Titanic Dataset overfitting: can it be that much?

Question

I am a bit confused as I am training a model that yields circa 88% CV score on the train data while the same model performs poorly on the test data after I submit it ( score of 0.75). This drop of 12 points in accuracy can't be all due to overfitting, no? Any ideas? Have you experienced such a gap in your models/submissions?

See the enclosed image for the model and results.

##########################################################

xgb_clf = XGBClassifier(n_estimators=87, learning_rate=0.05,max_depth = 10,
colsample_bytree =0.8 , n_jobs=-1 , random_state = 7,
scale_pos_weight = 0.6, min_child_weight = 0.9, gamma = 2.1)
skf = RepeatedStratifiedKFold(n_splits = 4)

results= cross_val_score(xgb_clf , X_train , y , cv =skf, scoring='roc_auc')
print("Accuracy: %.2f%% (%.2f%%)" % (results.mean()100, results.std()100))

Accuracy: 88.13% (2.47%)

Answer 1

Yes, this absolutely can indicate overfitting. A 12% difference between training- and test-accuracy is not unusual. In fact, in extreme cases of overfitting, you might even observe 100% accuracy on the training set and an accuracy at chance level for the test data.