Paper detail

MDAS: A Diagnostic Approach to Assess the Quality of Data Splitting in Machine Learning

In the field of machine learning, model performance is usually assessed by randomly splitting data into training and test sets. Different random splits, however, can yield markedly different performance estimates, so a genuinely good model may be discarded or a poor one selected purely due to an unlucky partition. This motivates a principled way to diagnose the quality of a given data split. We propose a diagnostic framework based on a new discrepancy measure, the Mahalanobis Distribution Alignment Score (MDAS). MDAS is a symmetric dissimilarity measure between two multivariate samples, rather than a strict metric. MDAS captures both mean and covariance differences and is affine invariant. Building on this, we construct a Monte Carlo test that evaluates whether an observed split is statistically compatible with typical random splits, yielding an interpretable p-value for split quality. Using several real data sets, we study the relationship between MDAS and model robustness, including its association with the normalized Akaike information criterion. Finally, we apply MDAS to compare existing state-of-the-art deterministic data-splitting strategies with standard random splitting. The experimental results show that MDAS provides a simple, model-agnostic tool for auditing data splits and improving the reliability of empirical model evaluation.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.