar
 Nelder JA, Mead R: A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J. 1965, 7 (4): 308313. 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tibshirani RJ, Tibshirani R: A bias correction for the minimum error rate in crossvalidation. Ann Appl Stat. 2009, 3 (1): 822829.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bernau C, Augustin T, Boulesteix AL: Correcting the optimal resampling‒based error rate by estimating the error rate of wrapper algorithms. Biometrics. 2013, 69 (3): 693702. 10.1111/biom.12041.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.