Paper detail

The Structure of Cross-Validation Error: Stability, Covariance, and Minimax Limits

Despite ongoing theoretical research on cross-validation (CV), many theoretical questions remain widely open. This motivates our investigation into how properties of algorithm-distribution pairs can affect the choice for the number of folds in $k$-fold CV. Our results consist of a novel decomposition of the mean-squared error of cross-validation for risk estimation, which explicitly captures the correlations of error estimates across overlapping folds and includes a novel algorithmic stability notion, squared loss stability, that is considerably weaker than the typically required hypothesis stability in other comparable works. Furthermore, we prove: 1. For any learning algorithm that minimizes empirical risk, the mean-squared error of the $k$-fold cross-validation estimator $\widehat{L}_{\mathrm{CV}}^{(k)}$ of the population risk $L_{D}$ satisfies the following minimax lower bound: \[ \min_{k \mid n} \max_{D} \mathbb{E}\left[\big(\widehat{L}_{\mathrm{CV}}^{(k)} - L_{D}\big)^{2}\right]=Ω\big(\sqrt{k^*}/n\big), \] where $n$ is the sample size, $k$ the number of folds, and $k^*$ denotes the number of folds attaining the minimax optimum. This shows that even under idealized conditions, for large values of $k$, CV cannot attain the optimum of order $1/n$ achievable by a validation set of size $n$, reflecting an inherent penalty caused by dependence between folds. 2. Complementing this, we exhibit learning rules for which \[ \max_{D}\mathbb{E}\!\left[\big(\widehat{L}_{\mathrm{CV}}^{(k)} - L_{D}\big)^{2}\right]=Ω(k/n), \] matching (up to constants) the accuracy of a hold-out estimator of a single fold of size $n/k$. Together these results delineate the fundamental trade-off in resampling-based risk estimation: CV cannot fully exploit all $n$ samples for unbiased risk evaluation, and its minimax performance is pinned between the $k/n$ and $\sqrt{k}/n$ regimes.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.