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.

Train-Validation-Test Split for 1.125sdataforheartsound dataset that achieved 98.5% test accuracy using ResNet34

Load using

import pickle

with open('/kaggle/input/1125s-heart-sound-data-tvt-split-acc-985/split_98_5.pkl', 'rb') as f:
  data = pickle.load(f)

x_train = data['x_train']
x_test = data['x_test']
x_val = data['x_val']
y_train = data['y_train']
y_test = data['y_test']
y_val = data['y_val']

Copy and edit the sample notebook tryPickle

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

ASDiv (train/test 1:9)

This dataset is derived from EleutherAI/asdiv by splitting the original validation split into train and test with a ratio of 1:9.

  Source

Original dataset: EleutherAI/asdivLink: https://huggingface.co/datasets/EleutherAI/asdiv

  License

Inherits the original dataset's license (CC-BY-NC-4.0) unless otherwise noted in this repository.

  Splitting Details

Method: datasets.Dataset.train_test_split Source split: validation Test… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lejelly/ASDiv-train-test.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Neoklis Masmanidis

Contents

This dataset contains images and masks for Retinal Vessel Extraction (Segmentation). It contains a training and validation split to easily train semantic segmentation models.

The original dataset can be found here => https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/andrewmvd/drive-digital-retinal-images-for-vessel-extraction

This dataset also has an accompanying blog post => Retinal Vessel Segmentation using PyTorch Semantic Segmentation

Split sample numbers: Training images and masks: 16 Validation images and masks: 4 Test images: 20

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.

This is an open source - publicly available dataset which can be found at https://shahariarrabby.github.io/ekush/ . We split the dataset into three sets - train, validation, and test. For our experiments, we created two other versions of the dataset. We have applied 10-fold cross validation on the train set and created ten folds. We also created ten bags of datasets using bootstrap aggregating method on the train and validation sets. Lastly, we created another dataset using pre-trained ResNet50 model as feature extractor. On the features extracted by ResNet50 we have applied PCA and created a tabilar dataset containing 80 features. pca_features.csv is the train set and pca_test_features.csv is the test set. Fold.tar.gz contains the ten folds of images described above. Those folds are also been compressed. Similarly, Bagging.tar.gz contains the ten compressed bags of images. The original train, validation, and test sets are in Train.tar.gz, Validation.tar.gz, and Test.tar.gz, respectively. The compression has been performed for speeding up the upload and download purpose and mostly for the sake of convenience. If anyone has any question about how the datasets are organized please feel free to ask me at shiblygnr@gmail.com .I will get back to you in earliest time possible.

Nemotron Post-Training Samples with Train/Val/Test Splits

This dataset contains structured train/validation/test splits from the nvidia/Llama-Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset, with both tagged and untagged versions for different training scenarios.

  Attribution

This work is derived from the Llama-Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset-v1.1 by NVIDIA Corporation, licensed under CC BY 4.0. Original Dataset: nvidia/Llama-Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset Original Authors: NVIDIA… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/brandolorian/nemotron-post-training-samples-splits.

The raw data comes from Ba Nguyen et al, 2022, who hosted their data here. This dataset was used in an independent study in Rijal et al, 2025, who preprocessed the data using these notebook scripts. They did not release their processed data, so we reproduced their processing pipeline and have uploaded the data ourselves as part of this data resource.

This release accompanies this publication: https://doi.org/10.57844/arcadia-bmb9-fzxd

Bats play crucial ecological roles and provide valuable ecosystem services, yet many populations face serious threats from various ecological disturbances. The North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) aims to assess status and trends of bat populations while developing innovative and community-driven conservation solutions using its unique data and technology infrastructure. To support scalability and transparency in the NABat acoustic data pipeline, we developed a fully-automated machine-learning algorithm. This dataset includes audio files of bat echolocation calls that were considered to develop V1.0 of the NABat machine-learning algorithm, however the test set (i.e., holdout dataset) has been excluded from this release. These recordings were collected by various bat monitoring partners across North America using ultrasonic acoustic recorders for stationary acoustic and mobile acoustic surveys. For more information on how these surveys may be conducted, see Chapters 4 and 5 of “A Plan for the North American Bat Monitoring Program” (https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-208). These data were then post-processed by bat monitoring partners to remove noise files (or those that do not contain recognizable bat calls) and apply a species label to each file. There is undoubtedly variation in the steps that monitoring partners take to apply a species label, but the steps documented in “A Guide to Processing Bat Acoustic Data for the North American Bat Monitoring Program” (https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181068) include first processing with an automated classifier and then manually reviewing to confirm or downgrade the suggested species label. Once a manual ID label was applied, audio files of bat acoustic recordings were submitted to the NABat database in Waveform Audio File format. From these available files in the NABat database, we considered files from 35 classes (34 species and a noise class). Files for 4 species were excluded due to low sample size (Corynorhinus rafinesquii, N=3; Eumops floridanus, N =3; Lasiurus xanthinus, N = 4; Nyctinomops femorosaccus, N =11). From this pool, files were randomly selected until files for each species/grid cell combination were exhausted or the number of recordings reach 1250. The dataset was then randomly split into training, validation, and test sets (i.e., holdout dataset). This data release includes all files considered for training and validation, including files that had been excluded from model development and testing due to low sample size for a given species or because the threshold for species/grid cell combinations had been met. The test set (i.e., holdout dataset) is not included. Audio files are grouped by species, as indicated by the four-letter species code in the name of each folder. Definitions for each four-letter code, including Family, Genus, Species, and Common name, are also included as a dataset in this release.

This dataset is a split version of the original Image-dataset found here. The dataset consists of 8 emotion classes: angry, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, neutral, sadness, and surprise.

To facilitate model training and evaluation, I have organized the dataset into three subsets:

Train: Used for training machine learning models. Test: Used to evaluate model performance after training. Validation: Used during training to tune hyperparameters and prevent overfitting.

This split allows for more effective usage in tasks such as Facial Emotion Recognition (FER) and other emotion analysis projects.

Cross-validation is a common method to validate a QSAR model. In cross-validation, some compounds are held out as a test set, while the remaining compounds form a training set. A model is built from the training set, and the test set compounds are predicted on that model. The agreement of the predicted and observed activity values of the test set (measured by, say, R2) is an estimate of the self-consistency of the model and is sometimes taken as an indication of the predictivity of the model. This estimate of predictivity can be optimistic or pessimistic compared to true prospective prediction, depending how compounds in the test set are selected. Here, we show that time-split selection gives an R2 that is more like that of true prospective prediction than the R2 from random selection (too optimistic) or from our analog of leave-class-out selection (too pessimistic). Time-split selection should be used in addition to random selection as a standard for cross-validation in QSAR model building.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Kiernan McGuigan

Contents

Dataset Description

Context and Methodology

• Research Domain/Project:
  This dataset was created for a machine learning experiment aimed at developing a classification model to predict outcomes based on a set of features. The primary research domain is disease prediction in patients. The dataset was used in the context of training, validating, and testing.

• Purpose of the Dataset:
  The purpose of this dataset is to provide training, validation, and testing data for the development of machine learning models. It includes labeled examples that help train classifiers to recognize patterns in the data and make predictions.

• Dataset Creation:
  Data preprocessing steps involved cleaning, normalization, and splitting the data into training, validation, and test sets. The data was carefully curated to ensure its quality and relevance to the problem at hand. For any missing values or outliers, appropriate handling techniques were applied (e.g., imputation, removal, etc.).

Technical Details

• Structure of the Dataset:
  The dataset consists of several files organized into folders by data type:

  • Training Data: Contains the training dataset used to train the machine learning model.

  • Validation Data: Used for hyperparameter tuning and model selection.

  • Test Data: Reserved for final model evaluation.

  Each folder contains files with consistent naming conventions for easy navigation, such as train_data.csv, validation_data.csv, and test_data.csv. Each file follows a tabular format with columns representing features and rows representing individual data points.

• Software Requirements:
  To open and work with this dataset, you need VS Code or Jupyter, which could include tools like:

  • Python (with libraries such as pandas, numpy, scikit-learn, matplotlib, etc.)

Further Details

• Reusability:
  Users of this dataset should be aware that it is designed for machine learning experiments involving classification tasks. The dataset is already split into training, validation, and test subsets. Any model trained with this dataset should be evaluated using the test set to ensure proper validation.

• Limitations:
  The dataset may not cover all edge cases, and it might have biases depending on the selection of data sources. It's important to consider these limitations when generalizing model results to real-world applications.

This benchmark data is comprised of 50 different datasets for materials properties obtained from 16 previous publications. The data contains both experimental and computational data, data suited for regression as well as classification, sizes ranging from 12 to 6354 samples, and materials systems spanning the diversity of materials research. In addition to cleaning the data where necessary, each dataset was split into train, validation, and test splits.

For datasets with more than 100 values, train-val-test splits were created, either with a 5-fold or 10-fold cross-validation method, depending on what each respective paper did in their studies. Datasets with less than 100 values had train-test splits created using the Leave-One-Out cross-validation method.

For further information, as well as directions on how to access the data, please go to the corresponding GitHub repository: https://github.com/anhender/mse_ML_datasets/tree/v1.0

Description: Downsized (256x256) camera trap images used for the analyses in "Can CNN-based species classification generalise across variation in habitat within a camera trap survey?", and the dataset composition for each analysis. Note that images tagged as 'human' have been removed from this dataset. Full-size images for the BorneoCam dataset will be made available at LILA.science. The full SAFE camera trap dataset metadata is available at DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6627707. Project: This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: Machine learning and image recognition to monitor spatio-temporal changes in the behaviour and dynamics of species interactions Funding: These data were collected as part of research funded by:

NERC (NERC QMEE CDT Studentship, NE/P012345/1, http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_full.asp?pcode=NE%2FP012345%2F1&cookieConsent=A) This dataset is released under the CC-BY 4.0 licence, requiring that you cite the dataset in any outputs, but has the additional condition that you acknowledge the contribution of these funders in any outputs.

XML metadata: GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available here Files: This dataset consists of 3 files: CT_image_data_info2.xlsx, DN_256x256_image_files.zip, DN_generalisability_code.zip CT_image_data_info2.xlsx This file contains dataset metadata and 1 data tables:

Dataset Images (described in worksheet Dataset_images) Description: This worksheet details the composition of each dataset used in the analyses Number of fields: 69 Number of data rows: 270287 Fields:

filename: Root ID (Field type: id) camera_trap_site: Site ID for the camera trap location (Field type: location) taxon: Taxon recorded by camera trap (Field type: taxa) dist_level: Level of disturbance at site (Field type: ordered categorical) baseline: Label as to whether image is included in the baseline training, validation (val) or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) increased_cap: Label as to whether image is included in the 'increased cap' training, validation (val) or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_individ_event_level: Label as to whether image is included in the 'individual disturbance level datasets split at event level' training, validation (val) or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_1: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 1' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_2: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 2' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 3' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 4' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 5' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_2: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 2 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 3 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 4 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_2_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2 and 3 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_2_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2 and 4 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_2_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 3 and 4 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 3 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 4 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_2_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2 and 3 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_2_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2 and 4 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_2_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 3 and 4 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 3 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 4 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_2_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 3 and 4 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_2_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 3 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_2_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 4 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 3, 4 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_2_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_2_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 3 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_2_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 4 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 3, 4 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_2_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 3, 4 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_all_1_2_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (all)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_camera_level_individ_1: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at camera level: disturbance

CCISD TEKS Alignment Dataset (3-Way Split)

  Dataset Description

This dataset contains the alignment between Clear Creek ISD (CCISD) curriculum and Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. The dataset is split into training, validation, and test sets for machine learning applications.

  Dataset Summary

Total Records: 428 TEKS standards Train Split: 299 records (69.9%) Validation Split: 64 records (15.0%) Test Split: 65 records (15.2%) Subject Areas:… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/robworks-software/ccisd-teks-alignment-split.

This dataset contains the MCQA and instruction finetuning datasets (and the test and validation splits are only used for testing not for training):

The messages column is used by the instruction finetuning dataset The choices, question, context, and answer columns are used by the MCQA dataset

For the MCQA dataset (of only single answer) contains a mixture of the train, validation and test splits from this datasets as to have for training and testing:

mmlu auxiliary train we only use the… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/andresnowak/MNLP_M3_mcqa_dataset.

Bocconi University MSc. Data Science & Business Analytics 20600 Deep Learning for Computer Vision Team Jarvis

Object Detection Project

Test Data

This repository contains the test data used for the evaluation of the algorithms trained as part of the project. The data has been reannotated & resized to 640x640, but otherwise has not been touched. Especially, no augmentations or upsampling were done on this set. Instead, immediately after resizing and re-annotation, the train, validation & test set were split. Upsampling & augmentations were only done on the training set. Lastly, to further avoid leakage, duplicates were removed.