Qm

Cross-validation with overlapping labels leaks the future

You build a signal to predict each day's forward 20-day return. You evaluate it with ordinary random 1010-fold cross-validation: shuffle all the daily observations, split into 1010 folds, train on nine, validate on one. The cross-validated accuracy looks excellent. Live, the signal disappoints badly.

Explain why this cross-validation is over-optimistic and what resampling scheme fixes it.

Your answer

Solving needs a free account

Answers, streaks and solutions unlock when you are signed in. Reading the question and the hint stays free.

Discussion

Sign in to join the discussion · reading is open to everyone

💡 Discussion rules

  1. No full solutions here. Hints and approaches only.
  2. Complexity, edge cases and intuition are the point.
  3. Interview experiences are welcome. Respect your NDAs.

Loading discussion…

Learn the concepts

The theory behind this question.

Related questions

Cross-validation, and why it is dangerous on time seriesCross-validation, and the leaks that silently inflate itHow big is each validation fold in k-fold CV?How many models does leave-one-out CV train?Model fits for k-fold CV with a hyperparameter gridGreat in-sample, great in CV, dead live, what happened?
All questions →