Training and Testing with Multiple Splits: A Central Limit Theorem for Split-Sample Estimators

Bruno Fava

arXiv 7 Nov 2025 · Econometrics

arXiv:2511.04957 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text

Abstract

As predictive algorithms grow in popularity, using the same dataset to both train and test a new model has become routine across research, policy, and industry. Sample-splitting attains valid inference on model properties by using separate subsamples to estimate the model and to evaluate it. However, this approach has two drawbacks, since each task uses only part of the data, and different splits can lead to widely different estimates. Averaging across multiple splits, I develop an inference approach that uses more data for training, uses the entire sample for testing, and improves reproducibility. I address the statistical dependence from reusing observations across splits by proving a new central limit theorem for a large class of split-sample estimators under arguably mild and general conditions. Importantly, I make no restrictions on model complexity or convergence rates. I show that confidence intervals based on the normal approximation are valid for many applications, but may undercover in important cases of interest, such as comparing the performance between two models. I develop a new inference approach for such cases, explicitly accounting for the dependence across splits. Moreover, I provide a measure of reproducibility for p-values obtained from split-sample estimators. Finally, I apply my results to two important problems in development and public economics: predicting poverty and learning heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized experiments. I show that my inference approach with repeated cross-fitting achieves better power than existing alternatives, often enough to reveal statistical significance that would otherwise be missed.

Citation extraction

appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 45% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.

Most heavily cited references

The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.

Showing the top 10 of 56 scored citations.

Cited by, within the corpus

arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.