Correcting the optimal resampling-based error rate by estimating the error rate of wrapper algorithms
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026

Selecting Multiple Biomarker Subsets with Similarly Effective Binary Classification Performances
Published on: October 11, 2018
Christoph Bernau1, Thomas Augustin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix
1Department for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany.
Abstract:
High-dimensional binary classification tasks, for example, the classification of microarray samples into normal and cancer tissues, usually involve a tuning parameter. By reporting the performance of the best tuning parameter value only, over-optimistic prediction errors are obtained. For correcting this tuning bias, we develop a new method which is based on a decomposition of the unconditional error rate involving the tuning procedure, that is, we estimate the error rate of wrapper algorithms as introduced in the context of internal cross-validation (ICV) by Varma and Simon (2006, BMC Bioinformatics 7, 91). Our subsampling-based estimator can be written as a weighted mean of the errors obtained using the different tuning parameter values, and thus can be interpreted as a smooth version of ICV, which is the standard approach for avoiding tuning bias. In contrast to ICV, our method guarantees intuitive bounds for the corrected error. Additionally, we suggest to use bias correction methods also to address the conceptually similar method selection bias that results from the optimal choice of the classification method itself when evaluating several methods successively. We demonstrate the performance of our method on microarray and simulated data and compare it to ICV. This study suggests that our approach yields competitive estimates at a much lower computational price.
Related Concept Videos
Contaminants and Errors
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
Margin of Error
Bootstrapping
