Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions¶
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111-147.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Overfitting
- Supports disciplined modeling: out-of-sample testing, cross-validation, and regularization are deliberate responses to overfitting risk
This sourceFoundational paper formalizing cross-validation, holdout sets, and predictive-error estimation as the core machinery of model validation in statistics and machine learning.
- Supports disciplined modeling: out-of-sample testing, cross-validation, and regularization are deliberate responses to overfitting risk
- Validation
- Machine learning & statistics: Holdout validation sets; cross-validation to estimate model generalization, as Stone (1974) formalized in his foundational treatment; testing on held-out temporal windows (time-series validation); out-of-distribution (OOD) validation to check behavior on unfamiliar inputs; calibration validation (checking whether predicted probability matches observed frequency).
This sourceFoundational paper formalizing cross-validation, holdout sets, and predictive-error estimation as the core machinery of model validation in statistics and machine learning.
- Machine learning & statistics: Holdout validation sets; cross-validation to estimate model generalization, as Stone (1974) formalized in his foundational treatment; testing on held-out temporal windows (time-series validation); out-of-distribution (OOD) validation to check behavior on unfamiliar inputs; calibration validation (checking whether predicted probability matches observed frequency).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:3fbe85f29b90 · see in the full table