aiqbench analysis
This research addresses critical flaws in AutoML evaluation by proposing a method to ensure statistical similarity between training and testing sets, thereby preventing performance instability caused by distributional shifts. By optimizing for Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) rather than relying on geometry-based splits that often yield near-zero scores, the study offers a more robust framework for benchmarking machine learning models across datasets with class imbalance or spatial autocorrelation.
Enhancing Automated Machine Learning via Homogeneous Train-Test Splitting Methods
arXiv:2607.26625v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Accurate model evaluation in machine learning depends critically on how datasets are split into training and testing subsets. Standard random splitting assumes that both partitions share the same underlying distribution, an assumption often violated in datasets with class imbalance, natural clustering, or spatial autocorrelation. This paper investigates the role of statistical similarity in train-test splitting and its consequences for AutoML model evaluation. Five established strategies are compared across fifteen UCI benchmark datasets: random splitting, stratified sampling, Kennard-Stone, Duplex, and SPXY. Similarity is assessed using chi-square, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) tests. Geometry-based methods consistently produce near-zero MMD scores, introducing instability into downstream performance estimates. The proposed Optimised-Distribution method treats similarity as an explicit optimisation objective and achieves the highest mean MMD similarity, 89.0%, across all strategies evaluated.
Abstract:Accurate model evaluation in machine learning depends critically on how datasets are split into training and testing subsets. Standard random splitting assumes that both partitions share the same underlying distribution, an assumption often violated in datasets with class imbalance, natural clustering, or spatial autocorrelation. This paper investigates the role of statistical similarity in train-test splitting and its consequences for AutoML model evaluation. Five established strategies are compared across fifteen UCI benchmark datasets: random splitting, stratified sampling, Kennard-Stone, Duplex, and SPXY. Similarity is assessed using chi-square, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) tests. Geometry-based methods consistently produce near-zero MMD scores, introducing instability into downstream performance estimates. The proposed Optimised-Distribution method treats similarity as an explicit optimisation objective and achieves the highest mean MMD similarity, 89.0%, across all strategies evaluated.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2607.26625 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2607.26625v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.26625 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 222 words
Related coverage
Multimodal Ordinal Modeling of Alzheimer's Disease Severity Using Structural MRI and Clinical Data
arXiv · Jun 12, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · Aug 27, 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026