Understanding Validation Samples Within Model Development

by Guest Contributor 3 min read June 18, 2018

An introduction to the different types of validation samples

Model validation is an essential step in evaluating and verifying a model’s performance during development before finalizing the design and proceeding with implementation. More specifically, during a predictive model’s development, the objective of a model validation is to measure the model’s accuracy in predicting the expected outcome. For a credit risk model, this may be predicting the likelihood of good or bad payment behavior, depending on the predefined outcome. Two general types of data samples can be used to complete a model validation. The first is known as the in-time, or holdout, validation sample and the second is known as the out-of-time validation sample.

So, what’s the difference between an in-time and an out-of-time validation sample? An in-time validation sample sets aside part of the total sample made available for the model development. Random partitioning of the total sample is completed upfront, generally separating the data into a portion used for development and the remaining portion used for validation. For instance, the data may be randomly split, with 70 percent used for development and the other 30 percent used for validation. Other common data subset schemes include an 80/20, a 60/40 or even a 50/50 partitioning of the data, depending on the quantity of records available within each segment of your performance definition. Before selecting a data subset scheme to be used for model development, you should evaluate the number of records available in your target performance group, such as number of bad accounts. If you have too few records in your target performance group, a 50/50 split can leave you with insufficient performance data for use during model development. A separate blog post will present a few common options for creating alternative validation samples through a technique known as resampling.

Once the data has been partitioned, the model is created using the development sample. The model is then applied to the holdout validation sample to determine the model’s predictive accuracy on data that wasn’t used to develop the model. The model’s predictive strength and accuracy can be measured in various ways by comparing the known and predefined performance outcome to the model’s predicted performance outcome.

The out-of-time validation sample contains data from an entirely different time period or customer campaign than what was used for model development. Validating model performance on a different time period is beneficial to further evaluate the model’s robustness. Selecting a data sample from a more recent time period having a fully mature set of performance data allows the modeler to evaluate model performance on a data set that may more closely align with the current environment in which the model will be used. In this case, a more recent time period can be used to establish expectations and set baseline parameters for model performance, such as population stability indices and performance monitoring.

Learn more about how Experian Decision Analytics can help you with your custom model development needs.

Related Posts

Are Fraudsters Building Better Identities Than Your Customers?

Fraudsters are getting surprisingly good at onboarding. Sometimes, better than your customers. Legitimate customers treat onboarding like an errand. They start an application between other tasks, get distracted, forget a password, switch devices, upload a document or come back later to finish. Their digital lives aren’t always linear, because real life isn’t either. Fraudsters approach onboarding differently. For them, opening an account is the objective. Every interaction is designed to increase the odds of success. The difference raises an uncomfortable question hanging over onboarding: What exactly are we rewarding? When smooth becomes suspicious Digital onboarding has traditionally rewarded experiences that feel smooth, consistent and complete. The challenge is that legitimate customers rarely behave that way. Most people approach onboarding somewhere between mildly distracted and mildly annoyed. They pause halfway through because dinner is burning. They reopen an old account only to realize everything is attached to an email they made in college and, somehow, still use for airline receipts. Digital life accumulates history unevenly, because ordinary life does too. Fraudsters have every reason to eliminate those inconsistencies. Applications may be rehearsed. Identity attributes are assembled deliberately. Contact points are prepared in advance. Every interaction is optimized to make the application appear credible. Ironically, the qualities organizations often associate with confidence — clean submissions, steady progression and few corrections — can also describe applications that have been carefully engineered to pass inspection. The challenge isn't that smooth onboarding is meaningless. It's that smooth onboarding, by itself, doesn't tell the whole story. Context changes interpretation A smooth onboarding experience should be the beginning of the evaluation, not the end. Behavior provides important context. How someone moves through an application can reveal whether the experience feels naturally human or unusually orchestrated. Do they interact naturally? Do they hesitate, correct mistakes or navigate in ways that resemble ordinary human behavior? Or does the session appear unusually scripted, automated or repetitive? Identity verification adds another layer. Matching information across trusted sources, validating identity details and strengthening confidence in account creation remain important, particularly when onboarding decisions carry financial, fraud or customer experience consequences. But verification largely answers a point-in-time question: Does this information match right now? A third layer comes from digital history. An inbox attached to years of airline receipts, loyalty accounts, subscription renewals, account recovery, financial notifications and familiar digital routines introduces a different kind of confidence. Legitimate digital identities leave behind patterns of persistence and engagement that develop gradually over time. Fraudsters can assemble convincing identity attributes, but creating years of ordinary digital life is much harder. Building confidence in an identity requires more than verifying information submitted during a single onboarding session. It requires understanding whether the identity reflects a broader history that supports what the application suggests. A multilayered approach builds stronger identity confidence No single signal can provide a complete view of identity risk. Organizations need multiple sources of confidence that reinforce one another. That's the thinking behind our approach: combining behavioral intelligence, identity verification and digital identity continuity into a more complete view of risk. We bring these complementary layers together through: • NeuroID adds behavioral context during onboarding and account creation, helping identify interaction patterns that may indicate automation, manipulation or coordinated fraud. • Precise ID® strengthens identity verification and resolution by comparing applicant information with trusted identity data. • AtData, recently added to our portfolio, contributes email-centered intelligence based on persistence, engagement and long-term digital history. Together, these capabilities help organizations move beyond evaluating a single moment in time to understanding whether an identity is supported by consistent behavior, trusted identity data and an established digital history. The future of fraud prevention isn't about rewarding the smoothest application. It's about recognizing the most trustworthy identity. Fraudsters can rehearse an application. They can optimize an onboarding journey. They can even assemble convincing identity attributes. What they can't easily manufacture is years of ordinary digital life. That's why digital identity continuity has become an important layer of modern fraud prevention. Combined with identity verification and behavioral intelligence, it helps organizations distinguish between identities that simply look convincing and those supported by a history that is much harder to fake. Learn more Contact us

September 2, 2026 by Julie Lee
From Hybrids to Refinancing: Consumers are Finding New Roads to Vehicle Affordability

For today’s automotive consumers, considering a vehicle purchase isn’t just about the price they see on the window, it’s about finding the right combination of their vehicle preference and monthly payment. In fact, data from Experian Automotive’s State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q2 2026 highlighted how affordability continues to shape the automotive finance market. For instance, hybrids offered the lowest average new vehicle loan payment across all fuel types, coming in at $646 in Q2 2026, compared to electric vehicles (EVs) at $692, and gasoline-powered vehicles at $721. This led to considerable growth in new vehicle market share for hybrids this quarter, accounting for 16.80%, from 12.99% last year. While the automotive market continues to offer consumers an expanding mix of fuel types, the combination of growing hybrid share and comparatively lower monthly payments is something worth watching. Affordability isn’t just about what consumers drive, it’s how they finance it While hybrid vehicles are continuing to pave their way in the vehicle market, consumers who already have an auto loan are finding greater savings through refinancing. In the second quarter of 2026, automotive refinancing reached approximately 140,000 loans. More notably, the financial benefit associated with refinancing has grown. Consumers who refinanced this quarter reduced their average interest rate by more than 2.4%, with the average rate moving from 10.40% on the original loan to 7.97% on the refinanced loan. Those rate reductions translated into meaningful monthly savings, especially when refinancing through particular lenders. In Q2 2026, refinancing saved consumers an average of $83 per month, compared to an average monthly savings of $64 this time last year. However, credit unions delivered the largest average payment difference among lender types at $102 this quarter, followed by banks ($65), and finance companies ($38). It’s important for automotive professionals to acknowledge that affordability is not a single moment in the vehicle journey. It can influence the vehicle a consumer chooses, the financing they opt for during that transaction, and the decisions they make years after driving off the lot. Understanding and leveraging those different moments can help professionals identify opportunities to better serve consumers throughout the vehicle ownership lifecycle. To learn more about automotive finance trends, view the full State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q2 2026 presentation on demand.

August 27, 2026 by Melinda Zabritski
AI Agent Identity Verification: How to Verify AI Agents in Digital Transactions

AI agents are changing the way consumers interact with businesses online. Learn how you can establish greater confidence in AI transactions.

August 26, 2026 by Laura Burrows

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe