Neural networks are usually evaluated by dividing a dataset into three splits:

  • training,
  • validation, and
  • test

The idea is that critical hyperparameters of the network such as the number of epochs and the learning rate can be tuned by testing the network on the validation data while keeping the test data completely unseen until a final evaluation that happens only after the hyperparameters have been tuned.

However, if the amount of data is very small (e.g. 10-20 examples per class), then dividing the dataset into three splits may negatively impact the model due to lack of training data, and two splits is therefore preferable. A two split approach that makes a reasonable amount of data available for training is ten-fold stratified cross validation.

My question is -- is it statistically sound to tune hyperparameters by repeatedly evaluating hyperparameter sets using cross validation? Keep in mind that there is no held-out test data in this case, as the amount of available data is too small. I'd like some evidence/citations if possible showing that specifically for small datasets, this is the best approach for estimating the best hyperparameters that lead to the best generalizable model. Or if there is another approach that is better, I'd like to learn about that too.


1 Answer 1


I no longer really use validation that much, but rather only training and testing. Why? Because I mostly follow Ron Kohavi's (Stanford Univ) approach to CV. I have done a lot of validation but it seemed to be overkill, essentially causing me to ask why I have this very small-sampled parameter watch on the side from which I am supposed to learn from. You know if an ANN is overfitting when the training error diverges away from testing error -- it's an indication the model is breaking up.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .