# Does imputing model labels using the model predictions can improve it’s performance?

[This article was first published on

Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

In some scenarios a data scientist may want to train a model for which there exists an abundance of observations, but only a small fraction of is labeled, making the sample size available to train the model rather small. Although there’s plenty of literature on the subject (e.g. “Active learning”, “Semi-supervised learning” etc) one may be tempted (maybe due to fast approaching deadlines) to train a model with the labelled data and use it to impute the missing labels.
While for some the above suggestion might seem simply incorrect, I have encountered such suggestions on several occasions and had a hard time refuting them. To make sure it wasn’t just the type of places I work at I went and asked around in 2 Israeli (sorry non Hebrew readers) machine learning oriented Facebook groups about their opinion: Machine & Deep learning Israel and Statistics and probability group. While many were referring me to methods discussed in the literature, almost no one indicated the proposed method was utterly wrong.
I decided to perform a simulation study to get a definitive answer once and for all. If you’re interested in reading what were the results see my analysis on Github.
**R-posts.com**, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

To

**leave a comment**for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog:**R-posts.com**.R-bloggers.com offers

**daily e-mail updates**about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.

Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.