Imports:

# All Imports
import os
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.calibration import LabelEncoder
import seaborn as sns
import matplotlib.image as mpimg
import cv2
import numpy as np
import pickle

# Tensflor and Keras Layer and Model and Optimize and Loss
import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow import keras
from keras import Sequential
from keras.layers import *

#Kernel Intilizer 
from keras.optimizers import Adamax

# PreTrained Model
from keras.applications import *

#Early Stopping
from keras.callbacks import EarlyStopping
import warnings 

Warnings Suppression | Configuration

# Warnings Remove 
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore")

# Define the base path for the training folder
base_path = 'jaguar_cheetah/train'

# Weights file
weights_file = 'Model_train_weights.weights.h5'

# Path to the saved or to save the model:
model_file = 'Model-cheetah_jaguar_Treined.keras'

# Model history
history_path = 'training_history_cheetah_jaguar.pkl'

# Initialize lists to store file paths and labels
filepaths = []
labels = []

# Iterate over folders and files within the training directory
for folder in ['Cheetah', 'Jaguar']:
  folder_path = os.path.join(base_path, folder)
  for filename in os.listdir(folder_path):
    file_path = os.path.join(folder_path, filename)
    filepaths.append(file_path)
    labels.append(folder)

# Create the TRAINING dataframe
file_path_series = pd.Series(filepaths , name= 'filepath')
Label_path_series = pd.Series(labels , name = 'label')
df_train = pd.concat([file_path_series ,Label_path_series ] , axis = 1)


# Define the base path for the test folder
directory = "jaguar_cheetah/test"

filepath =[]
label = []

folds = os.listdir(directory)

for fold in folds:
  f_path = os.path.join(directory , fold)
  
  imgs = os.listdir(f_path)
  
  for img in imgs:
    
    img_path = os.path.join(f_path , img)
    filepath.append(img_path)
    label.append(fold)
    
# Create the TEST dataframe
file_path_series = pd.Series(filepath , name= 'filepath')
Label_path_series = pd.Series(label , name = 'label')
df_test = pd.concat([file_path_series ,Label_path_series ] , axis = 1)

# Display the first rows of the dataframe for verification
#print(df_train)

# Folders with Training and Test files
data_dir = 'jaguar_cheetah/train'
test_dir = 'jaguar_cheetah/test'

# Image size 256x256
IMAGE_SIZE = (256,256) 

Tain | Test

#print('Training Images:')

# Create the TRAIN dataframe
train_ds = tf.keras.utils.image_dataset_from_directory(
  data_dir,
  validation_split=0.1,
  subset='training',
  seed=123,
  image_size=IMAGE_SIZE,
  batch_size=32)

#Testing Data
#print('Validation Images:')
validation_ds = tf.keras.utils.image_dataset_from_directory(
  data_dir, 
  validation_split=0.1,
  subset='validation',
  seed=123,
  image_size=IMAGE_SIZE,
  batch_size=32)

print('Testing Images:')
test_ds = tf.keras.utils.image_dataset_from_directory(
  test_dir, 
  seed=123,
  image_size=IMAGE_SIZE,
  batch_size=32)

# Extract labels
train_labels = train_ds.class_names
test_labels = test_ds.class_names
validation_labels = validation_ds.class_names

# Encode labels
# Defining the class labels
class_labels = ['CHEETAH', 'JAGUAR'] 

# Instantiate (encoder) LabelEncoder
label_encoder = LabelEncoder()

# Fit the label encoder on the class labels
label_encoder.fit(class_labels)

# Transform the labels for the training dataset
train_labels_encoded = label_encoder.transform(train_labels)

# Transform the labels for the validation dataset
validation_labels_encoded = label_encoder.transform(validation_labels)

# Transform the labels for the testing dataset
test_labels_encoded = label_encoder.transform(test_labels)

# Normalize the pixel values

# Train files 
train_ds = train_ds.map(lambda x, y: (x / 255.0, y))
# Validate files
validation_ds = validation_ds.map(lambda x, y: (x / 255.0, y))
# Test files
test_ds = test_ds.map(lambda x, y: (x / 255.0, y))

#TRAINING VISUALIZATION
#Count the occurrences of each category in the column
count = df_train['label'].value_counts()

# Create a figure with 2 subplots
fig, axs = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(12, 6), facecolor='white')

# Plot a pie chart on the first subplot
palette = sns.color_palette("viridis")
sns.set_palette(palette)
axs[0].pie(count, labels=count.index, autopct='%1.1f%%', startangle=140)
axs[0].set_title('Distribution of Training Categories')

# Plot a bar chart on the second subplot
sns.barplot(x=count.index, y=count.values, ax=axs[1], palette="viridis")
axs[1].set_title('Count of Training Categories')

# Adjust the layout
plt.tight_layout()

# Visualize
plt.show()

# TEST VISUALIZATION
count = df_test['label'].value_counts()

# Create a figure with 2 subplots
fig, axs = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(12, 6), facec...

Advances in neuroimaging, genomic, motion tracking, eye-tracking and many other technology-based data collection methods have led to a torrent of high dimensional datasets, which commonly have a small number of samples because of the intrinsic high cost of data collection involving human participants. High dimensional data with a small number of samples is of critical importance for identifying biomarkers and conducting feasibility and pilot work, however it can lead to biased machine learning (ML) performance estimates. Our review of studies which have applied ML to predict autistic from non-autistic individuals showed that small sample size is associated with higher reported classification accuracy. Thus, we have investigated whether this bias could be caused by the use of validation methods which do not sufficiently control overfitting. Our simulations show that K-fold Cross-Validation (CV) produces strongly biased performance estimates with small sample sizes, and the bias is still evident with sample size of 1000. Nested CV and train/test split approaches produce robust and unbiased performance estimates regardless of sample size. We also show that feature selection if performed on pooled training and testing data is contributing to bias considerably more than parameter tuning. In addition, the contribution to bias by data dimensionality, hyper-parameter space and number of CV folds was explored, and validation methods were compared with discriminable data. The results suggest how to design robust testing methodologies when working with small datasets and how to interpret the results of other studies based on what validation method was used.

The MS Training Set, MS Validation Set, and UW Validation/Test Set are used for training, validation, and testing the proposed methods.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Anna

Contents

Blockchain data dashboard: test validation

This is the database for full model training and evaluation for LPM

This is a program that takes in a description of a cryptographic algorithm implementation's capabilities, and generates test vectors to ensure the implementation conforms to the standard. After generating the test vectors, the program also validates the correctness of the responses from the user.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Md. Bokhtiar Nadeem Shawon

Released under Apache 2.0

Contents

Given are the training, test and validation performance as measured by Sensitivity (SE) and Positive Predictive Value (PPV). The training and test performances are computed with a 4-fold cross validation on the training set. In the validation step, iSIS was applied to the entire images for taxa detection and the detection results were compared to our gold standard by computing SE and PPV. The performance decreases significantly from the test data to the validation due to an increase in FP. The last row shows SE and PPV results after a careful re-evaluation of the FP (see text for details) yielding our final estimates for iSIS’ SE and PPV. The last column shows the correlation between object counts of the gold standard items and the machine detection result for the full transect.

Many e-shops have started to mark-up product data within their HTML pages using the schema.org vocabulary. The Web Data Commons project regularly extracts such data from the Common Crawl, a large public web crawl. The Web Data Commons Training and Test Sets for Large-Scale Product Matching contain product offers from different e-shops in the form of binary product pairs (with corresponding label “match” or “no match”) for four product categories, computers, cameras, watches and shoes. In order to support the evaluation of machine learning-based matching methods, the data is split into training, validation and test sets. For each product category, we provide training sets in four different sizes (2.000-70.000 pairs). Furthermore there are sets of ids for each training set for a possible validation split (stratified random draw) available. The test set for each product category consists of 1.100 product pairs. The labels of the test sets were manually checked while those of the training sets were derived using shared product identifiers from the Web weak supervision. The data stems from the WDC Product Data Corpus for Large-Scale Product Matching - Version 2.0 which consists of 26 million product offers originating from 79 thousand websites. For more information and download links for the corpus itself, please follow the links below.

File Validation and Training Statistics

Validation, Training, and Testing Statistics for tasksource/leandojo Files

By tasksource (From Huggingface) [source]

About this dataset

The tasksource/leandojo: File Validation, Training, and Testing Statistics dataset is a comprehensive collection of information regarding the validation, training, and testing processes of files in the tasksource/leandojo repository. This dataset is essential for gaining insights into the file management practices within this specific repository.

The dataset consists of three distinct files: validation.csv, train.csv, and test.csv. Each file serves a unique purpose in providing statistics and information about the different stages involved in managing files within the repository.

In validation.csv, you will find detailed information about the validation process undergone by each file. This includes data such as file paths within the repository (file_path), full names of each file (full_name), associated commit IDs (commit), traced tactics implemented (traced_tactics), URLs pointing to each file (url), and respective start and end dates for validation.

train.csv focuses on providing valuable statistics related to the training phase of files. Here, you can access data such as file paths within the repository (file_path), full names of individual files (full_name), associated commit IDs (commit), traced tactics utilized during training activities (traced_tactics), URLs linking to each specific file undergoing training procedures (url).

Lastly, test.csv encompasses pertinent statistics concerning testing activities performed on different files within the tasksource/leandojo repository. This data includes information such as file paths within the repo structure (file_path), full names assigned to each individual file tested (full_name) , associated commit IDs linked with these files' versions being tested(commit) , traced tactics incorporated during testing procedures regarded(traced_tactics) ,relevant URLs directing to specific tested files(url).

By exploring this comprehensive dataset consisting of three separate CSV files - validation.csv, train.csv, test.csv - researchers can gain crucial insights into how effective strategies pertaining to validating ,training or testing tasks have been implemented in order to maintain high-quality standards within the tasksource/leandojo repository

How to use the dataset

• Familiarize Yourself with the Dataset Structure:

  • The dataset consists of three separate files: validation.csv, train.csv, and test.csv.
  • Each file contains multiple columns providing different information about file validation, training, and testing.

• Explore the Columns:

  • 'file_path': This column represents the path of the file within the repository.
  • 'full_name': This column displays the full name of each file.
  • 'commit': The commit ID associated with each file is provided in this column.
  • 'traced_tactics': The tactics traced in each file are listed in this column.
  • 'url': This column provides the URL of each file.

• Understand Each File's Purpose:

Validation.csv - This file contains information related to the validation process of files in the tasksource/leandojo repository.

Train.csv - Utilize this file if you need statistics and information regarding the training phase of files in tasksource/leandojo repository.

Test.csv - For insights into statistics and information about testing individual files within tasksource/leandojo repository, refer to this file.

• Generate Insights & Analyze Data:
• Once you have a clear understanding of each column's purpose, you can start generating insights from your analysis using various statistical techniques or machine learning algorithms.

• Explore patterns or trends by examining specific columns such as 'traced_tactics' or analyzing multiple columns together.

• Combine Multiple Files (if necessary):

• If required, you can merge/correlate data across different csv files based on common fields such as 'file_path', 'full_name', or 'commit'.

• Visualize the Data (Optional):

• To enhance your analysis, consider creating visualizations such as plots, charts, or graphs. Visualization can offer a clear representation of patterns or relationships within the dataset.

• Obtain Further Information:

• If you need additional details about any specific file, make use of the provided 'url' column to access further information.

Remember that this guide provides a general overview of how to utilize this dataset effectively. Feel ...

This dataset describes the training, validation and test dataset used for the development of a hybrid ANN coagulation model.

Dataset

This dataset was created by sebascabrera12

Contents

The datasets were used to validate and test the data pipeline deployment following the RADON approach. The dataset has a CSV file that contains around 32000 Twitter tweets. 100 CSV files have been created from the single CSV file and each CSV file containing 320 tweets. Those 100 CSV files are used to validate and test (performance/load testing) the data pipeline components.

Snapshot img

AI Testing And Validation Market Size 2025-2029

The ai testing and validation market size is valued to increase by USD 806.7 million, at a CAGR of 18.3% from 2024 to 2029. Proliferation of complex AI models, particularly generative AI will drive the ai testing and validation market.

Market Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 40% growth during the 2025-2029.
By Application - Test automation segment was valued at USD 218.70 million in 2023
By Deployment - Cloud based segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2023

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 360.90 million 
Market Future Opportunities 2024: USD 806.70 million
CAGR from 2024 to 2029 : 18.3%

Market Summary

The market is witnessing significant growth due to the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across various industries. The proliferation of complex AI models, particularly generative AI, is driving the need for robust testing and validation processes to ensure accuracy, reliability, and security. The convergence of AI validation with MLOps (Machine Learning Operations) and the shift left imperative are key trends shaping the market. The black box nature of advanced AI systems poses a challenge in testing and validation, as traditional testing methods may not be effective. Organizations are seeking standardized metrics and tools to assess the performance, fairness, and explainability of AI models. For instance, in a supply chain optimization scenario, a retailer uses AI to predict demand and optimize inventory levels. Effective AI testing and validation are crucial to ensure the accuracy of demand forecasts, maintain compliance with regulations, and improve operational efficiency. In conclusion, the market is a critical enabler for the successful deployment and integration of AI systems in businesses worldwide. As AI technologies continue to evolve, the demand for reliable testing and validation solutions will only grow.

What will be the size of the AI Testing And Validation Market during the forecast period?

Get Key Insights on Market Forecast (PDF) Request Free SampleThe market continues to evolve, with companies increasingly recognizing the importance of ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and ethical use of artificial intelligence models. AI model testing and validation encompass various aspects, including test coverage, model monitoring, debugging, and compliance. According to recent studies, companies have seen a significant improvement in model explainability and quality assurance through rigorous testing and validation processes. For instance, implementing AI model governance has led to a 25% reduction in bias mitigation incidents. Furthermore, AI test results have become a crucial factor in product strategy, as they directly impact compliance and budgeting decisions. AI testing tools and strategies have advanced significantly, offering more efficient test reporting and risk assessment capabilities. As AI models become more integrated into business operations, the need for robust testing and validation processes will only grow.

Unpacking the AI Testing And Validation Market Landscape

In the realm of software development, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into testing and validation processes to enhance efficiency and accuracy. Compared to traditional testing methods, AI testing solutions offer a 30% faster test execution rate, enabling continuous delivery and integration. Furthermore, AI model testing and validation result in a 25% reduction in false positives, improving Return on Investment (ROI) by minimizing unnecessary rework.

Test data management and generation are streamlined through AI-driven synthetic data generation, ensuring reliable performance benchmarking and compliance alignment. AI also plays a crucial role in bias detection and fairness evaluation, enhancing system trustworthiness and user experience.

Continuous integration and delivery are facilitated by automated AI testing frameworks, offering robustness evaluation, scalability testing, and behavior-driven development. Regression testing and performance testing are also optimized through AI, ensuring model interpretability and explainable AI metrics.

Security audits are strengthened with AI-driven vulnerability detection and adversarial attack testing, safeguarding against potential threats and maintaining system reliability. Overall, AI integration in testing and validation processes leads to improved efficiency, accuracy, and security, making it an essential component of modern software development.

Key Market Drivers Fueling Growth

The proliferation of intricate artificial intelligence models, with a notable focus on generative AI, serves as the primary catalyst for market growth. The market is experiencing significant growth due to

Social scientists often consider multiple empirical models of the same process. When these models are parametric and non-nested, the null hypothesis that two models fit the data equally well is commonly tested using methods introduced by Vuong (Econometrica 57(2):307–333, 1989) and Clarke (Am J Political Sci 45(3):724–744, 2001; J Confl Resolut 47(1):72–93, 2003; Political Anal 15(3):347–363, 2007). The objective of each is to compare the Kullback–Leibler Divergence (KLD) of the two models from the true model that generated the data. Here we show that both of these tests are based upon a biased estimator of the KLD, the individual log-likelihood contributions, and that the Clarke test is not proven to be consistent for the difference in KLDs. As a solution, we derive a test based upon cross- validated log-likelihood contributions, which represent an unbiased KLD estimate. We demonstrate the CVDM test’s superior performance via simulation, then apply it to two empirical examples from political science. We find that the test’s selection can diverge from those of the Vuong and Clarke tests and that this can ultimately lead to differences in substantive conclusions.

Dataset Card for "COVID-QA-train-80-test-10-validation-10"

More Information needed

Splits of train, test, and validation samples for Urban dataset.

Dataset card for Text Anonymization Benchmark (TAB) Validation & Test

  Dataset Summary

This is the validation and test split of the Text Anonymisation Benchmark. As the title says it's a dataset focused on text anonymisation, specifcially European Court Documents, which contain labels by mutltiple annotators.

  Supported Tasks and Leaderboards

[More Information Needed]

  Languages

[More Information Needed]

  Dataset Structure





  Data… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/mattmdjaga/text-anonymization-benchmark-val-test.

This dataset consists of the synthetic electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) maps generated for the paper, titled "Hybrid Algorithm for Filling in Missing Data in Electron Backscatter Diffraction Maps" by Emmanuel Atindama, Conor Miller-Lynch, Huston Wilhite, Cody Mattice, Günay Doğan, and Prashant Athavale. The EBSD maps were used to train, test, and validate a neural network algorithm to fill in missing data points in a given EBSD map.The dataset includes 8000 maps for training, 1000 maps for testing, 2000 maps for validation. The dataset also includes noise-added versions of the maps, namely, one more map per each clean map.