3 ms·
The link is not to the paper itself but to a response to the paper, this might be (is probably?) intentional but the title is a bit confusing. Essentially the
by andersource 6y ago
The link is not to the paper itself but to a response to the paper, this might be (is probably?) intentional but the title is a bit confusing.
Essentially the response, submitted by several ML / CS / math researchers, addresses a note in the paper which recommends against train/test split in model training, calling it "inefficient". The response is dedicated to explaining what generalization error is and why estimating it is important, and how that's basically impossible without any sort of train/test split or cross-validation.
- mumblemumble 6y agoThe article is there, if you click on the "Article" tab. Perhaps if any staff are paying attention on the holiday, we could get the "/rr" chopped off the end of the link, so that we get to the main article instead?
- andersource 6y agoMy guess is that OP intended to submit the response, I was really surprised to see the note in the article and found the response interesting (even the fact of its existence). But that's just my take :)
- mumblemumble 6y agoI suppose, but then you'd expect a different title on the HN submission, since the response has barely anything to do with sample sizes.