REVIEW 1 cited by
Quality of Data in Machine Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
A common assumption exists according to which machine learning models improve their performance when they have more data to learn from. In this study, the authors wished to clarify the dilemma by performing an empirical experiment utilizing novel vocational student data. The experiment compared different machine learning algorithms while varying the number of data and feature combinations available for training and testing the models. The experiment revealed that the increase of data records or their sample frequency does not immediately lead to significant increases in the model accuracies or performance, however the variance of accuracies does diminish in the case of ensemble models. Similar phenomenon was witnessed while increasing the number of input features for the models. The study refutes the starting assumption and continues to state that in this case the significance in data lies in the quality of the data instead of the quantity of the data.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Comparative Study of Open-Source Libraries for Synthetic Tabular Data Generation: SDV vs. SynthCity
On one energy-consumption dataset, Synthcity's Bayesian Network had the highest statistical fidelity and SDV's TVAE the best predictive utility at 1:10 scale, with no clear library winner.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.