The Impossible Trinity of Time-Series Validation: A Conservation Law among Training Sufficiency, Test Coverage, and Temporal Causality
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:The Impossible Trinity of Time-Series Validation: A Conservation Law among Training Sufficiency, Test Coverage, and Temporal Causality
Abstract:Validating a model on a time series asks for three things at once: each training run should use most of the sample (sufficiency), the test sets should together cover most of the sample (coverage), and training data should come before test data (causality). We prove that the three cannot be had together and price each one. Let $\alpha$ be the smallest training fraction over folds, $\beta$ the fraction of the sample covered by tests, $\Lambda$ the fraction of the sample used as training data from the future of a test point, and $\delta$ the distance from a test point to the nearest training point in its future. Every scheme on a sample of length $T$ satisfies $\alpha+\beta \le 1+\Lambda$ and $\alpha+\min\{\beta,\delta/T\} \le 1$, and under $\beta$-mixing the leakage bias at a test point is at most $2M\beta_{\mathrm{mix}}(\delta)$. In words: going beyond the causal frontier $\alpha+\beta=1$ requires training on the future; that future data must sit within $(1-\alpha)T$ of a test point; and its harm depends on its distance, not its amount. Hence expanding walk-forward is exactly the Pareto frontier of causal validation, $k$-fold cross-validation buys the most future data, and purged $k$-fold with an embargo pays in distance instead, which is cheap when the process forgets quickly but cannot repair the part of causality demanded by non-stationarity. On pure noise, shuffled 5-fold reports an information coefficient of $+0.32$, while contiguous 5-fold, using the same amount of future data, reports $+0.004$.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Statistical Finance (q-fin.ST); Machine Learning (stat.ML) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.29530 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2609.29530v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.29530
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Stable and Faithful Explanations for Knowledge Tracing
Sep 25
-
SMILESGNN: Interpretable Clinical Toxicity Prediction via SMILES-Graph Cross-Attention Fusion
Sep 25
-
CFD Correction of Open Tip Clearance Flow in a Compressor Cascade Using VAE Latent Space Adaptation
Sep 25
-
CARE: Condition-Aware Representation Regularization for Diffusion Models
Sep 25
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.